Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 36

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

Back, and with a new PR

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well with you. After something of a break, I have recently been working on the militant suffragette Emily Davison—she of the 1913 Epsom Derby fame; the article is now at PR. Would you be able to have a look over the images for me? I'm happy with some (which I have uploaded), but I always appreciate a second set of eyes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 scheduled for TFA

[edit]

This is to let you know that the Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 9, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the music! "This article is a combination of classical music and military history: a concert during the Siege of Leningrad, supported by a Soviet military action. It's a great and touching story, and I hope you all enjoy "the symphony of heroes"." - I enjoy it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrika B. Cantwell

[edit]

Hi. I saw you took the "M.D." honorific suffix out of the infobox, so I thought the "Dr." honorific prefix was in order. You disagreed. Does that mean I shouldn't put any degree or "Dr." in the infobox of a physician biography? Should I be adding the "M.D" after her name in the lead? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yoninah, MOS:DOCTOR would have this information raised and explained in article text only, plus here you've got it in |education=. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Love (song)

[edit]

Can you check reference for any website name does not have wikilink? 115.164.180.73 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I'm not quite sure what you mean? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assata Shakur

[edit]

Hi, I proposed this article for FAR, but the editor who managed the promotion doesn't seem to be that active on wikipedia any more. I have done a lot of editing, but lots, lots more remains to be done, and I don't want to do that much more work on it, so maybe it so be shifted to be a candidate for removal? NPalgan2 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NPalgan2, we usually wait at least a couple of weeks before shifting articles - even if the nominator is inactive, others from relevant WikiProjects may be interested in helping out. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, do you think we've waited long enough now? NPalgan2 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit question

[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for the edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_J_Lindell&diff=793156111&oldid=793137657 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J_Lindell

Would you kindly reply and let me know the reason of removing "Birth date" and "Birth place" ?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mceditor444 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mceditor444, according to our policy on biographies of living people, personal information like that needs to be supported by reliable secondary sources to warrant inclusion. Self-published sources don't qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 31 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 seventeen image reviews and one source review you did during July. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Kay

[edit]

Hi there,

Just wondering why you've deleted the reference link to Lisa Kay's character appearance as Emma Bryden in Heartbeat (I think this has also been done to a contribution I made about the actress Hermione Gulliford) although the one about Kay's appearance in Bridget Jones's Diary remains.

Thanks.

Cybersub (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cybersub, the reference used for that appearance was not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. Oh, that surprises me. How come another wiki isn't deemed reliable? Don't get me wrong, I'm obviously glad the change that I made has remained, I just thought such changes had to be backed up, and a Heartbeat wiki seemed reasonable enough to me. Apologies if I've misunderstood Wikipedia policy/style.

Cybersub (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cybersub, see here regarding wikis. You're correct that everything should be backed up, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 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.

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 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) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Balfour

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, just a note to say thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Balfour Declaration/archive1 and let you know that I have responded with a few questions when you have time to take a look.

Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your further comments. I believe these have now been addressed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use question

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, hope all is well. I had a quick question for you re: fair use. I found a childhood image of Barry Voight, a geologist whose article I'm hoping to bring to FAC shortly, at this website, but it's been ages since I uploaded an image and I wanted to make sure it would be covered by fair use despite being a non-free image. Could you offer me some advice whether or not it qualifies? Thanks, ceranthor 19:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same question with this. ceranthor 22:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceranthor, non-free images are almost never accepted for living people because in theory a free image could easily be created - see WP:NFC#UUI. The exception would be if the image was somehow iconic/historic, and I'm not seeing an argument for that in either of your examples, unless I'm missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. I don't think you're missing anything - I guess I'll just have to keep looking for public domain images! Thanks! ceranthor 00:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article (Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7)

[edit]

Although I love Wikipedia, I am rarely moved by an article. What a fantastic piece of workmanship. Thank you, congratulations, and extremely well done. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to write the same. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers both! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Wikimania report

[edit]

Interviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing.

Internet-In-A-Box

Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages.

Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example.

"Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3.

[edit]
  • Plaudit for the Medical Wikipedia app, content that is loaded into Internet-In-A-Box with other material, such as per-country documentation.
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) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Kingdom of Greece

[edit]

Hi there, after seeing that you are a peer review volunteer, I was wondering if you can propose any changes for this article. I have already nominated it for Good Article and your contribution is really needed, since you are interested in Modern History.

Thanks! --Morretor (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Morretor: (1) Given the length of the article the lead should be considerably longer; (2) aim to have a minimum of one citation per paragraph; (3) be careful to maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, I'm new at this :(

[edit]

I'm trying to add information on a historical cold war event using first hand information (My father took part in the event, and has provided me with his transcript written at the time, along with telegrams to the vessel he was working on board, newspaper cuttings regarding the incident and photographs.)

I guess I'm not doing it correctly, but it is the most comprehensive and accurate first hand account available of the event. It is referenced elsewhere in only a few words without details which I can provide, such as the exact coordinates of the event and how the incident panned out. In order to make this information available publicly to future generations and historians I wanted to share it. Do you have any guidance on how I should be presenting it so it's not deleted?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrapheapchallenge (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapheapchallenge (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update, here's some of the reference material I was able to track down to corroborate the K-122 & ss Gari Incident on 21st August 1980, so I'm not soley relying on one source, however these references were removed alongside the rest of the text :(

Sources and references:

Telegram from Shell Tokyo to the Gari Telegram from IMR Tokyo to the Gari Telegram from Shell London to the Gari Newspaper clippings from unknown publication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-131 https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/659.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo-class_submarine http://www.chris-winter.com/Digressions/Nuke-Goofs/Refs-80.html http://lists.peacelink.it/armamenti/msg00252.html http://www.nks.org/download/pdf/NKS-Pub/NKS-96-RAK-2TR-C3.pdf http://fliphtml5.com/mcff/mjrd/basic https://maptia.com/markurquhart/stories/liquified-natural-gas

Scrapheapchallenge (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scrapheapchallenge. Generally speaking, Wikipedia's not the right venue for a firsthand account, as we prefer information from secondary sources. In order to preserve that account for future generations, I'd suggest either something like the Cold War Museum or a similar devoted source for such accounts. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Davison

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Thanks for your thoughts at the images on the Emily Davison article. The lady is now at FAC, should you wish to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

  • Library card
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
  • Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Songs for Voice, Viola and Piano

[edit]

Two Songs for Voice, Viola and Piano, - about the most stunning thing about these two songs is that No. 1 was composed much later than No. 2. Please find a way to show that in the infobox, if you have to "combine" two different pieces of music. - I think to handle them individually is the least confusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I don't find that particularly stunning, but the uncombined version actually said the opposite, which seems much more confusing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastbourne manslaughter scheduled for TFA rerun

[edit]

This is to let you know that the Eastbourne manslaughter article has been scheduled to be rerun as today's featured article for September 24, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 24, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, an article has just passed FAC with a good date connection to 24 September, so I have to schedule that instead of a rerun of your article. I'll rerun the manslaughter in January if Dan or Mike haven't used it before then, sorry, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location formatting

[edit]

Hi. Rather than working through individual Wikidata infoboxes and changing the formatting for the locations, it would save both of us time if you just said how you would prefer them to be formatted (ideally with links to relevant parts of the MOS). Then, as before, I can change them systematically through the template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, one part that seems easily fixable I've already mentioned - per MOS:LINK, formatting like [[Riverside, California|Riverside]], [[California]] should be replaced by [[Riverside, California]] or [[Riverside]], California as appropriate. Some of the issues likely cannot be fixed on the template side - eg. how we characterize the location of disputed entities ("Ukraine, Russia" is definitely not a good way to do it). As to the others:
  • Multiple locations of the same level should use templates rather than comma separation (MOS:HLIST)
  • Multi-part locations should be properly sorted from smallest to largest: neighbourhoods are smaller than cities, cities are (typically, though not always) smaller than islands. Sometimes we should also cut down on the number of parts - things like this may be accurate but look just silly.
  • "Near" is not the same as "in". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. The one you mentioned before should already be fixed, providing the appropriate article links/redirects exist. I'll have a think about the others. Mike Peel (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Doesn't seem to. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New page

[edit]

Hi I am trying to create a new page for the 2030 Winter Olympics but it will only let me start the page as 2030 Olympics and when I try to fix it it redirects me to the Winter Olympics Wikipedia page... I am not sure why this is and why I can't change and update my new page Wifey93 (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wifey93, the page 2030 Winter Olympics already exists as a redirect to Winter Olympic Games, and that page is fully protected after being nominated for deletion. If you wanted the page to be unprotected (and have sources to support an article), you can talk to the admin who closed the deletion nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 3 September 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 image reviews and the prose review you did during August. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some falafel for you!

[edit]
For holding my hand through image licence issues. Much appreciated! Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 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) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing question

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I am currently working on bringing Brothers Poem up to scratch for nomination as a featured article, and I had a quick question about image licensing which I thought you might be able to help me with. The article uses this image, which is tagged as PD-Self. Am I right in thinking that along with a PD tag for the photograph, the image also requires a PD tag for the sculpture itself? If so, is PD-old-100-1923 the appropriate template to use?

Thanks,

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, you're correct on the first question. On the second... Italy is complicated. For our purposes, the tag you propose should be okay. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think I've done it right? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding non RS

[edit]

Hi. I wanted to thank you for enforcing rigor in identifying RSs. Being human, I was initially annoyed with this edit to our Guide number article where you stated in your edit summary that this link had to go because it was part of Camerapedia.wikia.com and therefore wasn't an RS. I didn’t realize it was a wiki and was therefore the product of drive-by shootings by anyone who wished to type whatever they wanted. So…

I located an old 1937 article in Popular Photography and found that the aluminum foil specification was in error (surprise) by a factor of ten! The aluminum foil in the Sashalite according to Popular Photography was “about one-tenth the thickness of a human hair” (around 5–7 microns), not the 0.5 microns in Wikia.com.

So I corrected the stated thickness and buttressed that sentence with two, better citations. I appreciate your treading lightly and giving me time to go hunting for better citations… and discover what happens when one accidentally cites to a damned wiki. I’ve got about 1000 edits to our Guide number article and figure I must have a couple of hundred more to go before I fatigue out. Regards. Greg L (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Daisy E. Nirdlinger

[edit]

Nikkimaria, the nomination has been ticked again; I wanted to make sure all of your concerns have been addressed. In particular, I wasn't aware the WP:CWW could be satisfied by ex post facto paraphrasing (and suspect it can't be). Leaving this to you to decide what if anything to do at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 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 there! I saw you listed under Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC#Mentors, and having noticed your fastidious attention to details in this DYK nomination, thought I would ask you about three articles that just passed GA. The real question is whether they have a shot at becoming FAs? They are all relatively short articles on minor subjects, yet cover all the literature on each.

  1. Guilden Morden boar
  2. Tjele helmet fragment
  3. Gevninge helmet fragment

Thanks for any feedback! --Usernameunique (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernameunique. I'm not able to assess whether they indeed cover all literature on the topics, but assuming they do, I see no reason why they would be precluded from becoming FAs.
  • I'd suggest reviewing the image tagging, as each article has at least one that I'd query on review.
  • Will look at. Would you mind giving me a heads up on the problems in Guilden Morden boar, specifically? That's the article I would like to nominate for FA first.
  • Guilden_Morden_grave_goods_drawing.png: since we don't know whether it was the father or son who drew this, both would need to have died over 70 years ago to use that life+70 tag. I'm also wondering about the other tag, since the scanning website suggests they believe copyright persists on the images, but unfortunately they don't include the front matter from individual issues. This one needs a US PD tag, but since it's a 3D work we also need to account for the copyright of the photographer. (Swedish copyright law is very unhelpful as regards freedom of panorama). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, thanks very much for letting me know about that. Seriously useful, and—undoubtedly your intent—has pointed out a number of problems to correct. Not to mention the cleanup I'll have to do on this page.
  • More information on exhibition of each would be helpful if available
  • I'll see what I can find. Do you suggest something along the lines of this section? If not, are you just interested in more information, or a dedicated sub-section?
  • Gevninge: does footnote 17 draw the link between this artifact and Beowulf explicitly?
  • Yes, it's actually quite explicit. Here's a link to Google Translate with the text from the source. The source quotes Beowulf lines 234–243. At risk of indulgence (the poetry is both pretty and on point), I have quoted lines 229–257 in the article.
  • Not that has been published, and I seriously doubt it. Hardly anything about its location is known—just the parish in which it was found—and considering the context of coprolite workings, it was probably dug out and destroyed after the grave goods were taken.
Thanks a lot for taking the time to look at those! You raise a lot of useful points. I've responded to the specific points above, and will make changes to the articles accordingly. Afterwards I'll probably take them through FA individually. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique: (talk page watcher comment): glad to see that these may come to FAC. Just a note about the Heaney translation -- arguably very apposite, but since the translation is still in copyright, can we really justify fair use? It's a big chunk of the poem. An out-of-copyright version would work, of course, though it would be hard to match the poetry of Heaney's lines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question Mike Christie. I'm not really sure, although the amount of space it takes on a screen may make it seem deceptively long; at only 28 lines out of 3182, it accounts for less than 1% of the poem. (Compare with 50 lines published in The New York Review of Books; though likely done so with the permission of Seamus Heaney or his publisher, it was nevertheless not seen as enough to dilute the marketability of the work.) At the same time, almost every one of the 28 lines relates to the watchman's role, in an outpost on the river (compare with Gevninge), of guarding Heorot (compare with Lejre). But if there's a way to definitively answer the question of fair use, please let me know. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be honest and say I've not run into this much on Wikipedia; I've read discussions of it in other contexts (e.g. use of long quotes in novels, or of sampling in music). Nikki, do you have an opinion? There is a copyright noticeboard where you could try asking the question: WP:CQ. They mostly deal with media files but I think the issues are similar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our guidance is WP:COPYQUOTE, which doesn't give a particular percentage or word/line count. However, given external guidance like this, I don't see this as a copyright so much as a style issue (it does take up a lot of real estate given the short length of the article). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. The guidelines do seem fairly lenient, but you are right that the quotation takes up a lot of space (and the white space to the right stands out). I'll try to think of some solutions.
Regarding the images, Herbert Fordham (the father, who discovered the boar) died in 1891, while his son, Herbert George Fordham, died in 1929. So both are covered by life +70. Also, having thought about it, it is impossible for the son to have been the person who drew the grave goods sketch. He did not mention it in his 1903 article, instead writing that "No further information as to the date of the find, its site (even approximately), or the particular objects found, is now, unfortunately, available." Had he drawn the sketch, he would thereby have had further information about the other objects, and the skeleton found with them. I would guess that he came upon the sketch when he donated items to the British Museum, and donated it also.
To clarify, there is no issue with the 1904 sketch of just the boar? Meanwhile, I will see what I can come up with with the photograph. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image? It seems fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the image over which there was an issue (Guilden Morden boar#Typology) with a photograph by a user that has an acceptable license. Nikki or Mike Christie, any last suggestions on the Guilden Morden boar article before I take it to FA? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that new image, check out commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do the two new copyright tags take care of it (life +100, and life +70)? Odd that after adding the life +100, it directed me to add another (life +70) to take care of US copyright; one would think that life +100 would subsume life +70. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is complicated first because of FOP questions and second because the actual artifact is from Sweden, the photo was taken of a replica in Germany, and we are (legally) on a US site. Assuming it's an exact replica it would garner no new copyright, so what I'd actually suggest doing is removing the life+100 tag and moving the life+70 one above the CC tag. That should cover all bases with regards to potential copyright claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks again for your help, which definitely improved the article: the images for one, and also in making me track down the German exhibition book which turned out to have some useful information on Beowulf. I have now nominated the article for FA. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

Editorial: Conservation data

[edit]

The IUCN Red List update of 14 September led with a threat to North American ash trees. The International Union for Conservation of Nature produces authoritative species listings that are peer-reviewed. Examples used as metonyms for loss of species and biodiversity, and discussion of extinction rates, are the usual topics covered in the media to inform us about this area. But actual data matters.

Dorstenia elata, a critically endangered South American herb, contained in Moraceae, the family of figs and mulberries

Clearly, conservation work depends on decisions about what should be done, and where. While animals, particularly mammals, are photogenic, species numbers run into millions. Plant species lie at the base of typical land-based food chains, and vegetation is key to the habitats of most animals.

ContentMine dictionaries, for example as tabulated at d:Wikidata:WikiFactMine/Dictionary list, enable detailed control of queries about endangered species, in their taxonomic context. To target conservation measures properly, species listings running into the thousands are not what is needed: range maps showing current distribution are. Between the will to act, and effective steps taken, the services of data handling are required. There is now no reason at all why Wikidata should not take up the burden.

[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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New PR, new (probable) image problems

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well with you. I have recently been working on the rather shocking Aberfan disaster; the article is now at PR. Would you be able to cast your eagle eye over the images for any licence problems? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books trimming

[edit]

Gday Nikkimaria, thanks for your edit on St Collins Lane. I was wondering how to tell where you can trim a Google Books URL to? I use quite a few of these citations and it's obviously preferable I can do it myself! Triptothecottage (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Triptothecottage, see this discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum Party

[edit]

Hi Nikki; I hope that you do not mind me messaging you on your user Talk Page but I have a query that you may be able to help me with. I am currently taking Referendum Party through FAC (four statements of support, source review done, just waiting for an image review) and one of the reviewers, User:Brianboulton, suggested that the article would benefit from an image of James Goldsmith, for whom the party was essentially a personal vehicle. Problematically, we do not have any free images of him. As you are generally recognised as our resident expert on such things, I was hoping that you might be able to provide advice as to whether this is an instance where we could get away with using a non-free image or whether you think that it would not be acceptable given that readers can already go to the James Goldsmith page if they want to see what he looked like. Thanks in advance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightblueowl, I think it would be possible to design an FUR to support an image of him in that article, particularly if you could find one directly related to the party (eg. at a meeting of some kind) rather than just a random image of him. (The one already in the Goldsmith article is mistagged and poorly justified - if you do end up using that one you'll need to do some editing there). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few images of Goldsmith canvassing or attending meetings during the 1997 campaign – this or this or this are examples. I think a fair use rationale would be justified in any of these cases. The article's promotion is not dependent on such an image, but I think would be enhanced by it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki, and thanks for your suggested images Brian; I'll start looking in to putting a fair use description together for one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

winter 2030 page

[edit]

HI Replying to your comment. This is in regards to a page that I had made and I was just adding in my references but I was doing it on my phone and within 5 minutes it was taken down before i could post. Not sure why. I wasn't been able to locate it.

Hi Wifey93, if you're talking about 2030 Olympics, it looks like you created a blank page and then someone added a redirect. They probably didn't know you were working on content to add. You might consider using a userspace draft to have the content all ready to go before moving it to mainspace. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I received a message about contributing to a redirect but I can't seem to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wifey93, you mean this page? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Officeholder

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Thank you for your help on both the archive and the Template Talk page. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Regards. Steve... Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inhumans: The First Chapter

[edit]

Oh, I know. I tried to move it normally, but because there was laready a page there it refused to move, and I had to do it like that.

@Georgina V Hobart: In the case that you're not able to move a page yourself, you should use the requested moves process. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the fifteen image reviews you did during September. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jul to Sep 2017 Milhist article reviewing

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 29 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Jul to Sep 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, just to let you know that the template has (finally) been successfully amended. See here for example. Thanks for reminding me to push it over the line. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I just wanted to let you know – in the contect of your FAC image review – that I have just added one more image in this edit to the Balfour Declaration article. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Image itself is fine, caption should use endash instead of hyphen. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

onlysourced

[edit]

Please point me to where the consensus to change from 'onlysourced=no' to 'onlysourced=yes' is, or revert your edits. Mike Peel (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've reverted them for you. Please see Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft - this is one of the things I think that we need to ask and find out what the consensus is, but for now please leave onlysourced=no in the templates (except for infobox person/wikidata due to BLP). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Per Rex's reply to you here, I think it would be more appropriate to implement that improvement immediately. If you want to add sources, great, but you can do that with or without the information displayed here in the interim - there is no "breathing room" consideration, no one is proposing removing the information from Wikidata. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but when we did this change for infobox person, there is a trend for blank Wikidata infoboxes to be removed before I can un-blank them again by finding the references. I don't want the same to happen again. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "every article that has such a template must retain it" is a good rationale to avoid improving the templates. If a template for which no parameters are sourced is removed, that's not a major problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, if you want to change the default behaviour of an infobox, it's far better to go into the design of the infobox and replace the relevant instances of | onlysourced = {{{onlysourced|no}}} with | onlysourced = {{{onlysourced|}}}. That allows a little more flexibility and also encourages infobox designers to follow best practice, rather than hard-coding values like "yes" or "no" in the design. That's much easier to do and far more scaleable than going to lots of articles and adding |onlysourced=yes. Of course for fields like ICD-10 or official website, it's perfectly reasonable to set | onlysourced={{{onlysourced|no}}} in the infobox design. The only other thing that may be temporary hindrance is that editors may be in the process of converting to a Wikidata-aware infobox – like Mike is with {{infobox telescope}} – so may want some time to see what's available and improve the sourcing on Wikidata. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: I did that first, and was selective about which parameters. Mike reverted all of those changes, not only to the telescope template but to all of them (including the /wikidata ones, which were not converted). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Please give me a bit of time to add references to the Wikidata values, and I'll add the changes back. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: I missed {{infobox product}} in my first round; are you going to try to do the same with that, or can I amend it? There are also several templates that don't appear to use WikidataIB; those should likely be converted. Would like to get those improvements implemented reasonably soon. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest asking @Laurdecl: about that one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he hasn't edited since June. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 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.

Discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal. Smerus (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

Not sure how it got changed, but 45 minutes ago, it was a "person page." Thanks for replying. LisaRae7 LisaRae7 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

Editorial: Annotations

[edit]

Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead?

1495 print version of the Digesta of Justinian, with the annotations of the glossator Accursius from the 13th century

ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning.

As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine require special attention to sourcing (WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided.

Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions.

An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page.

[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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
  • Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
  • Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donner Party article

[edit]

Hi. I see you reverted my edit to the 'In popular culture' section. I referred to a discussion of the Donner Party in the movie "The Shining" and you said it was inadequately referenced. Can you advise as to what kind of reference you'd like? I can provide the IMDb link to the movie, but I am not sure it would be all that informative. How about the time into the movie (minutes and seconds) when the discussion occurs? Here is a clip of the relevant part of the movie, if that helps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RJm4iynxU0 Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PointOfPresence, per this discussion such entries require reliable secondary sources that indicate not only that the existence but also the significance of the mention. Neither IMDb nor the film itself would meet that standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the response. I was under the impression that merely a mention of something in a movie was sufficient. That is the case in other wikipedia articles, certainly. For example, Red_bean_paste. But there is a reference to it here which I can add - http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%2012.html. Or alternatively, from the New Republic, here https://newrepublic.com/article/112573/room-237-why-shining-continues-shine ok? PointOfPresence (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not the second. Potentially the first, but because Donner Party is a featured article, it must use high-quality sources, and I'm not sure the first qualifies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add the first and see. This can be added too as backup http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/faq#.2.1.112 or even wikiquuote (surely that qualifies!) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Shining_(film) Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No and no - neither of those are considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I wonder about WP sometimes. I totally get that things need to be sourced, verified etc. WP has come a long way and I welcome that. But editors can sometimes go too far. Here is a case of something which we both know is factually correct, and yet I am being prevented from adding it to an article. Who benefits from that? PointOfPresence (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that is factually correct warrants inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Yes the source is indeed reliable, it has a SCREENSHOT from the Call of Duty Black Ops Zombies map MOON. Look: http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Excavator Would you like me to post YouTube video links of people playing the video game Call of Duty Black Ops, on the multiplayer map "Radiation," on the Zombies map "Moon" and on the campaign/story mission "Vorkuta"? Here are two Black Ops Zombies map "Moon" gameplay videos with the Bagger Excavators (skip to 26 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-DAEqy6a5w (Skip to 44 seconds of the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe9earRMerE The loading page of the multiplayer map "Radiation" has the Bagger Excavator on the loading page of the map as well. Here is the Black Ops Multiplayer map "Radiation" with the Bagger Excavator (skip to 52 seconds of the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2epWPwVaeA And if you skip to 2 minutes 45 seconds of the video you will see the Bagger Excavator in the background, in fact, I have link of the video with the specific time with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2epWPwVaeA And here is the link of Black Ops campaign/story map "Vorkuta" with the Bagger Excavator in the background: (Skip to 5 minutes and 30 seconds of the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeEEN0tuSn0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze 007 (talk • contribs)

I would not like you to post any of those things, actually. Take a look at our guide to what is a reliable source, as well as this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's true either way. Regardless of the source. Also, how is the source "unreliable" if the SOURCE I posted HAS A SCREENSHOT OF A BAGGER EXCAVATOR IN THE VIDEO GAME CALL OF DUTY BLACK OPS?

Just because something is "true" doesn't mean we must include it. Did you read the discussion I linked above? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the source "unreliable" if the SOURCE I posted HAS A SCREENSHOT OF A BAGGER EXCAVATOR IN THE VIDEO GAME CALL OF DUTY BLACK OPS? Have you actually clicked on both pages of the source I put? Did you view the screenshots? View the SCREENSHOTS which is photographic evidence. I have empirical evidence.

I have seen the source you posted. Have you seen any of the pages I've linked for you above? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This honestly seems personal. Maybe you hate video games? I have no idea why this is so personal to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze 007 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze 007: It's not at all personal, but you do need to engage in discussion on the article talk pages rather than continuing to restore material without appropriate sourcing, as that's disruptive. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zashiki Warashi

[edit]

Why did you revert my edit, it is a true piece of information. The character I mentioned is a zashiki warashi. IronBridge (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IronBridge: You need to add a reliable secondary source to support the significance of that entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

[edit]
Happy Halloween!

Hello Nikkimaria:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – LinguistunEinsuno 21:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Coordinators/Signup#Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Coordinators/Signup#Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:42, 4 November 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-two FAC image reviews and three source reviews you did during October. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax explosion scheduled for TFA on December 6, 2017

[edit]

This is to let you know that the Halifax explosion article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 6, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 6, 2017.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "the largest man-made explosion before the development of nuclear weapons. It was also a key moment in Canadian history, one that is still studied and commemorated to this day."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New step when pulling DYK nominations

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I don't think anyone ever mentioned this to you, but there's a new step needed when we pull nominations back from prep, and that is adding back the nomination template transclusion to the DYK nominations page.

One of the things that happened back when we split the nominations page into nominations and approved pages earlier this year is that we inaugurated a new bot that moves the nominations from the original nominations page to the new approved page once it is given a tick. The bot also deletes closed nominations—approved or rejected—from those pages. (It runs every two hours.)

The result of this is that, except in very rare occasions, the nomination template is no longer transcluded on one of those pages to be made visible again by reopening the nomination, and it's frequently not missed. I just discovered one that had gone missing back in September, Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Henry Cronin, which I've resurrected and notified the nominator—you'd found some clear close paraphrasing that needed fixing.

Since the nomination is no longer approved when it gets pulled, I prefer to put it back on the nominations page rather than the approved page, because it's more obvious that it needs work; I think some people may pull back to approved page, which while I don't prefer it, it isn't wrong. The key thing is to make it visible to everyone once again. If this is too much of a pain, feel free to ping me when you do a pull and I'll be happy to take care of it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, the nominator says that the close paraphrasing has been taken care of in the Patrick Henry Cronin article; can you please check to see whether you are satisfied that it has been? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following up: the nominator has made some additional changes, but thinks more is not necessary. Can you please check again? Thanks as always for your diligence in checking for close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BlueMoonset, looks like the nominator indicated that he wanted a second opinion on the matter? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you're the best we have when it comes to checking close paraphrasing, I'd like to have your current opinion—if the article's now okay, I know you'll say so, while if you think it's problematic enough you'd be likely to pull it from prep anyway, which is something I think we should try to avoid. I don't know whether this is a case of a limited number of ways to say something, though in my experience, there frequently are ways to handle it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it's still problematic - even the most recent example, which is only partially fixed - and that it's not a problem of limited possible wording. More broadly, AFAICT the nom has been fixing specific examples pointed out but hasn't taken a broader look at sources, which is an issue in itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the nom has fixed specific points you raised but not looked for others. I tried comparing it with this site using duplicate detector and I can see similarities in sentence structure with various minor word changes. If it was a short article, I might rewrite it, but as it is quite long, I don't fancy the task. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth, since the nominator wanted a second opinion, perhaps you could post same to the nomination. Some people who edit at Wikipedia need to have their sense of what makes acceptable vs. close paraphrasing recalibrated, and it is usually easier to avoid the original wording than they think. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Elizabeth Burchfield Richter

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I've a favour to ask. I'm doing a GAR on the above American painter, here Talk:Martha Elizabeth Burchfield Richter/GA1. It's almost done but I'm not sure about the article's images. There are only three, and I think the infobox one is ok, but am less sure about this [1] and this [2]. Images are not my forte, as you know, and if you had time to cast your eye over them, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks and regards in advance. KJP1 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: October 2017

[edit]


Headlines
  • Australia and New Zealand report: Adding Australian women in research to Wikipedia
  • Brazil report: Integrating Wikimedia projects into the Brazilian National Archives GLAM
  • Bulgaria report: Botevgrad became the first wikitown in Bulgaria
  • France report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Opérations Libres
  • Germany report: GLAMorous activities in October
  • Italy report: Experts training on GLAM projects
  • Serbia report: Wikipedian in residence at Historical Archives of Subotica; Model of a grain of wheat exlusivly digitized for Wikimedia Commons; Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and Information and Wikimedia Serbia - GLAM presentations and workshops for museums, archives and libraries
  • Spain report: Women Writers Day
  • Sweden report: Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Connected Open Heritage; Internetmuseum; More Working life museums
  • UK report: Scotland's Libraries & Hidden Gems
  • Ukraine report: Wikitraining for Librarians; Library Donation
  • USA report: trick or treat
  • Wikidata report: WikidataCon & Birthday
  • WMF GLAM report: News about Structured Commons!
  • Calendar: November'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.

RIPM access

[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, I received approval email for access to RIPM resources through The Wikipedia Library on 10/10/2017 but still have not got any details for access! could you please inform me what is the situation ? Kind Regards --Déjà vu (Talk) 02:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Déjà vu, I've emailed them to see what's going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help --Déjà vu (Talk) 13:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angel of Grief

[edit]

I just undid your edit at Angel of Grief because it appears that, in your "re-write" you removed a lot of good material. Maybe it needed to go, but it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Wikipedia is not what I want it to be. Carptrash (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Houston needs work

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria: Advice requested. There are various issues with the Houston article, which earned FA-status in 2007. I am making my own efforts to improve the article while posting issues at Talk:Houston. (I am a low-status editor, so maybe I am not supposed to complain. I have never accused anyone of bad faith and don't make the discussions personal.) In many places the article contains information dated to 2010 and 2007, as indicated by a tag in the Transportation section from 2016. Even worse, it is so easy to find references that fail verification. I have provided some other sources in recent edits, but this is an article requiring a comprehensive update. With an article of this size, this needs the same kind of effort that brought the article to FA back in 2007. Thank you for reading, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldsanfelipe, the best thing to do might be to open a Featured Article review and post about it to the WikiProjects listed on the talk page. That can draw in interested editors to help fix up the article, and if needed can result in the article's FA status being removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I have not never been involved in this process, so I am looking for a little guidance to make sure I am following the rules. In Wiki-speak, I guess I am nominating the article for FAR. Should I put the template on the main page or the talk page? Thanks again, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oldsanfelipe, the template goes at the top of the article talk page. There are instructions on how to create the nomination at the FAR page, but you're welcome to ask for more help if you get stuck while going through those. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Nikimaria: Is this posted correctly? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oldsanfelipe, looks good, just needs to be posted to the FAR page (step 5). I'd also encourage you to notify more WikiProjects and any interested users, as that would increase the chances of getting a good set of people to help improve the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is beyond my capabilities. I can help with some of it, though. cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed how sloppy I was with my last response. Here is my reset. I posted to the FAR page. I posted a notice to WikiProjects Cities, Texas, and Houston. There are some people lurking on the review page, but no response as yet. I have made a few improvements to the article on my own. cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017

[edit]
WikidataCon 2017 group photo

Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries.

WD-FIST explained

And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there.

Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands.

[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:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

[edit]

As you may know, I find the vendetta against the Mail a leftist absurdity, it is an award-winning paper with all the same editorial controls and legal support as any other British print newspaper. It's particularly laughable, as there seems to be no similar vendetta against the controlled organs of totalitarian states. In any event, when you are removing citations from the Mail, you should not also remove the text they support, as you did this morning at Koo Stark. Instead, it would be more helpful to leave it but add a {{cn}} template. Very often another reference can be found quite easily. Simply removing text without going through that process is not good practice. Moonraker (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, poorly sourced material should be removed immediately rather than tagged, and not restored without better sourcing. If you think there are other sources that should be so classified, by all means raise them at RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, per WP:DAILYMAIL: "The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects", "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically" and "Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate". I've reverted you a few times because I find it incredible lazy to just delete Daily Mail sources, especially ones that were in articles when DM was perfectly reliable. However, I can't check every contribution you've made so I'd encourage you to check your contributions and work on reviewing and replacing any sources you have removed. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 06:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. Note that "historically" in that context refers to significantly older issues (definitely not 21st century), and "correct in a particular case" does not mean "perfectly reliable". And of course you are also free to replace them rather than simply reverting, if you disagree that removal is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're following WP:BLP by removing instead of tagging poorly sourced information, but really I'm just sad for the potential loss of information. If it's an article I care about then I'll probably try to find another source, but otherwise I shall just let it go as it only affects people who want to read that article, which probably isn't me! — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 16:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, can you confirm that you won't remove Daily Mail sources for TV episode or character reviews? Thanks. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 16:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello

[edit]

hello Ironfist4500 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)ironfist4500[reply]

Elcor, Minnesota

[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Can I ask you to take a look at the images and licensing for the FAC Elcor, Minnesota once more? I believe all of the images are properly licensed now (one of which is being claimed as fair use, which I hope does not disqualify it from the article). I also have finally managed to track down the source that was missing for the remaining image (File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg) as well. Thanks. DrGregMN (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrGregMN, that last is the remaining issue, from the looks of things - if this was an archival file it may not have been published before 1923. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksNikkimaria. I should be okay here. The Superintendent of Mines files for this period are archived by volume at the Minnesota Historical Society, segregated by year and topic in several different boxes. Although I initially found the plat in the Minnesota Collection of the Reference Section at Wilson Library at the University of Minnesota, it took me several weeks (well, a couple weekends) at the Minnesota Historical Society to track down the actual plat. Its regrettable none of the files are digitized at this point, but here's a link to the holdings: http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/audit002.xml. I have to say there was an awe-inspiring connection to the past paging through these files, many of them handwritten by then Frank Wildes, then Superintendent of Mines in Minnesota, while searching for this document. DrGregMN (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Nikkimaria. I have re-licensed the image File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat_2.jpg to hopefully address your concerns. If this acceptable, would you consider moving the article forward? DrGregMN (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DrGregMN, thanks for that. I'm wondering why the image caption states the map is c. 1921 if the image description states it could be as late as 1926? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back so quick Nikkimaria. I can change the image description to c. 1921-1926, but I did not know if this was an acceptable element of style. I you feel it acceptable, I will change it. DrGregMN (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DrGregMN, you can use "c. 1921–1926" in the caption if that's an accurate representation of what the source says about its provenance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Nikkimaria! DrGregMN (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Garrett - Stillwell, OK

[edit]

I would disagree and say he is a pretty notable person. Refer to the five references I listed, which prove that he had some sort of internet recognition and that he was a resident of Stillwell. Also, Wikipedia defines a notable person as :

"worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.

I would say that Frank Garrett's impact is unusual, remarkable, and allowed him to become a small internet sensation. I think this qualifies him, personally.

138.247.97.94 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, there is actually a separate standard for "notability" with regards to Wikipedia articles, which is summarized at WP:Notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian place names

[edit]

Hello, I started a discussion at User talk:Alaney2k. I notice you also use an automated system to update Canadian place name wikilinks. If you want to comment there, please do. Flibirigit (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mishmar HaEmek

[edit]

Nikkimaria, Cwmhiraeth reviewed this and noted some issues pointed up by Earwig. The nominator made some edits that day, but a couple of weeks later made further edits to the article to address other copyvio issues. Can I ask you to please do your own check of the article for any copyvio or close paraphrasing issues that may be there now? It's quite unfortunate that there were any, given that this was promoted to GA at the beginning of this month, but sometimes DYK acts as a backstop to GAN. Thank you for whatever you can do, and please report the current status on the DYK nomination page when you're done. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVIII Tranche Project Audit

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVIII Tranche Project Audit. The Milhist project is undergoing an internal audit, as a former coordinator, I invite to join the process and enhance the Project. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Phillips FAC

[edit]

Just a heads up that I found some more information regarding the images on the article, and noted it at the FAC. Not sure if you saw or not. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think you could give an updated comment on this? I've gotten about all the information I can for them, and don't think there should be any further issues regarding their publication date at this point. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again (hopefully for the last time), want to take a look? Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Meghan Markle (ancestry)

[edit]

I cleaned up the section a lot, right about the time you were adding the undue weight tag. It was previously reflective of the other editor putting their arguments in the article text, rather than on the talk page where they belong. Right now I feel like it no longer gives undue weight to the immediate "everything is true" bias of genealogical journalism. On the one hand, only some genealogists feel that the connection is real, but they are the loudest and being copied and retweeted constantly.

I am curious, however, as to which sources you are finding to be unreliable. I hope you see the unreliable ones as the Daily Mail and Telegraph, getting clickbait money from researchers throwing trees together, not the genealogical journals or the forum posts by published genealogists such as Paul C. Reed Satyadasa (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like since your post, a number of self-published sources and some original research has been removed by another editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image questions

[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. I've been working on Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography, with the intentions of taking it to FLC eventually. I've been wondering about the images I could use here. All book covers are non-free, and so far fair-use has only been applied for articles on the books themselves. I'm wondering, though, if I could use a fair use rationale for this list as well; and if so, how many images it would be possible to justify. Any advice you have would be appreciated. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles - generally speaking using book covers as visual identifiers in that sort of list would be discouraged, especially where an article on the individual work exists. You might be able to get away with a book cover that illustrates multiple works (eg. a short-story collection). Alternatively, what about images of eg. the awards won? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. I'll look into the "pictures of collections" option, though at the moment I've excluded volumes that are just reissues; Le Guin has been published in too many editions and too many collections for that to be practical. The list currently only includes collections that have some previously non-collected material, meaning that each of them is likely to be notable in its own right. For a similar reason, I've removed awards from this page for now; there's just too damn many! but I might have to reconsider that. Thanks again. Vanamonde (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the citation?

[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria, referring to the article on Cthulhu, I'm wondering why you deleted the citation I used for the bit about South Park. Please let me know. I will revert if I don't get a response, assuming it was a mistake. JCvP 16:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jvpwiki, that's not a reliable source - see WP:SPS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick and clear response. I read WP:SPS and re-read the citation, and I think the citation should be included. It adds considerable background about how Cthulu is represented in media, but too much to be included in the main article. Please take a glance at the citation http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Cthulhu and let me know if you object to its inclusion. JCvP 16:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jvpwiki, I still disagree with including it, as I don't feel it's reliable. If you think it is, I'd suggest raising the question at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 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-five FAC image reviews you did during November. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This

[edit]

I'm not sure you understand, or that I understand you. When I say that BRD applies in all namespaces, that applies to the bullet in question as well. The added text is true in all namespaces. —swpbT go beyond 20:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to remove that bullet then, as it's partly duplicative anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss on talk first. The bullet was proposed for nearly a month with support and no unaddressed concerns. It has the status of de facto consensus. —swpbT go beyond 20:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you feel there were no unaddressed concerns; however, the actual RfC section did have an unstruck oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's unreasonable. I addressed PaleoNeonate's comment directly, and solicited them twice with pings and days-long waits for a response. There was none. That's not a valid reason to hold up closure. —swpbT go beyond 20:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't close your own RfC in favour of your change when there isn't a drop-dead-obvious consensus, even if you think you've done what's reasonable to address opposition. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then make your case on the talk page. Address the content of the bullet. I will open a new RfC, wait as long as it takes, and ask for a formal closure if I need to. Incidentally, were you aware of the discussion before today? —swpbT go beyond 20:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. I only noticed your change to the page today, and read the RfC after that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then a follow-up: do you follow WP:BRD? Because talk edits appear on your watchlist the same as content-page edits. You might imagine it's incredibly frustrating to watch a proposal for a month, to see opposition sufficient to halt the change appear only once the edit is made. I made every reasonable effort to get a consensus before adding the bullet, and I vehemently deny any suggestion otherwise. —swpbT go beyond 21:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand that sentiment - apologies for not noticing the issues earlier. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are you insisting on commenting under the old RfC? As Flyer22 Reborn noted, that RfC expired long before you came along. The only effect of your comment there, as opposed to below, it to give the false impression that the original RfC received more opposition than it did. Please edit in clean good faith and move or remove the comment there. —swpbT go beyond 21:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bot automatically removes the tag after 30 days; that doesn't mean people are forbidden from commenting any further. The comment in question was in response to the original RfC, not the new one you've just posted, and is appropriately placed there rather than under a new discussion that was only posted after it was made. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, your comment is not a response to the original RfC, which had different text. I guess you're going to keep it there; fine. But I'd like you to really imagine why I might have multiple problems with how you've handled process and attitude. —swpbT go beyond 21:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...As I made the comment I'd like to think I'm best positioned to know what it was and wasn't in response to. If you feel so strongly about the issue I will remove the comment, but I also disagree with how you're approaching "process". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as a sign of good faith, I do feel strongly about it. Worry about your own handling of process, and I will mine; for the record, I've been absolutely nailing appropriate process from the start on this proposal. —swpbT go beyond 21:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on that point. Again, I apologize for not seeing the discussion earlier, and I understand why the sequence of events today was upsetting to you; hopefully we can reach some sort of agreement on the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Henry Cronin

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I closed this nomination as unsuccessful a short while ago—the nominator doesn't have time at present to work on the close paraphrasing issues in the article, and it's been that way for weeks. I did ping you saying I'd let you decide whether the issues were serious enough to warrant adding a template to the article, but only just now remembered that pings frequently don't work for notifying you, so I'm posting this here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harris County, Texas

[edit]

Nikkimaria:

I noticed that you handle some COPYVIO issues. I just read the history section of Harris County, Texas and this looks like a very close paraphrase of [3]. I know enough about this topic and have access to enough secondary sources to do a rewrite, but I don't have the time right now. What should I do in the mean time? thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldsanfelipe, I'd suggest first checking to see if there's a clean version in the history that could be restored - if so that would be a fairly easy fix. If not, you can add {{subst:copyvio|url=https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fha85}} to the start of the section and </div> at the end, and then follow the filing instructions that will appear at the bottom of the template. A less extreme option would be using a {{copypaste}} or {{close paraphrasing}} tag instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria:
The "close paraphrasing" template uses the phrase "close paraphrasing of non-free content." I raised the issue in regard to possible plagiarism, but invoked COPYVIO, probably in error. I am not sure that the content on the website of the Handbook of Texas Online is "non-free content." My view of textual plagiarism is probably a product of culture orientation: it should be avoided regardless of the source. Some of the Wikipedia material suggests that close paraphrasing is ok if there is no valid copyright. So I am both hesitant to post a template asserting a policy that I do not understand, but desiring to edit content which I believe is plagiarized. The central question: does a close paraphrase of an article from the Handbook of Texas Online violate Wikipedia policy?
Thank you for considering my question, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oldsanfelipe, COPYVIO comes into play primarily when the source for the material uses a license not compatible with ours (so anything less free than CC BY-SA). Looking at the TSHA website, they state that their materials are copyrighted and online redistribution is prohibited without permission. Given that and the closeness of the paraphrasing at issue, it would indeed be a policy violation with regards to COPYVIO. WP:PLAGIARISM also applies to this case, but COPYVIO is a more serious issue. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. It looks like I need to act. I aim to do so in a constructive way. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

[edit]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 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.

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awards in Infobox

[edit]

Hi Nikki, I was just wondering what the rationale is in removing some of the awards in this edit? I get that the school appeard duplicated as there is no degree type qualification shown but I couldn't guess why the awards? D Wells (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi D Wells, they're already presented as honorific suffixes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastbourne manslaughter scheduled for TFA

[edit]

This is to let you know that the Eastbourne manslaughter article has been scheduled to be rerun as today's featured article for January 17, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 17, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, unusual, detailing "the death of a 15-year-old "stolid and stupid" boy at the hands of a "distorted" and "lunatic" teacher who may or may not actually have been a nice guy. While you've probably never heard of the Eastbourne manslaughter, the case was important in the development of modern laws surrounding corporal punishment." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Donnelly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew Stephens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

A new bibliographical landscape

[edit]

At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident.

Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up.

The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations.

But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers.

More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space.

And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all!

November 2017 map of geolocated Wikidata items, made by Addshore
[edit]
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
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:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

  • OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (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 and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and same to you! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romney Classical Institute

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I wanted to seek your guidance on whether I would be able to utilize this photograph for the Romney Classical Institute article. I will be submitting this article for Featured Article following my current candidate Valley View (Romney, West Virginia). I wanted to use an undated photograph of the Institute from the 19th century which is available here. Would I be able to utilize this photograph since it is eligible for the public domain? Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WV, what is known about that image? Publication history? Authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, unfortunately this version of the image does not have available source and provenance information. I will hold off for now, and if I am able to find another version with verifiable source and provenance information, I'll revisit this with you then! Thank you for your continued guidance! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Clean-ups"

[edit]

Taking a quick look at your edit history, it appears to me that you're way too aggressive with these, particularly removing uncontroversial accurate information because it's "not-RS" e.g. at the Popsickle founder's page where "findagrave" is used to source his dates. You could tag these for better references or other appropriate improvements, but once they're deleted it's unlikely editors will look for what you've identified as areas for improvement. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular case, I don't agree that the dates are needed at that page, whether sourced or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League

[edit]

If you would like to challenge the reliability of a source, then you can tag the source as such. But please do not blanket remove them and put a citation tag in when it was clearly cited.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliability of that source has been established by community consensus - see here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]
The WikiProject Barnstar
For your continued support to the project's content review processes I am pleased to personally award you with this barnstar and add you to my 2017 New Years Honours List. Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Military History. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military Awards

[edit]

Hi. It appears that you have twice reverted my edits on Natalya Meklin. If you read the information at Template:Infobox military person, you would notice that it does not say not to add the ribbons. I've created many ribbon templates to simplify the process, but there has been numerous other military ribbon template generated by other users intended for this very purpose. The templates for the major awards for the purpose of use in the infoboxes(ex, Order of the Red Banner, Order of the Red Star, etc...) have been on the wiki for a while and there were no problems. The template page states that non-exhaustive unbulleted lists are okay, but that does not mean it is the only acceptable format. See the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_person/Archive_1 (There was no outright ban on ribbons) The ribbons from the many high awards Natalya Meklin received should be in the infobox. What you are doing is disruptive and serves no purpose.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PlanespotterA320: Er, no. The only mention of icons in the template documentation is a pointer to WP:ICONDECORATION; the awards example there is text. While you are correct to say that's not an outright ban on using ribbons within the template, it does suggest that the burden is on you to seek consensus given that the usage here is disputed. You have reverted twice, but the version of the article without those icons is the status quo and so should be restored pending such consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am pointing out that there was an opportunity to ban such ribbons in that discussion and they were not. The ribbons in the infobox are not for decoration; it is a way to compile the "list" of awards (with clickable links) using much less space than an exhaustive list. The very purpose of the ribbon templates is to put in infoboxes. Since it appears that YOU object (not anyone else) but removing the ribbons will take away infomation, I suggest YOU seek a consensus against the ribbons since WP:ICONDECORATION is interpreted to go against the excessive use of large medal images that don't link to an article. You should read this, and note that this is a long debated issue with no clear consensus after YEARS of debate |https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Icons_in_military_articles#Ribbons,_medals,_and_military_decorations--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PlanespotterA320: Still no. "X is not banned" is not the same as "X should be the default". Assuming you are correct that there is no clear project-wide consensus on the issue, and only you and I have so far expressed opinions on the specific article at issue (so no consensus there either), that means that per WP:NOCON the status quo version (in this case, sans icons) should be retained pending the development of a new consensus. You're welcome to open an RfC to try to accomplish that if you wish. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the page at all? The ribbons are optional, but you fail to develop a sufficient argument as to why the ribbons on this hero's page should go away. You say that the default version should be used because this is disputed, but the page Wikipedia:Icons in military articles acknowledges this very fact and does not say that one user's whim against ribbons on every page they come across is sufficient for removal. Since it is an essay it merely states (correctly) that ribbons are popularly used. And BTW, given the sheer number of times people have tried to reach an official consenus/ban, why the heck should I try? I would be changed the next time a user with very serious feelings about ribbons decides to stir up dust. While ribbons may not be default, you should not that the very article is marked for expansion, (it is short), so why should the "default version be used as any sort of standard? Most articles that are nearly stubs have very little info by default, but that's not a good thing. Now please excuse me to cite+expand some articles. DON'T REMOVE EVERY SINGLE RIBBON YOU SEE just b/c it makes you mad. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. I haven't removed EVERY SINGLE RIBBON I SEE; I reverted your edit on this specific article. WP:CON is the policy that outlines what should happen when there is no consensus, as there is not in this particular case. Arguments about why this particular article should or shouldn't use icons belong on its talk page, not here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to all!

[edit]
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revised version of image

[edit]

Nikki, if you have a minute could you answer a Commons question for me? I created the original version of this, and another editor, Goran tek-en, tweaked it for me via a request at the graphic workshop. I thought this meant he should upload the new version to Commons, since he is the author of the new version, but he has told me that's mistaken. Part of the discussion is here, and part is here. He appears to not be a native English speaker which may be why I'm confused. Can you tell me what the right way to handle this is? I am completely baffled as to what he's trying to tell me to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think with the phrase "you stand as the Author and uploader so to me that means you created it? If it's not your's you really should provide some poof of that you are allowed to upload it here" he was referring to the original version, which you uploaded and claimed as own work; he might have thought you referred to that same version with "since I didn't create that version". Based on the description of the changes you wanted, the new version is likely a very close derivative of it, and might not even be eligible for a new copyright - I think he believes not. So long story short: when you uploaded the original image you credited it to yourself; assuming that credit is correct, based on the degree of change subsequently made and the editor's feelings as expressed on his talk page, it likely should have been maintained with the new version. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the questions are: (1) should I upload, since the original is mine, or should they? (He seems to think I should.) (2) Who should be credited as author? (3) How does Goran get credit for it -- in the infobox, or by uploading a new version and making him the author of that version? I think he's saying I need to upload a new version and make him the author of that, and note in the upload that it's derived from another version. I'll try that, unless you tell me that's incorrect. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: My read on the situation is that he thought you should be credited as the author for the new version, until he thought you weren't the author of any version. In any case, "you" is fine as the answer to (1). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

[edit]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1997 in video gaming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ronde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Alaska Thunderfuck has been undone since it was seen as vandalism due to the removal of footnotes that was on their and i would like to remind you that I got this information from Alaska herself and please do not undo it again because i don't want their to be another edit war, thank you -- LetsDoDrag253 (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LetsDoDrag253: Poorly sourced material about living people is subject to removal without notice, and is not vandalism. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Alaska Thunderfuck. Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Goalsmini: As above, see WP:BLP, but you should also be aware that signing a post as another editor is considered disruptive - please remember to sign your own posts by adding four tildes, rather than copying someone else's signature. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join Women in Red

[edit]

The Women in Red project could always use people who can beef up Wikipedia with notable women from different parts of the world. As I saw you like to add things about Canada and the Military, perhaps there are some notable women that are a part of one or the other that you'd like to create or tweak articles on. One of my contributions was Sandra Witelson, Canadian neuroscientist. Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.34% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
  • Our priorities for January:

Prisoners Fashion designers Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria.
AfC submissions
Random submission
~6 weeks
1,031 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karl Richter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Valentine (Maurice Chevalier song)

[edit]

Nikkimaria, there's a fair use question here about the translation of a song's lyrics. Can you please take a look and answer the question? Or is this something I should be asking Diannaa instead? Many thanks, and best wishes for a Happy New Year! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adele M. Fasick

[edit]

What is your threshold to remove this template? She is not Canadian. But she taught for many years in Toronto. There have not been many women deans of her era but I do not find any documentation on this though I know it but did not include. I added a citation reviewing a book in its 4th edition. Kmccook (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kmccook, at the moment the Education and most of the Career section lacks inline citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Postnomials vs Awards

[edit]

Hi Nikki,

Just wondering why you prefer to use postnomials rather than have the awards in the awards section. In my opinion the awards section is better because:

· Postnomials are acronyms which many people won't know especially the less known ones (FLS, AC etc.)

· They leave no room for adding years awarded unlike the award section

· They can be imported from wikidata, meaning better maintainability, and the ability to co-import awards which do not have post-nomials.

· They postnomials are usually give straight after the name in the main text anyway.

I think it would also be helpful if you could give reasons for your changes in the edit summary, then people like me won't get confused and post on your talk page!

D Wells (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they are usually given straight after the name in the main text anyways, and similarly wikilinked to help those who might not be familiar with them... why would it be a problem to match that presentation? Your other two points are contradictory: years awarded are not currently imported AFAIK, so if you wanted to include them for some reason you'd need to type out the parameter locally anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you add them at the top of the infobox then we can't have them in the awards section (as you explained before), so we lose the benefits of wikidata importing and any potential to include other awards from wikidata, or to include the years (even if it is future potential as I haven't got round to adding the years functionality yet). You didn't suggest any benefits of using postnomials at the top? I can only downsides of including less information and being less maintainable/improvable. I don't see the points a contradictory, although you are correct the years are not implemented yet, having the awards already imported automatically (where before there was nothing) means the years could be added just once to the template without having to go back and upgrade each infobox individually and in the meantime the awards that are present are easier to maintain. Regarding your recent edit the only significant difference is that it no longer displays the old employers just the new one (as an institution) (and of course now it no longer uses wikidata). What's wrong with displaying all three employers? It's pretty dishartening for you to keep reverting all my edits, over what seems to me quite minor differences in minor pages, with little in the way of help or explanation, it makes me feel like you have something against me personally :'( D Wells (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just disagree with your approach. Details such as years about awards of any type belong in the article text, not automatically inserted in the template. More broadly, you might want to take a look at MOS:IBX: it's meant as a summary of the article, and should be consistent with what the article says. Also, the CNS is not a "field" as has been typically defined for these types of articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm starting to understand, thanks for the links! Also thanks for partially reverting some of the infobox conversions, I think this is a good compromise so we can import fields where appropriate. For the years most of the good scientist biographies I've seen on wikipedia have the award year in the infobox, for example looking through the past two years of nobel laureats, every single one has this format. The Template:Infobox scientist also recommends this. D Wells (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 38 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review for ACR of Sam Manekshaw

[edit]

Greetings Nikki, it would be great if you could review the images fir ACR of Sam Maneshaw's article. Review available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sam Manekshaw. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for all your help with image reviews on articles I have put up for ACR and FAC. I continue to find image licensing difficult to understand and sometimes frustrating, and have spent many hours poring over license tags trying to figure out the intricacies of their meaning and how they should be applied. I've learned a great deal from your comments, and I hope that future articles of mine will be, if not right first time, at least increasingly competent in their licensing. I appreciate your efforts. Thanks again. Factotem (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I recently created this guide, would be interested in hearing any feedback you might have on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that. Very useful. I'll add some comments to that user page's TP. Factotem (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'll comment here if that's OK. From my experience as effectively a newcomer:
  • I assumed that images in commons were already appropriately licensed, simply because they were on 'Wikipedia'. It was somewhat vexing to have to go back to an image someone else had uploaded in order to fix licensing issues. A naive, rookie error perhaps, but maybe some sort of statement in the "Free but not own work" section about the need to not trust what you find in commons and verify for yourself might help.
  • I could not understand why, when a source stated something was PD, we still had to provide verification on WP. This occurred in the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars ACR with File:Royal_Gloucestershire_Hussars.jpg, part of the Vinkhuijzen collection published by the New York Public Library with a very clear statement on its PD status. Maybe some statement explaining that would help people understand the basic necessity to provide specific licensing info on WP would help.
  • I also wonder if you might be more explicit about the use of out of copyright tags. You state "Be explicit - even if it's blindingly obvious that a work is out of copyright, it should still include a tag specifying that fact." It may be obvious to you, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me that if I choose a license based on a pre-1923 publication date, I need to provide details of when and where the work was first published, or if I choose a license based on author's life, I need to provide date of death for that author.
  • Do you find that you come up against the same issues regularly? If so, maybe you could provide case studies with actual examples explaining what the problem was and how it would be fixed? Or perhaps, if one exists, simply a list of the most common issues challenged in reviews.
Hope this is of some help. Factotem (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will look at incorporating some of your suggestions. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PR

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Happy New Year to you, and I hope all is well. I've been working on the Murder of Yvonne Fletcher recently, which is now at PR. There's no rush on this, but if you get some free time, could you cast your eye over the images? I've uploaded two non-free ones, and I'd like to test their viability before going to FAC. Many thanks as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the FAC review and twenty image reviews you did during December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_36&oldid=1212148818"