Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 35

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

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US National Archives

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, finally managed to get into T & F via support. They were truly excellent. I managed to download about 10 superb documents, that are going in now. But I noticed that I couldn't get other docs that were in a different category, which I thought would in the category we were allocated. There was no way to determine exactly what category a document was in. Its kind of hit and miss. Don't know if that is good feedback or not. I was wanting to ask you. Do we have any arrangement with the [US Archives]? I need about 60-100 documents from it. I can find them anywhere on the web. Thanks for your sterling work. scope_creep (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the title list to figure out which items you should or shouldn't have access to via T&F.
Fold3 has some of the NARA materials, but you really should check out WP:NARA - a lot of those docs are on Commons/WikiSource, and you can request others from their Wikipedian in Residence. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves 
In recognition of your dedication to the Military History WikiProject during your four terms as coordinator, and for your continuing work as a Featured Article Review coordinator, creator of quality content, and prolific reviewer at A-Class and Featured level, please accept the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves as a token of the project's appreciation. Thank you! Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, Nikki. Well deserved. Thanks for all your help with image licensing! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPS

[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, I noticed that you pointed the shortcut WP:RPS to the Wikilibrary project WP:Royal Pharmaceutical Society. I wanted to use this same shortcut to refer to readable prose size, a notion which is widely used to discuss {{very long}} articles. Seeing that the shortcut was taken, I settled on WP:RPSIZE, however I also noticed that WP:RPS used to be associated to WP:WikiProject Record Production and that today it is mostly unused. So, long story short, would you mind if I hijacked the shortcut to point to the guideline on readable prose size, so that our fellow editors can easily discuss it in Talk pages? Many thanks for your consideration. (And yes, we have met on Wikilibrary, as you accepted some of my account applications.) — JFG talk 00:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG, that's fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your prompt response! I'll change it now. — JFG talk 01:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miramar access: renewal

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. I just realized that I don't know whether Miramar renewals are handled the same/differently than new requests. Do you know if I just follow the same procedure or not? Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi: Just create a new column in the spreadsheet for renewal date, and fill that in if/when someone requests - no need for them to fill out the form again. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks! Ummm... and then what do I do?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Send over two lists instead of one - newbies and renewals. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Miramar says, and I quote, "The Wikipedia account access is one of a number to be reviewed in the New Year."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, okay. I'll look into that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chamber pop/GA2

[edit]

I wasn't sure whether you'd noticed the reply to your latest comment on the GAR you opened. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's been another response. Thanks for taking this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ariel Award for Best Actress

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could take a look and see whether the articles have indeed been expanded sufficiently based on your earlier calculations. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight image reviews and the one source review you did at FAC during November. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for punitive editing?

[edit]

I see that you are now punitively editing my contributions. Would you care to explain why? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? I reverted your change to an article I created because I saw the change on my watchlist and disagreed with it. That is not "punitive" or personal in any way - it's how things normally work around here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

[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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Inclusion of predecessors and successors in officeholders' infoboxes

[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to inform you that I've opened a new general Request for Comment concerning whether predecessors and successors should be included in the Infobox Officeholder template, further to my RfC concerning Michael Portillo specifically. The new RfC can be found here: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Should_predecessors_and_successors_be_included_in_officeholders.27_infoboxes.3F. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SR

[edit]

Hello, Nikki. Many thanks for your source review at Bradley Cooper's FAC. Would you be interested in doing the same at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Lawrence/archive1? Will appreciate the help. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2016

[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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek reversion

[edit]

I have Antonie van Leeuwenhoek on my watchlist, and I see that you reverted a couple of recent edits. They're not my edits, but they look harmless and appropriate, and I was wondering why you did that. I see that they don't show up in the infobox, and "member" isn't an accepted parameter. But "image_size" is accepted, so why did you delete that? This isn't a challenge or anything like that; I just want to understand. --Thnidu (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thnidu, take a look at WP:IMGSIZE - basically |image_size= overrides a user's preferences with regards to image scaling, so should be avoided unless there's a good reason to use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. --Thnidu (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

image q

[edit]

First, no offense, but it might be just about time to archive some threads on this page. :-) Second and far more important, can I use Fair Use to justify screen capturing a photo in a book (2007; recent) that I find on Amazon.com... the photo is originally from a <strikethrough>1945</strikethrough> 1943 newspaper ("The Statesman") article, but I cannot find those particular Statesman photos anywhere on the Internet... and I have really looked...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lingzhi, a few questions to answer yours. First, is the photo still under copyright, given its original publication? Second, under what circumstances do you propose using the photo - in what article, for what purpose? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
q1, I have no idea whether it is under copyright, but I kinda assume so.. it is (or seems to be/are purported to be, at least in the book, Hunger: A Modern History, Belknap Press) one of a FAMOUS, much-discussed in academic literature set of images that are absolutely nowhere on the Internet, which kinda shocks me. The word "iconic" well and truly applies in this case; I could very easily find at least a dozen WP:RS sources that discuss them prominently. I tend to assume they would be under copyright to the newspaper (The Statesman), since 1943 is not all that long ago. A fact that may or may not help: I think perhaps the newspaper shut down for many years. But alas, it is now alive and well... q2: In Bengal famine of 1943. I have looked online, and can find no images of human victims that do not seem, to my inexpert eye at least, to be under copyright. I almost thought I had some, but they were CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.. we discussed this once before. Most of the images online (including the ones currently in our article) are Time magazine stuff by a photographer whose name escapes me....OH oops "for what purpose"... well it could go anywhere in the latter half of the article; the very best place would be the User:Lingzhi/sandbox#A crisis in two waves section since that section is all about the details of the suffering, but if we hafta be super-sticklers I could very very very very reluctantly shove it down in News reports, literature, other media which actually discusses those photos.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Based on your description of the image {{non-free historic image}} would seem to fit best, but keep in mind that if you're using that for a press photo you have to actually be discussing the photo, not just what it shows (which should be possible given that academic lit you mention). Also happy to look into background to see if this or other photos might be out of copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My sandbox rewrite has a full paragraph only about how important those particular photos are. Is it required that the photo be in the section that discusses them? Could we put the photo in a section about its subject (i.e. famine victims), but have the caption say these photos by The Statesman forever changed world opinion? And as for your offer of help, yes, I am desperate for viable photos. Thank you so much for all your help  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:PeoplesWar_Sept1944.jpeg: you should explicitly identify in the description who the copyright holder is. I'd also suggest expanding the purpose of use slightly, to explain why it is helpful for a reader to see media coverage.
  • File:Statesman_j.jpg should include the details of original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jadunath Singh/archive1

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jadunath Singh/archive1. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia, GLAM and WiR

[edit]

To: The Interior, Neelix, Niikkimaria, Amqui

I have some familiarity with our GLAM and Wikipedians in Residence initiatives, but I have not been closely involved with either project.

I am an OTRS agent and field in an email from an individual associated with the government of Nova Scotia. They are interested in working closely with Wikipedia particularly regarding cultural history issues.

I have already shared links to our COI policy, to the GLAM initiative Wikipedia:GLAM, and to the WiR page (https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence)

They have responded with interest in pursuing this and I promise to help put them in touch with someone. As you may know, I cannot share the contents of OTRS emails without permission but they have given me permission. If you happen to be an OTRS agent see: ticket:2016121310018191

If not, let me know and I will copy the email.

I see this as a potential exciting new initiative. While we have many examples of Wikipedians in Residence, I do not see any that are representatives of a provincial government, so this may be breaking exciting new ground.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see User_talk:Amqui#Nova_Scotia.2C_GLAM_and_WiR--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews

[edit]

Hi Nikki, if you have a chance it would be great if you could have a look at the older three or four SR requests at the top of WT:FAC... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I Noticed You Deleted My Edit Twice Now, However, I Feel it is Unjustified

[edit]

My edit on the Trump Tower page seems to have been deleted by you twice according to the history on the site. Now I understand your reasoning for this was sourcing issues, however, reading through it I fail to see how posting the actual cover of the video game in question isn't a "reliable source" as stated in said rule.

"The piece of work itself (the article, book)"

Now if it's additional sources you would like to see included I could understand but even then in said situation I fail to see why it must be deleted, twice. The second bit I can understand partially and I'll look into finding a better citation but I ask you to revert your decision on the first section of my edit. Thank you. Archer Rafferty —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Archer, per this discussion, your edit requires reliable secondary sourcing - the piece of work itself doesn't qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mangal Shobhajatra

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was hoping you could take a quick look at this nomination. I found some close paraphrasing earlier, and the nominator has since done some work, but you're a better judge than I am where the boundaries lie, so better you take a fresh look. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: It's passable in terms of paraphrasing, though IMO borderline in other ways as well - prose, sourcing, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll try to decide what to do next, given your borderline assessment of the remainder. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with access to OUP, Highbeam and JSTOR

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, would you be able to help reset my access details? Thanks! Peripatetic (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peripatetic, those accounts only last a year so have likely expired. You can request access again at WP:OUP and WP:Highbeam, but there aren't currently any JSTOR accounts available. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia!

[edit]
Happy Saturnalia
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 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ealdgyth! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia

[edit]

I want to make a "Featured article review " for Indonesia as this article does not even come close to an FA article anymore.....but when there is an old review page from 2008 at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1. In no way can this article be fixed fast....best we dont hold this out as our best of the best in this state. -- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moxy, I expect you're right that it can't be fixed quickly, but I'd encourage you to go ahead with an FAR anyways - this could potentially motivate someone to take it on. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holy that process is hard ....no wonder we have so many bad FA articles....noone will take the time to findout how to list them .Need to fix these processes.--Moxy (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I give up cant get it right ...yet another FA junk article that will sit there forever. Cant tell you how many times this comes up at the help desk....never see a nomination go right from the help desk.....this mean hundred of FA articles dont get listed because of the process.--Moxy (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moxy, you got it mostly right, I've just fixed the talk-page template. Do you have any suggestions about how to make it easier? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything--dropped you a quick message.

[edit]
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.

Richard Fraser

[edit]

Please undo the changes you have made to the page about my Father — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraserg58 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fraserg58. As I've mentioned to you before, Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability - that means we need reliable published sources to support facts in articles, not our personal knowledge of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking this is nonsense, I am Dad's only son and the guardian of his legacy. You have no right to delete my family history. As this page does not refer to a living person the criteria are different to the hatchet job you did to my Mother's page (about which she was not at all happy!) Please revert your revisions or escalate this matter to someone who can arbitrate. Gordon Hamilton Mackie Fraser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraserg58 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are upset. Perhaps if you want to record your family's history, you might start a personal website for that purpose? Because this is an encyclopedia project, we do want it to be based on reliable secondary sources, whether for articles on living people or for other types of articles. Your own website would of course not need to adhere to that standard, and you could control what it says in a way that simply isn't possible here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier account activation

[edit]

Hi, thanks for approving my request for an Elsevier health and life sciences account. I received the email, filled out the form, and I'm waiting to hear back from Elsevier. The holidays are here, so things may be a little slow, but do you know the average time frame for these things? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Icebob99, it usually takes 2–3 weeks but may be longer because of the holidays, as you note. JustBerry will be coordinating that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good. Thanks!! Icebob99 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review of Cliff Clinkscales

[edit]

Hello, you recently source reviewed the featured article nomination of Cliff Clinkscales, pointing out a few concerns. I have made the necessary changes, so I would appreciate it if you could check it out again. TempleM (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria - I have responded to your latest reply on the nomination page. TempleM (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - FYI, I have responded to your latest reply once again. TempleM (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - I saw your latest reply, but I wasn't sure about something. Please check the nomination page again. TempleM (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - Please check out the nomination again.

Holiday card

[edit]
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
Nikkimaria!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Cheers MBW. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wonderful time of the year!

[edit]

Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me,
So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you.
Atsme📞📧 15:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Atmse. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JustBerry (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]

The 12 Days of Wikipedia
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me
12 BLPs
11 RFAs
10 New Users
9 Barn Stars
8 Admins Blocking
7 Socks Socking
6 Clerks Clerking
5. Check Users Checking
4 Over Sighters Hiding
3 GAs
2. Did You Knows
and an ARB in a pear tree.

-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

Happy Holidays!

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry, merry!

[edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

[edit]
 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Cholmondley and Montagu images

[edit]

Thank you so much for your assistance with the Cholmondley and Montagu images on the Operation Mincemeat article. Following some silliness in Commons (I was inappropriately blocked by an involved admin, but that has since been lifted), I have now re-nominated the two images for deletion (at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cholmondeley.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:EwenMontagu.jpg), and I shall see what happens this time (I just hope not to be blocked for challenging that particular admin again! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC) P.s. A very happy new year for you too! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with copyvio

[edit]

Hi, User:BlueMoonset mentioned to me a bit ago that you were knowledgeable in the area of copyright violations. I'm editing the article Hilary Hahn, and I brought up an almost-certain copyvio on its talk page. Could you have a look and give some advice? A rewrite is certainly in order, but I'm not sure how much of the article is originally written and how much I should rewrite. Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icebob99: I actually think they might have copied from us. The site you're concerned about was created in July 2010, at which point the article looked like this. Now, it's possible that another version of the site existed previously at a different URL, or that both copied from a third source, but I'm not seeing any red flags in the article's history that would suggest that to be likely. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a neat tool to have! Thanks for the insight. Icebob99 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Hollerith non-RS edits ... just curious

[edit]

I'm still trying to learn how Wikipedia works, apologies if my question here is a nuisance.

The article had this text: 

Hollerith is buried at [[Oak Hill Cemetery (Washington, D.C.)|Oak Hill Cemetery]] in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=14503488|title=Herman Hollerith (1860 - 1929) - Find A Grave Memorial|publisher=}}</ref> as is his son, Herman Hollerith Jr.

Which your non-RS edit reduced to 

Hollerith is buried at [[Oak Hill Cemetery (Washington, D.C.)|Oak Hill Cemetery]] in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

Your non-RS edit, deleting an apparently exact source, leaves only the now unsourced text. I'd expected non-RS text to be deleted, not an apparently reliable source reference. (I've assumed non-RS is shorthand for "not reliable source"). I' appreciate a clue as to the purpose of this edit.

Thanks, 73.71.159.231 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. You're correct on what the shorthand means. Technically the now-unsourced material could be removed as well, but I opted to leave it be per WP:PRESERVE, as it's not particularly controversial and of course the article is not a biography of a living person. If you feel it should be removed or tagged, by all means go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the ten FAC image reviews and two source reviews you did during December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Vlap - Full Name

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I disagree with your approach to the removal of full names where a person doesn't have any middle names. A full name really isn't something to get start an edit war over so I've come to share my thoughts here. I appreciate that an infobox is a summary (which I assume is the section of MOS/Infobox you were referring to as I could find nothing on redundancy) but, and I refer specifically to the football infobox, if you keep removing the full name section in instances where there are no middle names you have a case where half of football infoboxes have 'full name' and the other half do not. There is no consistency in that. If you have a look you will find that the large majority of football pages are done the way I have done it on Michel Vlap's page. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liam, most of our biographies don't include a "full" name where it is the same as the person's usual name; I don't see a strong reason to do otherwise for football biographies specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 28 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to ensure images are appropriately licenced within Milhist articles is greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of archangels and question

[edit]

Hello. Thanks for all your awesome help on images. You are, in fact, the archangel of images. Maybe if I get some free time I'll make a snazzy barnstar along those lines... but alas, I have two questions:

@Lingzhi: Not that simple, see discussion here, here, and here. I'd suggest you see if there's any evidence that the image might be PD, and only if there's not assume it's non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know, WM rakes in shootloads of cash. Don't try to deny it. Then they hire shootloads of techie people to make shootloads of techie five-year plans that always and everywhere amount to precisely zero-point-zero nothing, and genuinely and beyond a doubt were never ever needed anyhow, but were always just plans that had been made in order to spend the money dedicated to making plans. . I say, fire whoever is making those hiring and money-spending decisions, and hire someone who has the commonsense to hire a fulltime copyrights lawyer. End transmission.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They have copyright lawyers, but there are also a lot of copyright cases (like this one) for them to spend time on. Copyright is not straightforward and people love to argue it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have the kind of lawyer or consultant who would/could help a grunt like me. What would happen to WP if you were forced to retire, or simply became burned out & wanted to spend time on the beach? yes I know we had others who were designated img people before, and probably others would also try to fill the role after, but this shouldn't be the case. Volunteers should write (like me) or do admin work, or make graphics... but not pore through legal stuff. That's paid-employee work. Sorry if my rant bothers you. I have a tendency to rant.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's –30C here today, not much chance of a beach run. But I do take your point. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last word then: For whatever reason, and several uncomplimentary reasons can be entertained, WM spends all their time with their heads in the clouds, and produces... I haven't seen anything worthwhile. They do not spend time thinking about what the little people actually need; only about how they can hire more people and spend more money on things that no one needs or ever will need. Just for the sake of. You know. Spending money. Keeping their jobs... I assume that you probably think my mini-rant is not only impolite but also came out of nowhere. From my perspective: I have about 200 sources for User:Lingzhi/sandbox. I have over 3,000 edits on that page, and if you add edits to User:Lingzhi/misc and to the actual mainspace article, I wouldn't be surprised if the total goes up to 4,000. I've been working on it off and on for a year almost. I wrote a little Python (programming language) script that searches through text versions of most of those 200 sources and generates text files filled with quotes in {{quote}} format. God knows how many hours I have spent reading and re-reading and re-re-reading those 200 sources. God knows how many hours I have spent writing and copy editing. I have a wife and child, and a job that requires research. I'm a little tired. And now I have to become a copyrights expert? I recall that you gave me a link to various lists of copyright renewal requests. I searched for some photo creators, and did not find them. I spent a couple hours doing so. But, did I do it correctly? How do I know I did? What if I missed something? And even if I did it correctly, does that verify that copyright status is acceptable? Just look at he links you posted today (above). How... do I track down all the relvant issues? More importantly, why should I? WM should 1) fire a handful of techie people at random (and I used to be a computer programmer, so I am not ant-geek), and 2) hire a staff of at least 3 people to do this. I hope you can appreciate my position. Sorry. I'm tired. I have to finish this famine article, then I have a thing about AppliedLinguistics, then what. I don't enjoy this anymore. Meaningless head-in-the-clouds projects get massive support, but real gruntwork does not.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class Review - Siege of Arrah

[edit]

Greetings - if you have time over the next few days, is it possible you could re-visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Arrah? I have answered your concerns (and removed a template that automatically transcluded an image) and I'd appreciate your feedback. If you spot anything that would be an immediate fail at FAC (which is where I'll be heading next with this article) then please let me know. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Nawahi.jpg

[edit]

Hello, I was wondering can this image File:Joseph Nawahi.jpg be used in a FA article. It is essentially an unpublished image with no known photographer. I also have some private family photos with the same problem (they are unpublished and they don't have known authors) of other individual figures that I like to use in future FA articles. Will they be allowed? If so, what tags should be appropriate used? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: PD-US-unpublished, assuming the criteria listed there are met. Again, though, you'd want to do due diligence that a photo held by an archive was never published. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2016

[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.

Attacked by user

[edit]

I'm Having a issue with a user on here

I came to add a reference article but apparently the page was already updated after I read thru it

I then went to update the links because sometimes other editors forget to do it...

This is a newer page but I was told by other editors that its perfectly fine to provide links to other reference pages for words or terms especially if the reader does not understand what they are reading so they can click on the link for further explanation...

I am now being attacked by a user on the page after I did my links and I only ever do them if it relates to the sentence... Except that this user is calling it overthinking and undoing the few words I linked Wifey93 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wifey93, wikilinking is a bit of a balancing act - we don't want to link every possible word, but we do want to include valuable links. Have you seen the linking guideline? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and yes

I told him basically that this must be his page as I noticed that he seems to have undone previous edits so it's not just mine

I told him that he doesn't have to reply back to me because I said to him obv my edits aren't appreciated and it's like he has to have the last word

Then he's on me for not signing with ---- and I told him that I'm doing this on a phone so the website is acting differently so the ---- couldn't be posted and that I'm aware of it all since I been on here for years

He's then trying to give me instructions on it and I'm like I already told you that I'm not replying cause obv this is your page and I saw how he's attacked others...

I told him I don't need his help but he's right in my face

If I knew how to block him I would as I have never had someone jump on me...I only found his page cause I was reading a newspaper article and then found the Wikipedia page thru that and I thought I would be a good person and add a reference article... I think this is what set him off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as he didn't even reply and was very rude and I don't appreciate the way he treated me as I have knowledge to contribute here

Infobox Person

[edit]

[1] - in which article please? Did you try adding "| suppressfields=religion" to the call? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: In every article using the template where a value exists on Wikidata. There are over 400 articles using that template, and your change would significantly expand the number of parameters appearing in them. This includes cases where we explicitly don't want to do that, such as religion, ethnicity, and more. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If religion etc. shouldn't be in the infobox, then why is it a parameter? I hadn't spotted that you'd removed the wikidata call for that parameter since my last edit to the infobox. If it's removed from this new version of the code, will you refrain from reverting me again? Note that I'm trying to enable opt-outs from the Wikidata call, merging in RexxS's version from Template:Infobox person/WD. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll want to look over this archive for why religion shouldn't be in most infoboxes. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: If you look at the main {{Infobox person}} you'll see |religion= isn't included there any longer. And no, I will not. If you'd like to enable opt-outs for the current parameters there, great, go ahead. But there are other parameters that shouldn't be included at all (eg. ethnicity) and others that should only be included in certain cases (eg. children's names). In addition, your change would add a significant amount of data to over 400 articles, including 172 BLPs - that shouldn't be done without verifying that there is appropriate sourcing present. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about with these changes made? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: I appreciate that you're trying to address the issues, but that just doesn't go far enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The new version, just posted, does not enable any new parameters for the existing articles unless they set "fetchwikidata=ALL" in the infobox call. They can opt out of individual parameters as they want too, either by name or by the availability of references for those pieces of information. Note that these are all articles that have been opted in to using Wikidata - if there are any that specifically have problems with certain parameters, please point them out and we can adapt the template to handle them, rather than doing a blanket revert. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (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) 00:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alas, I am back again

[edit]

Just saw on my watchlist an industrious editor is importuning me to reduce the size of two images I uploaded as "historic fair use" and "fair use" (newspaper front page). I have a long history of ranting, which may be unfortunate, but nowadays my only feeling is one of exhaustion at searching for support yet finding only thin winds, frail rails and empty pockets. To wit: I went to Wikimedia to ask for someone to put up some money for image researchers. Alas, I missed the wishlist by only a few weeks. I was told "Go to page so-and-so", but page so-and-so is just a question and answer page. I already knew there are question and answer pages. Question and answer pages are places where two thing happen: 1) People can ask, "Where is such-and-such information?" or 2) People can ask, "I have this information, does it fit our needs?" As such, although I appreciate those who offer their insights, these forums are not at all what I think Wikipedia (Wikimedia) needs. Wiki(ped)(med)ia needs actual researchers who are actually paid to do actual research to actually determine whether or not historic images are actually in the public domain.

So, knowing full well that whoever you mention in reply may not thank you for doing so, I ask,"Who is the one person whom I can ask for Wikimedia to spend money on image researchers (just fresh-faced, eager-beaver young recent grads I assume), plus one temporary-hire domain expert to train them?"

As always, I remain in your debt.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure who that one person would be - I'm aware of grant programs like this one meant to support the community doing stuff like this, but other than the wishlist, not WMF. Astinson, any ideas? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me Nikki.
Unfortunately, the WMF would not be in a position to support that kind of work, directly: you are proposing direct monies used for content development on the projects, and copyright clearance both of which I believe (and I am not the legal expert here) would violate longstanding policies at the foundation (the second would undermine our "user-generate copyright patrolling" protections in US law). I think the best tactic, would be to find another community that has these kinds of researchers, but can donate or be grant-funded to spend time supporting a workflow that is appropriate for our community (think something along the lines of the Translators without Borders project by WikiProject Medicine: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force). The other option, would be improving the tools that patrollers have to compare the images with existing images via Google or whatever other search tools are available (think machine learning). Both of these kinds of tactics, could be the kind of projects our grants program would be interested in. The next Inspire campaign focuses on "How do we engage external knowledge communities?" Folks that work on copyright clearance, would be a good community for that: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire . There you could develop your ideas, and see if you have something that will work within the broader strategies used by our communities already, and see if you can find support from across Wikimedia Projects. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad ping @Lingzhi: Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Astinson (WMF): Thank you for your somewhat discouraging reply. "New tools" and "new training" would both be second-best then. As for tools forex, there is a website which records renewed copyrights. Searching it is troublesome. A way to make it easier and more effective would be good. But what we really need is expertise.............. but anyhow. Thanks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lingzhi: I am not sure what you mean by "new training": the Translation task force that partners with Translators without borders created an off-wiki workflow, for bringing content on-wiki in dozens of languages. I would suggest that you can use the Inspire Campaign to test and refine your ideas to make them better recieved by other parts of the community and/or find some more contributors who can help you realize a solution to the problem you are identifying. During the Harrassment campaign, several editors were able to move some ideas about how to change community policy from underformed idea, into practical engagement on enwiki and in other communities. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was the example I was thinking about: from the Harrasment Campaign, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits removing Template:Infobox person/Wikidata

[edit]

I see that you've been systematically removing Template:Infobox person/Wikidata from articles that have opted in to use it, including engaging in edit wars when your edits were undone. All of your edits were made covertly, without notifying the editor that added the infobox, or raising any concerns on the infobox talk page. If you were a new editor, then I'd be posting {{Uw-disruptive3}} to your talk page. As it is, please stop doing this, and instead please post your concerns and your edits to the infobox talk page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: That is absolutely false. You have been systematically converting all of those templates to opt-in without due care and attention to the output (not to mention notifying anyone or discussing on the infobox talk page), and as a result have caused problems across multiple articles. I have been cleaning up after you, and in select cases have converted to a different template type or, where the template was blank, removing it. If you think discussion is needed, let's revert your changes to the template and bring those for wider discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. All of the articles had opted in to using Wikidata already. The changes I was making to the template were to add opt-in functionality, and all of the edits I made to these articles (all ~500 of them) were to ensure that they *continued* to have the same information from Wikidata that they already had. I spent a full day making sure that they did so appropriately - what this this about a lack of due care and attention, or cleaning up after me? Where did you report any problems that needed fixing? Mike Peel (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as "opting in" matters - and adding the template gives no special privilege and requires no notification of the adding editor before changing or removing - all of the articles "opted in" to the limited set of parameters provided by the previous version of the template, not to the additional parameters and functions your changes added. I fixed the problems that I saw, which is what I meant by "cleaning up" - that included removing displayed nonsense, unsourced content, and empty displayed templates. If you feel there are specific edits that were not appropriate, I'm happy to discuss those, but at this point I'm of the mind that your changes to the template were inappropriate and ought to be discussed more broadly before being reimplemented, for these reasons and those explained above. Pinging David Eppstein, who has elsewhere expressed concern at this template being used to import unsourced or poorly sourced information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I might add that one of the infoboxes I saw and removed today was still bad despite the new code to check that all imported data is marked with a source on Wikidata. It was a birthday, adding a day of the month and month to the information already in the article, but with a Wikidata-source that gave only the birth year. And of course the source was also not imported to Wikipedia from Wikidata. The new code does not prevent the need for human checking of the data quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also (independently) removing this infobox/wikidata from articles, as it had unwanted results (e.g. duplicating an image which was already in an article) and added unnecessary clutter, and since I usually could present more info in the local infobox. My edits were also "covertly", just as "covertly" as the one originally adding it, or the one converting it to the new version which showed more unsourced Wikidata entries. The disruptive editor here is not Nikkimaria. Fram (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

[edit]

Nikki, I know this is a big ask, but I'm looking for someone to perform image/source reviews for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics/archive3. If you have the time, I would be most grateful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age calculator

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I saw you reverted the "age" calculator I added. With the Helen Mackay article, this is the behaviour I would expect. If no death date is specified then the correct thing to is assume the person is still alive. There isn't really any way around this. If you add the death date to Wikidata (as I've now done) the age is corrected. Also, if the death date is unsourced, the age is just not shown at all. Laurdecl talk 05:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Anyone looking at that article would see that a birth and death date are both clearly identified, but then the template claims that she is alive and setting age records - that's not a reasonable outcome. Also, how does your "calculator" handle year-level dates? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It works fine. If there is a death date on Wikidata, the infobox won't show the incorrect age. Even if the death date in unsourced (there is simply no date shown). Can you revert yourself and take a look at the article again? I think this is a corner case, I looked at ~20 other articles that worked fine... Laurdecl talk 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work fine if that's the result. How does the calculator handle imprecise dates? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that imprecise dates work fine. If one article doesn't have a death date in the infobox, you should add the death date in, rather than removing functionality that is essential and works fine 90% of the time. I've fixed the article above and if you see any more that do that you can tell me and I'll fix them (or just add the date on Wikidata). This is an easily corrected mistake by the article author – they forgot to add the death date. Laurdecl talk 06:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "work fine" in that context, then? What would be the output? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what context? The calculator works if a valid date is entered. Laurdecl talk 06:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the calculator were to be provided with an input of |birth_date=2000 and |death_date=2001, what will be the output? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Age 1. You can try it out. Laurdecl talk 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It just subtracts the dates so 2001-2000=1. Laurdecl talk 06:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So then it fails. A person who was born in 2000 and died in 2001 may have been age 1, but they also may have been only a few days old - if, say, they were born in late December 2000 and died early January 2001. A singular output is not reasonable in that case. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know that's what the normal template does ({age}). Laurdecl talk 06:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we don't use that template in that context. See the documentation for Template:Infobox person for recommendations. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about you let me keep a useful addition to this template, and I'll overlook your mass removal of it from pages that have opted-in–which you have been warned about before? Laurdecl talk 06:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about you work on actually making the addition useful - in the sandbox rather than the live template - and stop trying to blackmail people into letting you retain a faulty change? If you've seen the "warning", you should have also seen the associated discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blackmailing you, I'm saying that you should stop randomly removing this template from pages that are using it. Do you have a constructive suggestion for the template? Do you want me to code it to not work on dates that are bare years? Laurdecl talk 06:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've coded a version that doesn't place an "(age x)" after the birth/death date if the input is a bare year. Any objections to me adding this? Laurdecl talk 07:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a sandbox version to look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see it's live, and still not working correctly. For example, if imprecise dates are entered locally, it still returns a precise age. See for example Antonie Strassmann. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And also Mark Ashton, which now displays duplicate ages. There needs to be a way to at least suppress the display where warranted. Reverting pending that development. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll make it disable itself if there's a local age entered, since it only works with Wikidata values. No hard feelings about the blackmail hey? ;) Laurdecl talk 20:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, another "Wikidata knows better" proponent who makes a lot of articles worse and doesn't accept criticism or removal of the infobox (I accused User:Mike Peel incorrectly of these changes, my apologies to him). Laurdecl, please don't introduce untested or buggy software / infoboxes into the mainspace, and under no circumstances assume that Wikidata knows better than enwiki articles, as that isn't true in most cases. And certainly don't blackmail editors here, it will only backfire. Fram (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, please don't lump me in with the evil "Wikidata proponents" who are systematically ruining this encyclopaedia (no doubt apart of the New World Order). I saw your AfD, in which you criticised the lack of "(age)" in the template. I attempted to fix this and while it worked in most cases, it was buggy in others. I understand your distaste for this infobox's lack of features, and I merely tried to correct it. Please don't make ad hominem attacks about me not accepting criticism and blackmailing people which aren't true. I'm just trying to improve the template and it was in the spirit of BRD. Please try and assume good faith. Laurdecl talk 05:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"How about you let me keep a useful addition to this template, and I'll overlook your mass removal of it from pages that have opted-in–which you have been warned about before?" That's you not accepting criticism, and you trying to blackmail people. No AGF or ABF needed. Fram (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, I've fixed the age code and added it (example: Georges Duhamel). It wasn't blackmail, I was telling Nikkimaria that they shouldn't be mass removing this template from pages that have opted in. I'm not some Wikidata crusader sent by the UN (or whatever it is today) to ruin Wikipedia. My "age" addition has improved over 300 articles now. Thanks Nikkimaria for the tips and examples of pages that I broke. I'll admit that I did overreact when I saw their edit history, a long list of removing this template. Laurdecl talk 08:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The age code may be corrected, the result is still unwanted
Nikkimaria is perfectly in his rights to remove an infobox from pages (these pages have not "opted in", an editor has added them and another editor removes them, that's all. Check an article like Chris Perrins, where Nikkimaria was changing the generic and buggy person/wikidata version to the specific infobox scientist, and still got reverted multiple times by the usual suspects. Nikkimaria isn't the one that should stop... How your "age" addition improved "over 300 pages" is not clear, many instances of the infobox have no age as they have no dates. Fram (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look Fram, I don't want to get involved in edits wars or conflict about adding infoboxes (especially seeing as there's an AN/I thread). I'm just trying to make the template better–which, ironically, I did because of your AfD comment about there not being an "age" parameter. I feel like I'm being attacked as some sort of Antichrist/Wikidata crusader. Take a look at Margaret Blackwood, I've fixed the infobox. It took me all of ten seconds to add a source to the death date on Wikidata. P.S. {{gender|Nikkimaria}} returns "she". Laurdecl talk 09:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, once someone else checks your changes and finds the many errors in your edits, it's always easy to fix them. Even so, that article didn't need an infobox repeating the very first line of the article... Anyway, I have since seen your true colours and raised your actions at ANI. Bye. Fram (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 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) 00:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]
The Reviewer's Barnstar
For your source and image reviews for the Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics. This is the first Paralympic article to ever make it to Featured status. Couldn't have done it without your help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andrey Laukhin for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrey Laukhin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Laukhin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. XXN, 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviews

[edit]

Both my A-class review nominations – INS Vikrant (R11) and List of frigates of India – are about to gain three supports, but image review is still pending. Perhaps, you could take a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be avoided?

[edit]

Thanks for your edit. How can I get to know which part of the link to google books should be removed? --Mhhossein talk 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Think about the URL as having "parameters", highlighted in green: books.google.com/books?id=ntarP5hrza0C&pg=PA95&dq=Oudh+Bequest&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyu9v2w7XQAhUIfywKHZ8WArk4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=Oudh%20Bequest&f=false
The most important is "id", which identifies the specific title we want to look at. Most will have "pg" for page number. If there are no page numbers, we use "dq" or direct quote as a backup - it's basically the search term. Everything after the values of those can be deleted. So in most cases:
books.google.com/books?id=ntarP5hrza0C&pg=PA95&dq=Oudh+Bequest&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyu9v2w7XQAhUIfywKHZ8WArk4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=Oudh%20Bequest&f=false
or if there aren't page numbers:
books.google.com/books?id=ntarP5hrza0C&dq=Oudh+Bequest&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyu9v2w7XQAhUIfywKHZ8WArk4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=Oudh%20Bequest&f=false
Does that make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria. It was great. Thanks for putting time on this. --Mhhossein talk 12:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it right? --Mhhossein talk 18:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: Looks good to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

I might need help with Fair use rationale on Gothic boxwood miniatures. The thing is I could photograph some examples, but they are so small and intricate that an amateur pic would not capture this detail and be of relative low value. Is that rational? Tks as ever. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking yes, but the more examples you have the harder it's going to be to justify them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Is it ok to plain talk like that in rational, or do I need to speak in prescribed legalese, if you know what I mean ;) Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as your rationale covers all of the criteria you should be good. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. This my attempt [2]. Thank you again. FU tends to put the fear of god in me. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In this case it's not the sculptural work that's copyrighted, it's the photograph - so we need the copyright details for the photo, not just details about the work. The depiction (photo) is not from 1500 ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dont suppose I could convince that they were using a camera obscura in 1500? Yeah, thats problamatic. I need to rethink. Tarnations. Ceoil (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. See [3]. Happy days. Ceoil (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jstor

[edit]

Thanks for approving me. I filled out the form, but i couldn't find any info in the email or on Wikipedia:JSTOR as to what i need to do next. I tried going to jstor.org, but was unable to sign in. --Espoo (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Espoo: JSTOR needs to set up your account, it could take a week or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Please add that info to the email in future. --Espoo (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry on my 'account', NM, but I did get messages that I too would now have access, and that an email had been sent, of which no sign. I too am quite busy, so I don't expect any speedy conclusion to this request. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. The Jstor thing had arrived, only it was in a social message folder of my email, which I never open, or hadn't until now. Thanks and best regards Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

[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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the thirteen FAC image reviews and three source reviews you did during January. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2017

[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.

[edit]

Hi.

I saw you remove the external links from the Malazan-related articles, citing WP:ELNO. I reinstated the links, because of this, since WP:ELNO states Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Verifying this by visiting the site and going through the userlist/contributors and the content is simple enough.

Furthermore, since the Malazan Book of the Fallen article already linked to this, and since all the content from that site is now moved to Malazan Wiki, I see this as a case of updating a deadlink.

Hope this clarifies my actions.

Regards,

 LoMS talk 19:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LOMS, that exemption is intended for wikis like Wookieepedia with thousands of editors - this one is comparatively small. You're welcome to raise the issue for discussion at WP:ELN if you like, but per WP:ELBURDEN disputed links should be kept out pending such a discussion. Note also that BLPs have more stringent standards for ELs, and even wikis that meet ELNO should not be included in such articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Guidance Barnstar
For being civil, and for making a case by pointing toward relevant guidelines.  LoMS talk 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit in List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles

[edit]

Hi, Nikkamaria. You removed my reference in the above named article for the substance "Verterium cortenide" with the comment "rm non-RS". Unfortunately I was unable to retrieve the meaning of this abbreviation, so I don't understand the purpose of your edit. Could you please explain the purpose so I can improve in my edits on Wikipedia? Thanks! -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 20:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Immernoch, RS refers to the reliable sources page - the source that you added was not one we consider to be reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you, I guess I missed that page in my prep. -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 21:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW, I would prefer being referred to as EkelAlfred, "Immernoch" simply means "still" in German :P)

Hi :)

[edit]

Hi Nikki :) Per this message of yours, I didn't receive any email. I've checked the spam, promo, social folders too. Thanks. Lourdes 04:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Re-sent, please check. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Registered. Thanks. Lourdes 04:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Layover (novel)

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just noticed this DYK nomination and review, where there's a disagreement over the proportion of quoting being done. Since a second opinion has been requested by the article's author/nominator, I was wondering if you might be willing to supply one. Many thanks either way. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nara Help

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I wonder if you can help me. I requested some documents from NARA as you suggested way about 2-3 months ago. I went to WP:NARA, and spoke to the Wikipedia in Residence at Nara, User:Dominic. I requested about 25 documents from NARA, and Dominic confirmed he would get them, via WP email. But so far I've not heard anything back. It was all TICOM documents that I was looking for to help build the following articles: General der Nachrichtenaufklärung and Signal Intelligence Regiment (KONA). I have emailed him several times, via WP and his gmail account, but not heard anything back. I would be great if I could get a confirmation that the request is being worked on. I know it was a large number of docs, so it would take time. scope_creep (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep, unfortunately I can't speak to what's going on at NARA - I do see that Dominic has been less active lately, but I don't have any suggestions to getting the docs. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Chapters and Audio Dramas from Shiritsu Horitsuba Gakuen

[edit]

Hi there! I'm working on the Shiritsu Horitsuba Gakuen article and I notice you removed most of the article. In your notes you put condensed. I don't agree that removing the content of those chapters and audio dramas to be "condensing" and I was hoping to ask why this was done before I revert it. The page is being corrected as I spot errors and try to stream line it (it's my first article). Any tips would be appreciated. Sincerely ButterflyNebula (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ButterflyNebula, take a read through WP:PLOT/MOS:PLOT - that content went into way too much detail, used unreliable sources and was not written in an encyclopedic fashion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amaryllis Garnett

[edit]

Please see WP:NEWSORG: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

In this case, the writer is writing from personal knowledge and can be treated as a reliable source. Moonraker (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB - the article is in a DYK queue, removal of one of the main sources has caused a hold-up. Moonraker (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That particular news outlet is not considered to be reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand your point better. This strikes me as an amazingly foolish determination, as it takes no account of who the writer is and also seems to leave much less reliable newspapers unblitzed (unless there is a fuller list of banned newspapers somewhere else). However, it's helpful to have your objection to the source clarified. Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

[edit]

Please do not remove the Daily Mail as a reference from articles, such as your recent edit to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. I am well aware if the result of the recent discussion at RSN, but that does not mean that the Daily Mail needs to be instantly purged as a source. By all means tag any references for the Daily Mail with {{Better source}}, and feel free to replace with other sources that are reliable, but don't leave text incorrectly attributed or unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the Times source in full so can't tell what is and is not supported by it, but it looks like C of E has decided to show the sentence with only the Times source, so if that's incorrect you'll need to take it up with him. As to your general point, {{citation needed}} provides a better flag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would prefer to have both in there because they do compliment each other. But I do think that @Mjroots: does have a point, we should not be just willy nilly tearing out DM sources in an act of WikiPuritanism just because of an discussion RSN which has not yet been fully resolved or clarified. Otherwise GAs like Plastic Brit would be, for all intents and purposes, vandalised beyond recognition. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Issue raised at WT:RSN, @The C of E: - please join in there. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Daily Mail often does good reporting. Not always. A general purge and censorship is neither right nor helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not always? Not often. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mjroots. Your campaign is misguided and very unhelpful. As with all newspapers, the quality of the information depends far more on the contributor than the publisher, but in general terms the Daily Mail is more reliable than most of the world's newspapers. This article from today's Mail makes some valid points about the way the paper has been singled out for undermining while leaving the official organs of totalitarian regimes unaffected. Moonraker (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the link to the article - please do not re-post that here. As I've mentioned to you before, if you believe there are other sources that ought not to be cited, you should raise those at WP:RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't surprise me, especially when it comes to your not wanting the reply of the Daily Mail on this matter to be seen. My point isn't that I want us to start banning a lot of other newspapers, it's that the reliability of media sources is variable, per WP:NEWSORG, which strikes me as a good policy. You also haven't really replied to Mjroots or 7&6=thirteen. Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonraker: If you don't understand why posting that link is inappropriate, we really have nothing to discuss. Suggest you start by reading the AN thread on the topic before you get yourself into trouble. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: You have not replied to any of the points I made. It seems likely that Wikipedia will need to consider this matter again, more rationally, and with the involvement of more editors, so perhaps you would be kind enough to notify me when that happens. Moonraker (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have the option of starting a new discussion yourself, if you think a different outcome is likely. Unless/until you or others do so, community consensus as it currently stands is first, that DM is not "more reliable than most of the world's newspapers" but rather generally unreliable, second, that other potentially unreliable sources can and should be brought up for discussion, third that the link you posted shouldn't be posted. That's your points covered. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaperarchive-not yet renewed

[edit]

Can anything be done about getting renewals completed? I reapplied 9 January but have heard nothing further other than this. Can you try getting in touch with Newspaperarchive? Thanks! We hope (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will see what I can find out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffers High School

[edit]

This is the strangest thing I've ever seen. Why exactly do you think the state should not be linked? It is linked in virtually every US school article. Removing the link to the state is highly US-CENTRIC and simply should not be done. The documentation for infobox school support this. School article guidelines support it. Why is it a problem to link Michigan in an article on a dinky little school in very rural MICHIGAN? John from Idegon (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: What makes you say the documentation supports it? I don't see any mention of linking or not linking for that parameter, and the example shows it unlinked. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines says include state in the lead but doesn't say link or don't. Also, see WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:SPECIFICLINK. There's nothing "US-centric" about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Horse crap. Concensus is sometimes shown by practice as you should know. Again, virtually every US school article is done that way. And assuming a US state is a common enough term to not need linking is certainly US-CENTRIC. Do you know all the states in India? Or the political divisions in China? Probably not. So a Wikilink would be helpful for you on a school in those countries. To assume that because it's a US state, people won't need more info is blatantly US-CENTRIC. Just stop. It's a silly battle you are waging. John from Idegon (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a silly argument you're making. Any reader who is interested in "a dinky little school in very rural Michigan" and does not happen to know what Michigan is - which seems unlikely - can see that it's in the US without a link, just as anyone looking at an Indian school article can understand what "India" means whether the state is linked or not. I'm not American, Indian, or Chinese, and I wouldn't find a misleading link helpful on school articles from any of those countries - first because the more specific link to the city/town/village is more helpful, and second because when you format links in that way it's very difficult to see whether there is one link or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source question

[edit]

I was just wondering about your opinion of this as a reliable source at FAC. I'm working with someone on an obscure cricket article, but it is heavily reliant on this source in places. I'm on the fence about it. How would you feel if this source was used? Cheers, Sarastro1 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I'd ask for more info on the author - the publisher seems reasonable but some historical societies are more discriminating than others in what they publish. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to find more on the author. The stuff I've found is that her book was launched by the Malvern Historical Society,[4] is listed at the city of Stonnington's government website under the public history assets category,[5] and has been reviewed by the Melbourne Cricket Club.[6] Thanks. Lourdes 03:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Then I'd say use it, but carefully. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thanks! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2017

[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the twenty FAC image and source reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2017

[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.

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thank you very much for all your help with the images on the Operation Mincemeat article, and I am sorry to have been so high maintenance with them. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just FYI, that "historic images" tag is primarily intended for instances where the image itself is historic, a la Tank Man. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know. I'll keep it for those instances the newspapers describe as "iconic". All the best, The Bounder (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(While I am here, could I be cheeky and ask you to cast your eye over the images on Operation Bernhard, which I have going through a very, very slow MilHist review? Thanks again, The Bounder (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Taylor & Francis

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, you sent me a link to Taylor & Francis around mid-November. I didn't get to it immediately, and then, because of stuff that happened, months went by. When I finally clicked the link it took me to a log in screen (expecting a password, but I never got one). I've tried many many times to either set the password or to log in, and after about 20 tries that should result in an email being sent to me, I've given up. I thought I should let you know (and even that's taken overly long) so you can strike me off the list. If and when I'm able to gear up fully again, I might try reapplying, but in the meantime Jstor is the account that benefits me the most in terms of having to tend to existing FAs and having to respond to queries. Thanks, Victoriaearle (tk) 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image at Kona Lanes

[edit]

Hi Nikki. This FAC is pretty much ready for promotion, but Cas spotted a problem with one of the images but hasn't popped back yet. The nominator has replaced it with a FU image; I'm useless with images, but I'm not entirely convinced that this would be justified under FU. If you get a chance, could you pop in? Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, if you wish, send me an email and I'll forward the image owner's most recent response for your review. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of King Sejong (Gwanghwamun)

[edit]

Nikkimaria, since I recall you don't always receive pings, I posted a request at this nomination, which you removed from prep yesterday, for the number of characters needed for the Sejong article to meet the minimum required for DYK. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, the article has been expanded by more than the required number of characters you mentioned. If it meets the criteria now, can you please finish the review? Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Haasan filmography

[edit]

This FLC of mine currently has three supports and no outstanding/unaddressed comments. If interested, can you please perform an Image and source review? Pavanjandhyala 14:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Another) image review favour

[edit]

This FAC has had an image review, but I'm not entirely convinced. I've raised a couple of points on the page, but I'd be grateful if you could take a look. I could be way off. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if you could find time to check the images at this FAC (article here), I'd be eternally grateful etc, as I'd like to get this done and dusted. Hopefully, I'll leave you alone for a while after that! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line graphs, academic maps, upper limit on Fair Use

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. Please forgive the intrusion. If I may, I have a few general questions:

  1. Does a screen capture of a line graph from an academic paper (I think it may even be a dissertation, IIRC) fall under the same rules as a photograph? I ask because you see things like that reproduced in other scholars' papers all the time (properly credited, of course).
  2. Same question, map showing regional mortality rates, definitely a scholarly paper but not a dissertation.
  3. Is there some sort of upper limit on the number of fair Use images that can go in one article? If so, is it "hard and fast" or "rule of thumb"?
Hi @Lingzhi: on the first two points the general rule is that facts are not copyrightable but their representations are. If a graph shows absolutely no creativity in how it is represented - if anyone given the same data would necessarily present it in the same way - it does need to be cited but there is no copyvio issue in duplicating it. Maps are a bit more "creative" (in this sense) because different projections can be used, etc, and so there are different ways in which the data can be represented.
On the third point: not a number. The rule is, no more than is absolutely necessary for the reader to understand - and the more you have, the more difficult it becomes to justify each one.
BTW, looks like there are a couple folks awaiting your attention... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks! As for Miramar, I resolved Peacemaker's case a very long time ago and forgot to mark it resolved. I similarly resolved the other case just yesterday. BTW, FYI, Miramar told me that all current Miramar accounts were extended until 31 March 2018.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussion of Quality assessment at Village Pump

[edit]

There is a discussion at Village Pump (policy) that assessment of WP:Quality assessment for A-Class, B-Class, C-Class and Start-Stub articles is long antiquated and of limited valued for future purposes of Wikipedia. As you are involved in the day-to-day listing and delisting of articles from these classes to peer review status possible you could take a glance at the discussion of comments here [7]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]
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.

— O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, hope all is well. Are images in infoboxes usually left in their original size? [8] What do we do in situations where the photo may be "too big" for the infobox? Thanks, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ComputerJA. If no sizing is set, the image should appear at the default size you have set in your preferences. If you'd like to set a different size, note |image_upright= in the template code (or |upright= in regular image syntax). This allows you to change the size of the image relative to the user's preferences, and so is preferred - see WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hornblower wiki

[edit]

Can you explain in more detail why you removed the ref to the Hornblower wiki from the Hornblower article? It seemed genuinely useful to me Vicarage (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vicarage, that site fails multiple points of the external links guideline, in particular ELNO #12. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the twenty-one FAC image and source reviews you did during March. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA mentor request

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. After several months of edits I think that the Canadian Indian residential school system page is ready to be nominated for FA status. This would be my first time putting an article forward and I wonder if you might be willing to participate in the process? Let me know what you think (and thank you for considering the request)! --Dnllnd (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dnllnd, I'd be happy to. I will take a look at the article, but before I do that, I have a question for you: how did you decide what sources to use and which, if any, not to use? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response! Given the nature of the page attention was given to authoritative, reliable and open access sources. Seminal historical works, the outputs of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and, where possible, digitized versions of relevant archival/government documents referenced in secondary sources were also included. When revision work started last June links to personal blog posts and sources that established questionable POV issues were replaced with the above. As part of the process I consulted and solicited feedback (offline) from people working on reconciliation related projects, who were able to flag problematic authors/publications.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay. Depending on who shows up to the FAC, the balance of primary versus secondary sources could become a considerable issue - there are a lot of scholarly books, articles etc out there, so you'd have to think carefully about how you'd justify the sources and balance you're using. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I feel pretty confident that the presence of primary resources is minimal and appropriate. The majority of what was used does reflect the key secondary (scholarly) publications on the topic. Generally any reference(s) to primary resources are as contextual additions to information supported by secondary publications. If they were removed the cited info would still stand and be supported by the secondary resources used. (Moment of silence for potentially famous last words..) Let me know when you think it makes sense for me to move forward with nominating the page. Alternatively, would it makes sense to move through the GA process first? --Dnllnd (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: I think going straight to FA should work, but not quite yet. Are there alternative sources that we could use to replace the NHL and BisLaw? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the NHL and BisLaw refs with more authoritative sources and made some minor text revisions to both sections while doing so. Thanks for flagging them! --Dnllnd (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: What are your thoughts on merging Reconciliation and Apologies? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Intellectually the split makes sense (to me) since reconciliation is more about action where as the apologies are about acknowledgement. Having them as separate sections helps minimize any conflation of that framing. For example, apologies loose their value if there's no attempt to rectify what happened after the fact. With that said, I'm definitely open to discussing a merge though I question the length of the resulting section. Are you thinking merge and shorten? --Dnllnd (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: Your explanation makes sense in theory, but take a look at the first paragraph of Reconciliation - I think the conflation is already happening. Alternately, what about switching the two places? That might make sense with your framing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good point. I moved Apologies up the page, ahead of Reconciliation attempts, and made some text revisions to both clarify what was being presented and minimize the conflation I touched on above. Let me know what you think about the changes - I think/hope they help with the flow of the information presented.--Dnllnd (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: Think so, except that you've got the churches and Ontario twice ;-)
Once that's sorted though, we should be about ready to nominate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Sure did. I got rid of the Other apologies section and reworked things accordingly. I tried a quote box for one of the apologies, but am fine with kicking it out if need be. I also did some more general ref clean up throughout the entire page. Thank you endlessly for all of the feedback ahead of the nomination. It has been /incredibly/ useful and I really appreciate your time.--Dnllnd (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again. Quick note to ask if you've had a chance to look over the most recent changes? No rush if not! I had assumed I'd hear back from you once you had, but wanted to check back in case I misread things and you've been waiting for me to proceed with nominating the page. Best, --Dnllnd (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: It's sorted so good to go! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's officially nominated. Thanks again for all of the input and support - I really appreciate it!--Dnllnd (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor & Francis

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, do you have any idea who is the coordinator for Taylor & Francis. I need to get more papers off them but that are not accessible. They would fill in really critical background information, which is not on the web. Any help appreciated. scope_creep (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnthroMimus: Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious five years!

[edit]
Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brushing back the well-meaning Pinterest crowd

[edit]

Hey. I do appreciate all of your excellent responses to my many questions.

My sandbox is 99.99% done. User:Clarityfiend (no need to ping) is doing a copy edit, then it's going into mainspace. Finally. After that it'll attempt MILHIST A-review then FAC.

I need your advice on brushing back the well-meaning Pinterest crowd, by which I mean, all those editors who really enjoy finding photos from goodness-knows-where on the Internet and pinning them into articles... Just because, you know, someone on the Internet said it's a photo of this topic! And I found it on the Internet! And it's even in Commons, which abso-freaking-lutely proves it's legit! Because nothing in Commons is ever labeled or licensed incorrectly!

I've had problems like this with other articles... so in the Background section on the Bengal famine page, we have 3 in a row that are highly dodgy. The first one even says 1877-78 on the bottom! The other two... I am pretty sure the bottom one is not from 1943; the middle one might be. All three came from someone's crappy internet page. I am getting rid of all three, even though one or two might be valid. The well-meaning Pinterest crowd will almost certainly reinsert them within a week or two. It's a lock that it'll happen within a month. How do I phrase the "run along, you bother me" explanation I give when I delete them again (unless someone offers truly airtight provenance)? Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are no matter what you do someone won't be happy, but your best bet is to emphasize the need to prove that the images are free. This might help. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ormulum

[edit]

You seem to be right about Ormulum. I had it in my head that all citations were supposed to be in footnotes, but the link you sent me to does seem to say we should just leave the citations in whatever system they're already using, as long as its consistent. Fine by me. Alephb (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikipedia Library User Group
  • Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
  • Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal peoples in Canada

[edit]

Getting close to a decade since we did this GA review. I think it's no longer a GA level article....and I think it needs lots and lots of work. Thinking community reassessment for demotion....I was hoping when you have time you can do this as I feel I am not best to do this....to close to my heart lol? ☺--Moxy (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: It actually doesn't look as bad as I thought it might - it needs updating but the sourcing is decent. What do you see as the big-time issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical question

[edit]

Hypothetically, let's imagine a book of sketches was published in India in 1943. Every single copy of that book except one was tracked down and burned by Indian police (at the behest of the UK, of course). One copy sat in a bank vault until it was republished in 2011 by a prestigious art gallery in India. [I don't know whether an overseas edition was published in the US, but that's the way things tend to go, so I suppose it was.] The imaginary author of this imaginary sketchbook hypothetically died in 1978. Pop quiz: Are the images public domain? Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the 1943 edition was formally published and in India only - no. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I can find several quotes that repeat the anecdote above, but they seem to be from lesser-known publishers and presumably minor scholars, not CUP or OUP or whatever. Still, maybe the {{Non-free historic image}} (which you told me about earlier, thank you) can be applied. It's certainly "historic" and "significant"... Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

[edit]

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan to Mar 17 Milhist article reviewing

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 27 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6 has been nominated for Did You Know

[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2017

[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.

DYK for Max Ciolek

[edit]

On 14 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Max Ciolek, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that tenor Max Ciolek performed the Evangelist in Bach's Passions, and the Mass in B minor with La Petite Bande in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Max Ciolek. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Max Ciolek), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cambridge

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I would like to give my my access to Wikipedia:Cambridge. I've not been able to get it to work for me; hopefully others can make better use of the account. Please let me know of next steps, if any. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: What issue have you been having? We can help get it working if that would be the preferable outcome. Sam Walton (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: It had to do with the search function; I've elaborated here: User_talk:SusunW/Archive_23#Query. For example, if I search for "Sonke Neitzel" (who is a historian) I get:
  • On regularization methods for the numerical solution of parabolic control problems with pointwise state constraints. By Ira Neitzel, Fredi Tröltzsch
  • Camouflage in marine fish. By Justin Marshall, The University of Queensland, Sönke Johnsen, Duke University
Which are obviously useless to me. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @K.e.coffman: I find your lack of interest in the parabolic control problems of camouflaged marine fish disturbing :p ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Hm, that isn't ideal. And from some further testing the search interface doesn't seem to work well for me generally. When I search for Sonke Neitzel I get "1 of 3 pages", but as soon as I click another page number, or Next, the search seems to reset to listing every item ("Page 2 of 112076"), and trying to search again locks the whole interface. I'll see what we can find out about this, because this isn't particularly useful. Sam Walton (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Here's the relevant part of the response I received from the Head of Platform for Cambridge Core:
"On the first issue, I can tell you that we have an improvement in development at this very moment to allow for searching of exact strings (using quotes), and I expect that this will be deployed to the platform sometime within the next 4 weeks.
Regarding the same issue, the platform search is based on metadata and boosts results based on relevance of content against keywords entered into search. Title is checked first, followed by subtitle, abstract, author name(s) and keywords. We do not yet search the full text, though that is also an improvement in the pipeline for this year. It appears as though the searches you undertook in Google, and which yielded results for the Cambridge Core platform, were for keywords which appear in the references/footnotes of our content, content which we do not currently include in our own platform search - Google searches our full text and references/footnotes. I suspect that we will include this data when we come to do full text search."
When it came to my pagination issue, they couldn't reproduce it so I'm going to provide further details. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF): Thank you for checking into this; looks like the Cambridge folks are aware of the issues. It's just surprising that they would not have something user friendly in the year of 2017. In contrast, the online article search for my library is is much better in this regard. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Agreed! In case you haven't seen it yet - we're aiming to build a search and discovery tool which could search across all of our partners, ideally including full-text. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6

[edit]

On 17 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bach's cantata for Easter Monday, Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6, is based on the Road to Emmaus narration? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Malacañang of the North

[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to please check this DYK nomination for close paraphrasing? When I originally checked some sources, it seemed to me to be a bit too close for comfort; I haven't had time to see whether it is indeed too close for DYK, and the nominator thinks it isn't. I trust you to have the best judgment as to whether it is or isn't. Thank you for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Can I ask you please to see whether the recent edits are sufficient, or if there are issues that remain. (I hadn't even realized that any edits had been done, based on the reply made, until I checked just now.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Definitely better, and probably good enough to pass now on that front. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, Nikkimaria. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use for Rotmistrov's potrait (Battle of Prokhorovka)

[edit]

I've updated the rationale as suggested during the FAC review for the Battle of Prokhorovka. Please can you take a look at the image to see if it's sufficient, as this is the only known oustanding issue with the article. EyeTruth (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EyeTruth: The rationale is better, but as before, strongly advise against using {{non-free historic image}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I missed that one. Done now. EyeTruth (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceDirect

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I know it's been a while since you approved my account for WP:Elsevier ScienceDirect, but I seem to have lost access to paywalled articles through this service. If you could either reactivate my access to ScienceDirect articles through this program, or tell me how to do so, that'd be great. Everymorning (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Competition Commission Edits

[edit]

Hi there!

I noticed that you keep adding a copypaste tag to the Philippine Competition Commission page. I don't understand why, as all information listed is from the official website of the Commission. Under the Copyright Law of the Philippines, no copyright shall be placed on anything made by the Philippine government. Even with that, nearly every line has also been cited. Due to that, I don't see any violation happening.

If there is anything that we missed, I'd like to know so that I can fix it.

Thanks!

Martintepongko (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martintepongko. I did explain the issue on the article's talk page, but to reiterate: first, even if the source is PD, it has to be attributed according to the guidance at WP:PLAG; second, no, not all of the sources being copied are in the public domain - for example, this source appears to be copyrighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!

The attribution tags have been added, and all copy/pasted text has been corrected.

Thank you!

Martintepongko (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaperarchive-still no renewal

[edit]

I don't want to be a pain about this, but I applied for renewal on 9 January and was approved on 27 January. It's now almost May and I'm still not renewed as far as Newspaperarchive is concerned. I can sign in but not able to do any clipping. Would I be wise to just reapply and not ask for renewal, as I really find this useful, especially for news photos. Thanks! We hope (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Any insight here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@We hope: I have sent an email asking for them to check for problems. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Affleck peer review

[edit]

Hi, I noticed you left helpful feedback in the peer review of Bradley Cooper's article and wondered if you might look over Ben Affleck's article too? Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Nomination "Battle of Prokhorovka"

[edit]

Hello, I nominated "Battle of Prokhorovka" for Featured Article. Thought you might be interested. EyeTruth (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, do you still have more feedback for this FAC? EyeTruth (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Briarcliff Manor FAR

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

The Briarcliff Manor FAR hasn't had comments in over a week. The one contesting editor's only concerns were about a possible COI (settled), and 5 questionable references, each of which I explained in detail about how they are legitimate sources, a week ago (on the article talk as recommended). The contesting editor and I have an interaction ban now, so he can't reply there; I'm also fairly certain the FAR was part of a smear campaign; that editor had even lower attacks against me. How should this FAR be settled? It's really unlikely to receive more attention. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: Do you have a link to the discussion re: interaction ban? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it happened offwiki. Though Bluerasberry mentions it in the FAR: " I have messaged both Ceoil and Ɱ. Both users agreed to a voluntary interaction ban, which means that each of these two users should halt their conversation.", and Ceoil does too: "Ok Nikki. I have given a commitment to disengage, which is really for the best". ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've put up a couple of WikiProject notices to try to get more input, so let's give that a couple of days and see what happens. If nothing, we can look at closing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay what do you think? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the twenty-one FAC image/source reviews you did during April. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sethu Vijayakumar

[edit]

Hi, thanks for letting me know that there were still unresolved issues with the page on Sethu Vijayakumar. I think I have resolved them but I am new to this and don't know how to remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please can you help? Hwedinburgh (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hwedinburgh, the page has already been deleted so you'll need to see WP:REFUND to get it restored, but since Sethu Vijayakumar already exists you might choose just to work on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

[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) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Wilhelm von Forcade

[edit]

You are editing a page that is currently being edited, as you would see from the "View History" tab. If you would like to suggest edits, please check back in about a week and do them then.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricklarsen lux (talk • contribs)

Hi Ricklarsen lux, I suggest if the page is not ready for others to edit, you move it to the draftspace until it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly for the suggestion, but the page has been published for almost two years. At the moment, the additions I am making to my article do not affect the quality of the article for other users, so I have chosen to do them this way. (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately though they do affect the quality of the article, which is why I made the changes that I did. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage edit summary

[edit]

There is no possible way that this can be characterized as "copy editing". The point of edit summaries is to provide useful information to other editors -- badly misleading edit summaries are worse than useless. Don't do that. --JBL (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Lillian Dean

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was just looking at this stalled nomination to see what I could do to get it going, and decided to check the major source, the Northern Territory Dictionary of Biography (fn2). The article as it was originally submitted only had one inline citation to this source; this has been changed, though it seems to me that while there has been paraphrasing, there may not have been enough, and the Lillian Dean article seems to follow the source's structure closely as well.

Can you please take a look—fair warning: the source is a PDF, and ended up downloading the entire thing to my computer when all that's needed is page 139—and if you feel there are issues, post them to the nomination template? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

[edit]

Re: your edit on Halloween Horror Nights... "rm non-RS" is jargon and not at all helpful. Please write in English, which will both help me learn something and remain polite, welcoming, assuming good faith and so on.... Oddjob84 (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oddjob84: Take a look at WP:ESL. As a general rule, you can prefix acronyms with WP: in the search box to find relevant policies or guidelines, such as WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2017

[edit]


Headlines
  • Argentina report: End of contest, new heritaged donated and digitizing workshop
  • Basque Country report: Students working on literature with new Wikipedian in Residence
  • Belgium report: Brussels writing weeks; Dutch Language Union workshop; Civic Lab Brussels start; Edit-a-thon Leuven
  • Brazil report: Wikimedia Conference, gender and International collaboration
  • Germany report: You may only harvest after putting a grain
  • Ghana report: GLAM Ghana duly launched
  • Italy report: Open Data for Cultural Heritage
  • Macedonia report: 12 Peaks hiking challenge
  • Netherlands report: The Netherlands and the World: Photo hunt Chinsurah; Photohunt public library Tilburg; Wikipedian in Residence for UNESCO's Memory of the World programme in the Netherlands; Picture books from Koninklijke Bibliotheek
  • Spain report: Management and dissemination of cultural heritage
  • Sweden report: GLAM-EduWiki collaboration awarded Pedagogy Award of the year at Swedish museums; Connected Open Heritage
  • UK report: Bio-Medical History Residences
  • USA report: New connections at the Library of Congress and Smithsonian
  • Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes
  • Wikidata report: Federation and new datatypes
  • WMF GLAM report: DPLAFest and Beyond
  • Calendar: May's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Allegiance bias

[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I please ask you to take a look at this to make sure it meets DYK requirements for new material? I gather that quite a bit (if not nearly all) has been copied from other sources, even if they are licensed to allow such copying. There have been copying issues with other recent nominations by this editor, which have been rejected—I can't remember whether you pointed out that one of them didn't have enough original material—and I don't want this to be promoted if it, too, is problematic. Thank you for your aid. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Presidents

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, excuse me, but why do you remove all the links to the page List of Presidents of the United States? I frankly don't see any reason to do that, the link it's absolutely useful... -- Nick.mon (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick.mon, it's not useful to have two links that appear to be a single one (see MOS:LINK), and in most cases that article is linked from the lead anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right, but they are different links, one to the article about the "office" of US President and one about the list of Presidents. I still think that two links are useful, but this is only my opinion, I would like to know the one of other users but I don't known in which page we could start a "real" discussion :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick.mon: Because they are different links, it's better to split them up so readers can see that they are different links, and not have which one they end up at decided by chance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLibrary

[edit]

Hi, when you get a chance to review my application for HighBeam, would you also please note that I am also waiting on Baylor. I signed up April 3rd, but I know there isn't that much activity over there and I am the only one waiting. I'm worried it may slip under the radar. Re the ping on my talk page, I am planning to use both resources in Wikiproject Christianity - is there any need to reapply? You can see an example of my work in this area on the Physis article. It is not my most active area and I have noticed in the past that our library team does review contributions. I would like to increase my participation in this area - many major articles are in need of source-checking an refimprove. Seraphim System (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Whispering Skull

[edit]

Hi, can you please tell me why you got rid of the information I put in on one of the characters? I made sure that I didn't copy it from the website I took it from. It has been written in my own words. Thanks. Plum3600 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plum3600, the source that you used doesn't meet our reliability standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2017 (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.

--Déjà vu (Talk) 02:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content on Immortal Cities: Nile Online

[edit]

Hi, just wanted to discuss removal of http://nileonline.wikia.com/wiki/Nile_Online_Wiki (Fansite Game Wiki) external link and see if you would undo your undo. Tindy1986 (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tindy, per the external links guideline that link isn't a good option for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for replying. The wiki in question is actually a copy of the official game wiki Immortal Cities: Nile Online » Wiki external link which has been down for over a few years. So is not so much a fansite as a game wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tindy1986 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The same problem occurs either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MUSE

[edit]

Used MUSE today and it was wonderful. What a joy to be able to access a complete source. Thanks for all your work on this project and thanks also to the MUSE folks. Shearonink (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Question From Fortsam

[edit]

<Can i still put the prinny cap from cave story 3d on the prinny page w/o citing it, or do i have to cite everything i add> Fortsam (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortsam: You would need a reliable source, not a user-generated one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does "non-RS" mean?

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_in_fiction&diff=783633594&oldid=783369318

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 22:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: It refers to a source that doesn't meet WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable source. Got it. Thanks. The Transhumanist 23:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bone Bill

[edit]

On 5 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bone Bill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bone Bill aimed to increase the number of cadavers available for dissection? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bone Bill. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bone Bill), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184

[edit]

On 6 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184, Bach's cantata for the third day of Pentecost, contains dances, because it is based on a secular model? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Edward Dalton

[edit]

On 7 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edward Dalton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edward Dalton created New York City's first ambulance service? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Dalton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Edward Dalton), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eleven FAC image reviews you did during May. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mapperdonia

[edit]

Hello, I see you have added a tag to the page Mapperdonia. Isn't the book that I've used enough? TheBlueMapper (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheBlueMapper, looks like the article has been deleted, so it would seem at least one other editor didn't think so. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

[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) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:JSTOR access

[edit]

I thought I had it but apparently I don't?... Just now signed up for the waitlist but noticed that there hasn't been any movement on requests since February 2017. Is JSTOR access on hiatus? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shearonink, there aren't any accounts available right now. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thx for the reply. Oh well, that's too bad for us waitlisters but it sure is nice to have access for at least some folks around here. In the interim is there a noticeboard I could post a query about this source material? Shearonink (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: Try WP:RX. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi

[edit]

I applied for Elsevier ScienceDirect[9] ,I've had the subscription before(and I'm currently working on an article[10]which could use some more sources), might you know how long the application process is?....thank you for your time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect a couple of weeks. In the interim, you could request articles through WP:RX. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germanicus trivia section

[edit]

If I'm unable to find suitable references, and given that half the section is about "I, Claudius", which has it's own article, would it be best to simply remove the section altogether? Note, I only added the references to content already there. I'm looking, but I'm not sure I can find good references for it. Thanks for the input and the link. SpartaN (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpartaN, I would say so. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple days ago I revised the trivia section. Do you think that's sufficient? I tried to model it after the one on the article, Elagabalus. SpartaN (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2017

[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.

Jeff gardiner listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeff gardiner. Since you had some involvement with the Jeff gardiner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 15:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/TFA has some blurb for the Leningrad premiere, anniversary 9 August. If you want to nominate it (which should be possible soon, scheduling is up to July 8 which is possible now), feel free to use it, - I could also nominate for you if you prefer that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harriette Wilson

[edit]

Hi there, just wanting to know the reason for the reversion my edit on Harriette Wilson. She certainly appears in that book - a minor plot point is one of the main characters causing an end of her affair with Henry Somerset, 7th Duke of Beaufort. I have a newspaper review of the book as a secondary source, though I didn't bother putting it in as I noticed the other two notes of fictional portrayals were unreferenced. Admittedly, as I had a reference, I should have used it.

Many thanks. Catsmeat (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Catsmeat, see this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, many thanks for pointing that out.Catsmeat (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
Editorial

This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously.

Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated.

While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine.

Links
Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stardust the Super Wizard

[edit]

While your enthusiasm is appreciated, it is a common courtesy to message the author of an article before you arbitrarily delete hours of research.

You removed: 9.4 Collectibles 9.5 Role-playing games 9.6 Animated stories 9.7 Theme song 9.8 In popular culture

If you have valid reasons for the culling of Stardust the Super Wizard, let me know.

Arutai (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arutai: You're mistaken - anyone can edit articles here, there is no need to seek permission to do so beforehand. As to the content at hand, please see the external links guideline and what Wikipedia is not: large collections of links like that are not appropriate for inclusion. I'd also suggest you take a look at this. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never questioned your right to edit. I simply wanted reasons for your culling. Being a new editor, I will make unintended mistakes. I appreciate the follow up and will address the issues with the page.

Fred West and Dennis Nilsen

[edit]

Hi. I note you've just tagged the two above articles with a tag stating they 'need additional or better citations for verification' inside of the same minute. I hardly see how books on the subjects, by reputable authors, can be bettered? (Some of them can be verified on Google Books, or 'previews' on Amazon.) If you think they need 'additional' references, feel free to tag citation needed wherever you like and I will see what I can find online for you. Both articles have a large number of watchers; you may want to discuss on the talk page what you think is 'trivial'. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kieronoldham, see this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Nikkimaria. Quite an interesting discussion. The only thing I can really say is that I and others did extensively contribute to both articles, and I have added requested citations on both in the past. The sentence "it would be up to the individual article contributors to make that decision" does speak volumes to me, as does the sentence "using this rule of thumb, I feel most IPC content disputed can be resolved by the individual article contributors". I certainly would not like any form of ownership accusation thrown at me, but I would like the content to stay, even though looking at the info. within the section, some information like films loosely based on the individuals, and BBC radio discussions would (to my mind) classify as trivia which has leaked onto the article, and does fail the criteria. I do not want to take your time up here, but how do I go forward to earn the removal of these tags? I very much doubt I would be challenged by other editors, but you have expressed concerns here and I don't want to step on your toes. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kieronoldham. In both articles I'm particularly concerned with cases where neither the work itself nor the creator is a blue link, and where no independent source is provided. If you can add sources other than the works themselves (and other than IMDb, which is not generally reliable), I'm happy to have them stay. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your cordial replies, Nikkimaria. As you probably know, I usually devote attention to this topic, and as may equally imagine, not many others seem to do so (or certainly not in this depth). I will try and earn your removal of the tags. I will do one tonight, and the other tomorrow. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done what I can with the Nilsen article. Open to suggestions of course. :) I'll work on the Fred West article tomorrow. Key.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria. I have sourced everything in the 'media' section of the Fred West article which needed a reference, or could be linked. Surprisingly (and unsurprisingly), many of the authors in the bibliography section do not have their own Wiki. pages. The only section which doesn't now have links is the bibliography section. Do you want me to add links to that, too, or, as the section stands, is it sufficient to warrant removal of the tags? Best regards. Key.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kieronoldham: Links/sources please. Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Okays. Key.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria How's that? :)--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Best Regards, Key.[reply]
@Kieronoldham: Definitely better. The remaining issue with regards to the bibliography section is, rather than simply providing links to show that these exist (eg. Google Books or a bookseller site), I'm hoping we can find ones that show they're notable or significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear from you, Nikkimaria. :) That was the reason why I didn't provide references for this section initially - concerns along these lines. Unless another user rectifies these issues in the meantime, I'll provide the final tweaks tomorrow. Great working with yous. Key.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Nikkimaria. I think I have satisfied the requirements to warrant removal of the tags now? If not, please let me know. Best regards, Key.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Street

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I noticed you recently handled some of the backlog on Alexander Street. Are you taking it over now? (Please?!) My reasons for asking can be seen here. That library really needs a coordinator like you! X4n6 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@X4n6: At the moment it appears that the login available has expired, so no one can hand out access to anyone. Hopefully that will get sorted soon. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily that library has you working on it. Good luck! X4n6 (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again, Nikkimaria. I'd long forgotten about my application and the kerfuffle that followed. Now I see you've approved the application, even after I withdrew it? That's a very gracious gesture. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Street

[edit]

Hi! A friendly FYI that I haven't received the email with password, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: See section immediately above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

  • New and expanded research accounts
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you've got mail

[edit]
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.

Seraphim System (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

[edit]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rm non-RS

[edit]

Hi nikkimaria, can you please explain what you meant with above abbreviation? Ellywa (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ellywa, it means remove a source that does not meet WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oké, thanks, I will try and find another source. Ellywa (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JustBerry (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questia account request

[edit]

Hello, I had applied for an account. You mentioned in May that I needed to have a confirmed email address. I have now added a confirmed email address. Thank you. Muzzleflash (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Organized crime

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria.

You are invited to join WikiProject Organized crime, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Organized crime.
Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 06:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-RS" 2

[edit]

I'm chalking up your removal at Josephine Gillan as "junk food news", rather than "non-RS", unless you can direct me to some Wikipedia guide that says The Daily Mail and The Sun aren't reliable. I merely tried to improve the article and save it from deletion. Your removal pretty much took care of that. — Wyliepedia 21:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CAWylie, see this RfC and other RSN archives. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RS? also, again

[edit]

Remember that you commented on WP:RSN regarding Bach cantatas? The question (redux) is now "Can we summarize"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I'm not sure I have much to add to that section other than what I've already said - ELNEVER applies to links that violate copyright, and if the liner notes are copyrighted it would apply to them, but does not apply to other pages on the site. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said so, but someone didn't hear it. Thanks for clarifying again. There seems to be only one editor - if we don't count people unfamiliar with the topic - who can't hear that often enough. It's also not decided IF the liner notes are copyrighted. They are freely available on the internet, - I remember that in your very first review, you said it would be better to link to the original publisher's site. I will do that now, but really see no danger, not to the authors, not to the readers, and certainly not when the recordings, chorales, conductors etc. are concerned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately freely available is not synonymous with either freely licensed or public domain. I haven't looked into whether the various liners in question are or aren't copyvio, but just because they're posted elsewhere doesn't mean they aren't here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I thought that when you commented back in 2014, that would have come up, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I haven't consistently considered linkvio when doing source reviews, especially not at that time. The liner notes are reliable whether BC has the right to post them or not, the question is rather what link we should use (or no link at all). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am updating, for example using Monteverdi Choir instead of BCW for the Gardiner notes. Page numbers are different in their latest edition, so it takes time, - my program is doing it along the liturgical year. Simply removing the present links would also take time, but would - imo - not serve the reader who should have access to the complete notes, not just what an editor draws from them. - Both would not be enough for the one who worded "if we no longer consider that website a generally reliable source". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille Miller article

[edit]

Would you please stop undoing my edits of the Lucille Miller article? I added them to clarify her cause of death.

Thank you very much. 184.166.187.64 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, a dramatization is not a good source of biographical information, and "presumed" information tends towards original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

[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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the twelve image reviews you did at FAC during June. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Guild Cup (Adam van Vianen)

[edit]

Why did you remove the list of paintings from Memorial Guild Cup (Adam van Vianen)? The paintings are the reason the museum paid so much money for it! Jane (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane023: You can add a small gallery if you like, but we don't need that huge table, particularly since the cup isn't really visible in several of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cup is easily visible in all of them - maybe not in thumbnail mode. The ones with the claim but which I personally felt were not easily visible, are not in the list. I also don't see the difference between a list and a gallery. Why does it have to be a gallery? Jane (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You must have superb vision - I opened them all in full, and still couldn't see the cup in several. A gallery highlights the images and allows them to be displayed larger; it also omits data (like dimensions) that isn't salient to why the images are there in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. Not sure what browser you are using, but to be sure, I added notes on commons highlighting the precise area in each painting, and as I said, they are all quite clear and obvious (a few had the lid off as I recall, but all were quite recognzable from the picture I used in the article). I included dimensions to underline the importance of the paintings. These are certainly not cabinet pieces! Jane (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dimensions don't necessarily correlate to importance though. I really think having a gallery of a few prominent examples would be better than the big table. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are all prominent. In terms of importance, I was referring to the importance to the artist, not to our current interpretation of cultural importance (all well-documented paintings that have survived from the 17th-century are considered important today). A large commission was significantly more lucrative than a cabinet piece. After responding earlier, it occurred to me that the reason you can't see these is because you have media viewer turned on. You need to view the files on Commons to see the notes. Jane (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Media Viewer, and I don't agree we should care about importance to the artist in this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can agree to disagree on that. Since you also can't see the ewer in the paintings then I am restoring the list, since their importance is intertwined with the ewer and seeing the ewer in the paintings is necessary to judge the reason for having the list or not. Jane (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I've reformatted that as a gallery, as larger images will give readers a better chance of seeing the ewer in them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Gillan

[edit]

Just letting you know that a problematic editor has restored material at Josephine Gillan that you had removed as (rm unsourced/non-RS). AffeL has a history of this stuff and has recently gotten off a block for similar violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Off-topic explanation of why the user was blocked.
@Curly Turkey: Technically, he was blocked for an off-topic personal attack aimed at the two of us. The blocking admin recognized that the BLP/COPYVIO/OR/IDHT/everything else was an issue, but said that it should be addressed on ANI, and the subsequent ANI thread was essentially misinterpreted by the only two people who read my long opening report as a local dispute over an FAC, in which my saying that AffeL had demonstrated serious BLP/OR issues on a number of articles was taken as beinf at least as bad as AffeL demonstrating said issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locations

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I'm trying to understand why you're making edits to the infoboxes like [11]. I can understand the change of links from Socorro to Socorro Country (and I've changed the Wikidata entry accordingly). I'm ambivalent to whether the link to the state should be included. I don't understand why you're removing the link to United States though - particularly since that isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Knowing that the observatory is based in the US seems like an important fact to display to me? But if we want to hide the country in the infobox (or avoid linking it), that can be done more systematically through the template code.

In general, it would help me understand your edits and if you can give clearer reasons in the edit summaries than just "ce", or raise the issues on the template talk page so that a general solution can be found. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to United States is overlinking, as already mentioned - you could do "Socorro County, New Mexico, US" if you felt showing US was important. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as overlinking. If you know where New Mexico state is, then that's great. But can you say which country has the state of, say, Paraiba without looking it up? I think that showing (and linking) the county is important here if we're not assuming that our readers know all of the US states. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you can show it if you want to. But seeing as US is one of the examples specifically called out as overlinking in MOS, I don't think there's a good argument for it not being overlinking. Plus linking both would also be a SEAOFBLUE issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've taken out the links to the country articles now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but please don't take that to mean you should undo all my changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't simply been undoing them, I've been working through the cases and correcting info on Wikidata where needed / making sure that the new formatting is displaying things in the right way now. If there are still problems with any of them, please can you let me know? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Many of the US ones, including the example above, link in the format [[Socorro County, New Mexico|Socorro County]], [[New Mexico]]. This conflicts with MOS:LINK, specifically SEAOFBLUE (don't link two things in such a way that they appear as one); [[Socorro County, New Mexico]] is the more appropriate format. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Personally I prefer having the link to both the area and the state. But I'll see if I can code something up now that will display the links in the way that you want them. Please don't go through the articles again changing this for now, let me see if I can find a solution that works uniformly first. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also see if I can change the formatting for the USA links. Which is preferred, "United States" or "US"? You seem to have used both interchangably. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's both - "US" is generally used as the tag because it's shorter, but "United States" makes most sense when that's all there is. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is now implemented. See Magdalena Ridge Observatory and Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland Association. The other articles should have the same formatting once the cached versions clear (it can take a few hours for this to be the case since it's a template-in-a-template). Is that OK? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - will see how the others turn out. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apr to Jun 17 Milhist article reviewing

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 31 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Apr to Jun 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPLEAD

[edit]

About your revert: here

AFAIK, there is no related RFC about this, as it has long been agreed that we don't put in birthplace in the lead sentence. Also, the edit doesn't change the meaning of the paragraph, it just reduces the number of words. 12:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference of meaning between "not in the opening brackets" and "not in the lead sentence", and the RfC here discusses what should and shouldn't be in the opening brackets, elsewhere in the lead, and elsewhere in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone supports birthplace in the lead sentence outside of opening brackets. However, since you want to wait, I'll wait for next month after that RfC is over to make the edit. LK (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2017

[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.

Please do not remove the |alt parameter; it is used by screen readers for the visually impaired

[edit]

Please do not remove the |alt parameter; it is used by screen readers for the visually impaired[accessibility 1] & I specifically use it for that reason. Peaceray (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Alternative Text". WebAIM. 2017-03-29. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
@Peaceray: Having alt text that is identical to the caption is not useful, as screen readers state both. See WP:ALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Editorial: Core models and topics

[edit]

Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago.

The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005.

Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable.

In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed.

[edit]


Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

arc

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_35&oldid=1182058721"