User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 40

You've got mail!

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is OUP - Who do I contact now?.
Message added 22:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR book

Hi, I was wondering why I don't have access to this book on JSTOR (although I have a subscription)? Is there a way to still get it through Wikipedia? Thanks! T8612 (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi T8612, the Wikipedia Library JSTOR access includes the archival journals and the British Pamphlets collection, not the books. You can try requesting that particular item via WP:RX. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any chance that WP will ask for book access in the future? T8612 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggest you post that request here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks! T8612 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add your input

Hello N. Though you may have already seen the ping I wanted you to have a direct link to this thread Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Need to reach a consensus. I don't think we have been at opposite ends of an editing situation before (or if we had it was so long ago I've forgotten it) so I hope you will allow this to be an "agree to disagree" circumstance. However the final consensus comes down I want you to know that I think you are a fine editor and an asset to the 'pedia. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD, likewise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you as well. MarnetteD|Talk 03:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Gadzooks I had missed WP:EL/P all these years. Forty some odd years ago I took to heart Leo Buscaglia's advice to try and learn something new every day. You helped get me to that goal today. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 04:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

geneanet.org on Antoine-Joseph Preira

Hello,

you have been removing information from Antoine-Joseph Preira with the rational "rm non-RS". Geneanet is a know website (there is an article about it on the French-speaking Wikipedia), and it seems to be commonly used as a reference on the English-language Wikipedia [1]. Could you elaborate?

Thank you. Rama (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rama, unfortunately that it is used as a source does not mean it is reliable. It appears to be a user-generated genealogy site, similar to Ancestry. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well, yet Geneanet seems more trustworthy than several of the sources that you did not question on the same article. Napoléon Gallois and Jules Lecomte are lyrical pseudo-historians of the mid-19th century whose texts are more nationalist propaganda than factual accounts, Guy Boucher write some sort of folkloric tale of the region, balidar.com is a private website, and Quiquengrogne is a 20-year old article in a municipal paper written by a minor local politician aiming at promoting local tourism. We also have copies of newspapers and archives of the time, which we could discard as original research. The point is: that all these sources are consistent with each other.

An accumulation of such purely formal reason to discard sources can lead to erasing from Wikipedia content that we know to be relevant and for which be have consistent sources backing each other. I known of entire articles have been deleted for such reasons, with perfectly valuable content.

The whole point of sourcing affirmations is to allow readers and editors to check from where the information comes from, evaluate for themselves the degree of confidence, and potentially contest or replace information if there are reasons to suspect it is inexact or untrue. Rama (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If other sources in the article are of questionable reliability, that seems a good rationale to exclude those rather than keep this one. I am sympathetic to the impact that a lack of reliable sources can have, but unfortunately that is consistent with our verifiability and sourcing policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Spur

Hi Nikki. I just ran into a Harv error which I can't fix using the methods you showed me. It's in the article Spur. It's like the reference only exists during run time and you can't see the whole thing in source view. You'll see the error message when you look at it. I'm sure you know how to fix it asap. Please take a look? dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi dawnleelynn, the attribution template {{1911}} automatically sets |ref=harv, but you can override it by adding a blank |ref=. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikki. So the two options are to either ignore the error message or add a blank ref as you described? I did not know about the attribution template 1911. This makes sense to me now. Thank you very much. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi dawnleelynn. Those are the options if you're using 1911 as an attribution template; if you're using it solely as a citation template you can swap to {{cite EB1911}}. Alternatively you can add an inline citation that refers to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is good to know for future reference. Not sure how the editor who authored this in Spur meant it to be. I think it will work the way it is now; thanks so much. dawnleelynn^(talk) 01:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

jiangshi videogames

there I added a source, even though nothing else in the videogames section is sourced so I don't know why you single out my edit? It's a link to the steam store page which SAYS that jaingshi are in the game, and since another source you seem to be fine with is a link to an amazon store page it would be pretty hypocritical for it to not count, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xintract (talk • contribs) 13:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixing a submission I put on the site

Hi. You recently removed an edit I put on the movie Basket Case, stating my reference was not reliable. I also have a reference from IMBD which I see in many many submissions, but wanted to check with you before I undo your removal and edit my reference. Is IMDB considered a reliable source?

Frumpyjones (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC) FrumpyJones

Hi Frumpyjones, unfortunately not. The Film project has a guide to sourcing that might be helpful for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia Jamalon access

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia Jamalon access requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia Al Manhal access

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia Al Manhal access requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz. I in no way want to dispute the deletion of these two categories, but did want to mention that technically they won't meet C1 for at least a few more days, in case you're using some kind of tool to find these that can be recalibrated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion request at Talk:CS Alert (1890)/GA1

Hello, Nikkimaria;

Your name is listed at Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor in the list of people who are willing to assist with GA reviews should the need arise. There is a fairly simple issue that could use a second opinion at the Talk:CS Alert (1890)/GA1 review, about whether or not the nominated article meets criteria 6b of the Good Article Criteria, whether the included photographs are relevant to the subject. If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look and casting a tie-breaking opinion, if someone else hasn't already done so? Thank you. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

FAC source review request

Hello. I hope you are having an excellent week so far. Apologies in advance for asking, but I was wondering if you could do a source review for my current FAC if you had the time? A spot check has already been done by one of the reviewers. Feel free to disregard this message if you do not have the time or interest. The FAC has not been up long (not even a full two weeks) so I am in no rush with it, and hopefully, more editors will look through it. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look this weekend. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Arizona Miner

Nikkimaria, there is a disagreement on this nomination as to whether there is an inappropriate level of close paraphrasing on this nomination; I think it will be best if we get someone knowledgeable and uninvolved to render a second opinion on the matter. Thanks for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Rodeo article

Hi Nikki! You may be sorry you showed me the script that detects Harv errors, LOL. The Rodeo article has some Harv errors in its Source section. They all have ref=harv when you first go in. I tried to fix the ones that had cite___ errors by pointing to them, but that didn't work on these. When you have a few minutes please? If you can even just tell me what's wrong I can fix it. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

(watching:) I just looked at the first: it is defined "ref=harv", but not called (yet). Perhaps remove or comment out that "ref=harv" until it's to be used. I have no time to check if the others are similar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Thanks, I will try it! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Yes, removal of all of them fixed the issue. It's a high traffic article. My guess is that various editors removed the content that called them. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For Good Faith Reversal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR

I have asked a renewal of my jstor subscription a while back but didn't received it. Can you check it out?---Shrike (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Shrike: It looks like you should have done - what happens if you try to do a password reset at JSTOR with the email you've got set on the platform? (I also see you submitted a renewal application today - if the password reset doesn't work we'll just submit that). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I can enter with my account I just can't read the articles Shrike (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of Wodehouse subsection

Hi, Nikkimaria. I don't know--I'm certainly a big fan of sourcing, and I understand how crucial it is in some contexts; but my generalized roster of Wodehouse themes seems to me to be in the nature of uncontentious common knowledge (and perhaps not easily attributable to any one source, since it pertains to the PGW canon as a whole). I respect your reversion, but could we perhaps compromise with a "Citation Needed" tag? Jcejhay (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jcejhay, given that this is a featured article I don't agree that would be appropriate - MOS:NOVELS makes it clear that thematic interpretation should reflect the consensus of literary scholars, and thus should be sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Fair enough. Thanks! Jcejhay (talk)

Sugar sand

Hi. Calcium malate precipitate is a factor in both Maple syrup and Maple sugar production; how best to cover? A new section in either page or Sugar sand (maple sap production)? I have started a related discussion here: Talk:Sugar sand#Conversion to disambiguation.

IveGoneAway (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nestor Lakoba FAC images

Hello, regarding the image review for Nestor Lakoba, I wanted to ask your opinion on the copyright status of some relevant images I have. It is from a 1965 book published in the Soviet Union by a government official in that capacity, and contains some photos of the subject in hand. I'm curious what would be the status of those images, and would they be appropriate to upload here? Kaiser matias (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kaiser matias, would need some more information to give a good answer. Is this the first known publication of these images? Are they themselves official works, or is there attribution? Is the book likely to fall into the category of being exempt from copyright protection? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. It would be the first publication of the the images, and while the images themselves have no attribution, the work was part of an official publication. Whether it falls under one of the four categories in the link, I'm doubtful: the closest it would fit under would be an official document of a state government agency, but it doesn't fit the examples given (laws, legal texts, etc). I should also mention that the author of the book only died in 1993, which complicates things. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes - in that case they most likely would be non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, really appreciate your help going over the status of everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, I have a new question regarding some images from the article. They had previously been added, but I removed them prior to the FAC as the copyright status was uncertain. However a user has just re-added them, noting the publication they come from: a 2002 Russian-language book, with the photos themselves from a personal archive and possibly published in the 1930s or 1940s. I have not been able to find confirmation they were published that early, and based on your notes about images would think they are not going to be in the public domain. If you have any thoughts on this it would be greatly appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kaiser matias, is the 2002 Russian book the earliest confirmed publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe so. I've invited the user who noted it to share their thoughts, but in my research I can't see the images coming up any earlier. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Most likely they're not free, but we'll see if that user has any additional information. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2019

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue VIII, August 2019 Headlines Côte d'Ivoire report: Strategic salon around GLAM perspectives Finland report: Continuing our work with the Saami communities Indonesia report: Digitization of banknotes and introduction to structured data on Commons (continued) Netherlands report: Wikidata map making workshop Norway report: Women in Red: collaboration with The National Library in Norway and Oslo Metropolitan University Sweden report: GLAM communities of practice; Problematic data UK report: New and old collaborations USA report: Wikimania 2019 Special story: Wikimania GLAM Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Recent presentations, workshops and blog posts Wikidata report: Work for us, or just tell us what you think of us WMF GLAM report: Updates on OpenGLAM Calendar: September'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.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 07:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

CCI update

--💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Zelda Fitzerald article

Hi Nikkimaria. After a bit of research, I just realized that my changes to the Zelda Fitzgerald article were not in accordance with WP:CITEVAR. I'm updating my latest edit to strictly utilize Harvnb instead of Sfn. Change should be done within the hour. Please let me know if this change addresses your concerns. -- Flask 21:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flask, I'm actually in the process of doing that - could you hold off for a bit? Would like to avoid an edit-conflict. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. I shall hold off. I apologize for mixing in a different citation style. In the future, I'll stick with the existing citation style on the page. In hindsight, you were quite right and correct to revert my edit. -- Flask (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Flask: See what you think of the new version. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. I might append some of my minor Bibliography tweaks, i.e. updated source urls, jstor links, publisher details, etc., tomorrow. (I won't alter the Bibliography formatting.) Sorry again both for my lack of knowledge about WP:CITEVAR and for hastily reverting your initial rollback. My apologies. -- Flask (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

St. Charles Municipal Building

Moved to Talk:St._Charles_Municipal_Building. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hellraiser Judgment FAC

Greetings, Nikkimaria. I just wanted to inform you that I have edited the article in accordance with your source review at the Hellraiser: Judgment FAC, in case you weren't pinged. If you have further concerns or the changes weren't up to standard, please let me know. Regards, DarkKnight2149 02:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I replaced the video interviews with the "cite interview" template and responded to the other two comments. DarkKnight2149 22:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Article title

Hi Nikki, a question on an article title. An editor added a new bull rider article to mainspace today. It's Jess Lockwood (Professional Bull Rider). All other previous articles that needed a title to be unique used just "bull rider" as in Luke Snyder (bull rider). This new article is using uppercase, as in the organization Professional Bull Riders. I'm not sure this is an issue. I've looked through the policies trying to find something. I did see that the article title is supposed to be sentence case, which I had already known. Can you point me to any other policy regarding the article title? I thought best to address it while it's new. Thanks... dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the (bull rider) disambiguation, as per WP:ATDAB - it's not like there's another bull rider with that name already on Wikipedia. If it's kept at the current title: there are several MOS pages with the sentence case recommendation (WP:TITLEFORMAT, MOS:HEADCAPS...), which generally agree that if it wouldn't be capitalized in running prose it shouldn't be in a title ("Jess Lockwood is a professional bull rider", not "Jess Lockwood is a Professional Bull Rider"). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki, that sounds like a plan. :) dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Source Dailymail on this article about singer Siouxsie

Hope you'll read my notes in the edit summary [2] and spot the difference between "culture" pages and "politics" pages.. Carliertwo (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately this distinction is not relevant according to current consensus on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No there are exceptions, check the text @ WP:RSP ---> """The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail.""" 2017 is the year of the deprecated (unreliable) source but this interview was published in 2011.

you'll have to prove that this Welch interview is a fake. Carliertwo (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carliertwo: 2011 is by no means "historical". If you want to use that source, you'll need to make the case that it ought to be an exception - the burden is on you to do so and to gain consensus for your proposed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Including the dailymail source without an url would not be suitable either, am I correct ? So the only next step for me to fill in a rfc under the section arts/culture/music @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Media,_the_arts,_and_architecture, is it the right place/page ? if I get a consensus to include this interview as a source, then it works as an exception. Carliertwo (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be an option to get consensus, but it doesn't get filed on that page - RfCs happen on the article talk page. See the instructions at WP:RFC for more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ooops

Sorry about that [3]. The Bot reported that the nomination had not been transcluded. This is because it could not find the {{FACClosed}} template. In turn, this is because of a unclosed double-bracket. I have corrected the nomination and the FACBot has processed the close. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

ty again

Hi Nikkimaria - I just wanted to thank you again for all your hard work with the Wiki Library program. I did get my Edinburgh University Press login, and wanted to let you know I appreciate it. — Ched (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Public Domain Attribution

When you can, I need a couple minutes on this public domain attribution error:

For sandbox User:Dawnleelynn/Bucking horse sandbox, I give you permission to edit. It's the attribution in the References section throwing an error. I am copying the way to do it from Western Allied invasion of Germany article. At least I got the sfn template and all the harv templates working correctly.

Thanks, dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: You can't use the URL from the Cite page for that particular template - it needs to be the ID you get when actually within the work. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Nikki, oh yes, I understand what you mean. So tricky! :) Thanks a bunch. I have to get offline for a bit but will add more attributes to it later. It does make sense why now think about it. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Uk National Archives

Hi Nikkimaria, How are you? I wonder if you can help me? I'm currently updating the Red Orchestra. I came across across it almost a year and started to update, using the German article as a basis. In the last 10 years there has been a mountain of information being released on, stuff being published, papers written and stuff released from archives. One of the these archives is the Uk National Archives. They have a fair amount of documents that I would like to get a hold of. I've identified about 8 at the moment, but there is more. Do we have any kind of agreement with them? This is example of one of them: [4]. This would help to fill in some at Funkabwehr, these [5], [6], [7] (I think i've got that, but you can never know until you read it), [8], [9] (I want to do an article on this lassie. It goes on and on and on. It would be really cool if we had an agreement with them. scope_creep^Talk 18:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi scope creep, we don't, but you can suggest it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Kate Dover primary sources tag

Hi. Please would you kindly explain to me why there is a primary sources tag on the above article? It uses verifiable, neutral and reliable, independent newspaper articles. Anyone in the UK with a city library ticket can verify the news articles for free online. Also anyone in the world with a subscription to Genes Reunited or the British Newspaper Archive can access the same newspaper articles. I have been told that some U.S. university libraries can access the British Newspaper Archive. I have looked through the articles linked on the tag, and I cannot see any objection to reliable newspaper articles. All newspapers cited in the article are respected newspapers. Regarding the BMD certificates, these are accessible for a fee in the UK, and presumably also for non-UK readers. Where possible I have purchased the certificates and quoted all contents without comment in the citations. If you would like me to purchase more certificates please let me know, and I can copy out the contents into the existing citations. I can provide links for all the Census pages so that they can be verifiable by anyone with a subscription to Ancestry, if required, although they should be verifiable without a url to anyone who has other sources with search facility for UK Census pages. There are no citations which are not verifiable in one way or another. I plan to add a number of quotations from newspapers to the article - probably on Monday when I am free to do so. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Storye book, the concern is not verifiability, but rather that much of the article is based on primary sources like FreeBMD and census records. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is meant to be based primarily on secondary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

TWL resources access problem

Hey Nikki, i requested access to Alexander Street Press and Fold3 via library card platform last week. My request was accepted, and credentials for ASP were sent to my email, but they don't work. also, i was requested to create an account on Fold3, I did and forwarded my info to the requesting email address (i'm guessing it was you?). I was wondering, is there anything else i should do? thanks in advance. --Arian (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arian, what do you mean by "they don't work" - are you getting an error message of some kind? As to Fold3, that's just pending setup on their end, nothing you need to do right now. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

i'm getting "Sorry, your credentials are not recognized." when i try to login. --Arian (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You have email. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Worked. thank you so much. --Arian (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Laura Ashley plc - web archive source

Hi Nikki, just wanting to clarify your removal of a source from this article as deemed non-RS. The source in question was from the web archive at archive.org and my understanding was that this is a reliable source as an archive, as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. I would appreciate your advice here as to why it may be non-RS. Many thanks for your help. Ishel99 (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ishel99. The web archive at Archive.org faithfully represents the original source - that means that it is as reliable or not as whatever that source is. In this case, the original source is not reliable, as per WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Nikki... I am just a little confused now. The original source of the item you removed was simply a page from the Daily Mail newspaper, so I'm wondering why that is considered not reliable. Sorry to be a slow learner, hehe! Ishel99 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, good grief, I have now looked through the list and find that the Daily Mail is indeed banned as a source. However, I note the comment that "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context." I believe this is the context of my use. The article in question was a quite unique obituary. However, if you don't want to allow this, so be it. Thanks again. Ishel99 (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"Historical" in this case was intended for considerably older articles than this one - glad you've found a substitute. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for further commenting, Nikki. I do think it's moot as to when 'historical' begins/ends - I am a professional historian amongst other things, so it's open to all kinds of questions. I do recognize that the tone of this particular Daily Mail article is quite colourful, leaving some of its interpretations and evaluations open to question, which is why I opted for the most likely and least offensive interpretation. I also note the lack of any other substantial online sources for this particular point, and I intend to work to eventually find something more authoritative than the rather bland little item I have used, but that will likely need to be an offline source. Thanks for your interest, anyway!  :) Ishel99 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Xu Shunshou/GA1

I wonder if you might cast your expert eye over an image in this article for me. In the Images section of the Good article review page linked, I've raised a concern about File:Xu Shunshou 1964.jpg needing a US PD tag, but the nominator doesn't think one is necessary due to URAA. I would be extremely grateful if you could have a look. Harrias ^talk 06:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hellraiser redux

Greetings again, Nikkimaria. I have addressed your most recent concerns at the FAC. The image concern took me a little longer to get to because I haven't had access to my laptop and have been editing with a mobile device for the last few days. My apologies for that. DarkKnight2149 02:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 64 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For your lengthy and thorough examination of the Hellraiser: Judgment article at the FAC. DarkKnight2149 00:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A question for a problem

Sorry for unnecessary pings, just saw the email that everything will be sent in a week or two, my bad. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

A question (BF43)

Hello, sorry for the intrusion. Bengal famine of 1943 currently has File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (the Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg (contributed by Fowler&fowler) atop the page, instead of File:Statesman j.jpg, which it had on the previous FAC. The files are quite nearly identical, tho one may have more detail. Their licensing is different... um, sorry for the trouble, but, any suggestions for what I should do? I suppose I need to resolve this before any img review on the current FAC. Tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

What you'll need to do is ensure the licensing of whichever one is used is accurate. On a quick look, the current tag on the new image would have the Indian copyright expiring after the URAA date, which would call the US copyright into question. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. You know, I've spent literally years now poring over the text. It should be 99% OK. But driving to work today, I suddenly had the gut-wrenching thought that I have no idea if the img licensing is just as OK. Plus Fowler&fowler, who added many/most of the images, is on extended wikibreak. I may be chatting with you a lot in the near future. I apologize for the trouble, and appreciate your time. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright question for you

Hey Nikki - I came across this photo (along with a couple of others of the same series in the archives). As far as I can tell, these were in Schleinitz's personal collection and were turned over to the archives after his death. German copyright is obvious, but under the US, am I correct in understanding the 70PMA term to apply as well? And if that's correct, is there a template that covers this? None of those listed at Template:PD-US seem to apply. (Nevermind on that last part - Template:PD-US-unpublished would cover it.) Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: PD-US-unpublished covers US status assuming that the images were never published anywhere before 2003 - you'd want to check what the archive did with them to be sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll have to see how quick they are to respond to emails - thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2019

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue IX, September 2019 Headlines Colombia report: The GLAM team from Wikimedia Colombia in OpenConLatAm Finland report: Photographs and events France report: European Heritage Days Indonesia report: Image donation by Indonesian Air Force Italy report: Wikimedia Italia Summer School Sweden report: Open cultural heritage; More libraries in Africa on Wikidata; Global MIL Week 2019 Feature Conference; Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete; Wiki Loves Monuments UK report: Oxford, Khalili Collections and Endangered Archives USA report: Hispanic Heritage and Disability Awareness Month Special story: Help the Movement Learn about Content Campaigns & Supporting newcomers in Wikidata training courses! Wikidata report: Tie a knot in your handkerchief WMF GLAM report: GLAM Manager Role Announced! Calendar: October'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.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 17:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brock Winkless, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Congo and Tales from the Crypt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Inter-Allied Women's Conference

Hi Nikkimaria, I am mentoring a slightly nervous first time FACer through the process. The article has already passed ACR - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Inter-Allied Women's Conference - where you generously put a lot of work into the image review. I understand that three images have been added since then. If you have the time to cast your eye over them it would be much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Gog the Mild, think it would be best to get another viewpoint on that particular nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Stubblefield

I see that you have again deleted information from this article without explanation. Do you have sources indicating that his parents and children were not the persons named? You should add a "fact" tag rather than just deleting information, especially when an editor in good standing disagrees with and undoes your deletions. Unexplained deletions may be taken as simple vandalism and dealt with accordingly. If you have a policy-based reason the info should not be i the article, please present your argument on the article's talk page rather than simply edit warring.

Edison, my edit summary provided a link to the documentation for the template, which explains why things like non-notable parents and causes of death should not be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hyman G. Rickover

What does your edit comment "Rm EL" mean? A clear explanation helps other editors to understand your reason for removing something from an article. Edison (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Likely "Remove External Link" (find a grave link in this case). see: diff It's a fairly common abbreviation. — Ched (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Soviet photo; publication date unknown

What to do with Soviet images where the publication date is not listed anywhere on the file, and I cannot find it after searching? I think that might put it in non-PD territory, since the clock starts after publication. Wanted to hear your thoughts before I nominated it. File:Kaganovich_cruiser.jpg Kees08 (Talk) 06:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kees08, what's the earliest publication of that image you've found? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

John C. Porte - info box cause of death

Not sure which template you mean - please show me the link? Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP, it's Template:Infobox person/doc. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability. The cause is sourced, whether its clearly defined could be a matter of debate - depending what and whether there were any other factors contributing to the death together with Pulmonary TB. That would probably involve a detailed examination of Porte's medical history against other accounts. In my opinion there is no doubt about notability - evident in contemporary news. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that it was noted in contemporary news really isn't what is meant by notable in this context - it's referring more to cases like James Dean where the cause of death is something that people think of when thinking of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the sudden nature of his death, the cause and Porte's profile, there is little doubt that TB would be the notable cause thereafter until events pass out of living memory. We are nearly 100years after the event and people fall into obscurity - even James Dean eventually. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Your second sentence is undoubtedly true, but I'm not sure of its relevance to the first. Can you elaborate? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure your edit is not a subjective view long after the event and you're not just revising the impression of people who no longer exist. It's not clear whether the cause of death is something you disagree in terms of its definition?80.229.34.113 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

My contention is not that the given cause is unclear in its definition, but rather that it is not significant to the subject's notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, as far as I recall this is a long standing edit that survives the rigors of the aviation editors, is there any fresh evidence or angle you have to suggest Porte's death from Pulmonary TB was not notable in the circumstances? Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no indication in the article that it was, and certainly doesn't appear to be one of the first things mentioned when discussing the subject. What leads you to believe that it was? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything substantial in your posts. What guidelines are you following, please point me to the link?80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP, it's Template:Infobox person/doc. What guideline do you think supports your viewpoint? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, and the specific part of Infobox person/doc you are following?80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The section that describes the use of this particular parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, we're back to Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability where there appears to be a lack clear guidance resulting in edits being a matter of opinion. Going by the two examples James Dean and John Lennon, Porte's intro might, as you suggest, mention his sudden death from Pulmonary TB and the info box include the cause of death parameter? Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the 'death' parameter should only really be used when something is unusual, or that the manner of the death is something the person is known for (Lincoln and Kennedy are famous, but their assasinations talking points in their own right. Most deaths by natural causes are not unusual enough for inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That's helpful, perhaps your guidance might be added to the template page? In Porte's case I would say yes to inclusion. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

But why include it, given TB was not unusual in 1919? - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, TB was more common at that time; have you studied the posts and article carefully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I see nothing that strikes me as unusual about the death, or something that indicates Porte's manner of death was something out-of-the-ordinary, in the way a Dean, Lincoln, Lennon death would be. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

People die in car crashes and shootings all the time. Going back to the official guidance, we agree that TB was common at the time so it seems we're looking at significance for the subject's notability. Following your own advice the manner of death is something the person is known for.80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid you don’t seem to be taking the rather clear message on board from two people now. The cause of death should not appear in the IB in this article. You’ve been given the guidelines and explanation, and you have given no evidence or arguments to go against that guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If you continue with the discussion in a rational way and investigate it properly, we will find the right answer. The guidlines are not entirely clear as is plain and your explanation of the guideline is only an opinion that I adhered to in good faith. The manner of Porte's death is relevant as is plain in the article, it is the sudden shock of the death and the impact or impression on the public consciousness (as is the case with most popular figures) and aviation community via news media. Perhaps we should move the discussion to Porte's talk page so the aviation editors can offer an opinion, some of whom probably have better access to the contemporary news of the time. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The simple fact of a death being sudden does not make the manner of death significant to notability. That being said, agree this should move to the article talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Glad you came back again, Porte and the other examples are all public figures who met a sudden and unfortunate death, except in Porte's case the death is we agree of natural causes (Pulmonary TB). It seems that notability has a relationship to the person's profile and circumstances about their death. How do we figure and quantify what makes Porte's sudden death significant to notability or not? It would for example be worth looking for/at other notable deaths from TB for comparison and the natural deaths considered notable aside from TB. The unexpected nature of his death was a significant shock to the public and others in the establishment/aviation community, however those very close to him may have seen it differently. In Porte's case I would suggest his previous groundbreaking work and the loss of potential developments for the future of aviation make his sudden loss to TB notable, particularly the proximity of the death to the loss of the Felixstowe Fury. If for example, Howard Hughes had died unexpectedly of TB shortly after the flight of the spruce goose we might see his loss to a disease as notable. We would be left wondering what may have come next.

Are you suggesting the manner of death has to be the first thing we think of when recalling the person to be notable? Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Among them, yes. All of what you say here supports that the timing of his death - sudden, at a young age - was significant. That however does not mean that the cause of his death is significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Will try and get my head around that one, I did have some more thoughts today, but there will be a delay before I get back. Cheers, and raise a glass for John this evening.80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, did you find any comparative examples with notable deaths from TB or other natural causes - I am guessing Twinkle can pull out this info? At a glance I found Eleanor Roosevelt, Pedro Aguirre Cerda, Édouard Beaupré, Josephine Bracken, James Brady (criminal), Nedeljko Čabrinović, Virginia Lee Corbin and Noble Drew Ali, but there are a good many deaths from TB to wade through. Regards 80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Some more: Trifko Grabež, L. N. Hardas - up to 'I'. How does Porte compare with the list so far?81.149.141.199 (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for a notable death from natural causes, Rita Hayworth is an example. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I am asking for a comparison of Porte with the other notable examples of death from tuberculosis?80.229.34.113 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd say Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe and probably John Keats are examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the 20th Century in this case, from J to Z.81.149.141.199 (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Offhand I'm not aware of any notable examples within those parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Have a look!81.149.141.199 (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

James H. Kelley, Kamala Nehru, Gavrilo Princip, Lucille Ricksen, Tanya Savicheva, Tulasa Thapa, Povilas Višinskis, Ernst August Wagner...17:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)81.149.141.199 (talk)

I notice you've changed many of the figures I pulled out to suit the apparent inconsistencies of your view before dealing with my point. Ignoring that, the following seem to be relevant Eleanor Roosevelt, Édouard Beaupré, Josephine Bracken, James Brady (criminal), Nedeljko Čabrinović, Virginia Lee Corbin, Noble Drew Ali, Trifko Grabež, Gavrilo Princip, Lucille Ricksen, Povilas Višinskis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, why do you believe those particular examples are relevant? As to inconsistency: it's a case-by-case judgment. There are notable deaths from natural causes out there, a few of which I've named above; that doesn't mean that all are significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you are asking me when you changed them, apparently on the basis of personal opinion on case by case basis - this sounds like 'making up as you go along' to me and the examples you cite are not in the same century for any comparison to Porte in this case.81.149.141.199 (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking you because you stated "the following seem to be relevant". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sondre Justad

Dear Nikkimaria, I will kindly ask you to stop replacing the Wikidata infobox on the article Sondre Justad. That is disruptive editing, and you should use your precious time on something else. Regards Premeditated (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Premeditated: The article is a BLP and the version you're restoring is poorly sourced - it is in no way disruptive to object to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Wikidata page, Sondre Justad (Q25427221)? It's a lot better sourced than existing infobox. Just look at "Years active" in the infobox that is set to 2015, but he released his first single in 2014.[10] This is well sourced and described at Wikidata. The {{infobox person/Wikidata}} only fetch information that is sourced on Wikidata. I find Wikidata better for BLP compared to outdated non-reliable statically added parameters. Regards Premeditated (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have indeed looked at the Wikidata page, and my objection stands. The template can filter out information that is unsourced, but it cannot evaluate the reliability of the sourcing, and sources like Discogs which are user-generated are not generally considered to be reliable for content here. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Eeek

I had to jump through hoops to get F&f's img onto the page ( see my description of the process written on the FAC), and now a furshlugginer bot has tagged the img for deletion because of the hoops I jumped through. I dunno how quickly these things get deleted. Could you please take a look at File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (The Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg? I am sorry to trouble you, and appreciate your patience. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi, that shouldn't be a problem - it's just tagging the old versions of the image for deletion, the latest version will stick around. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple thank-you's can now be assumed to adorn the lowest section of your rather imposing talkpage. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Also: I know you are super-busy and I know I have been an irredeemable pain in your neck in the past. However, my chutzpah is boundless; it has no boundaries. I am here to humbly ask you to do an img review for BF43. I fear the worst, and if there is bad news, I wanna hear it now so I might have time to rectify any errors. I am humbly at your service. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(←) I'm very sorry to bother you. Do you have a moment to check out the Bengal Famine FAC? I left some answers for you. Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A corrupt pornographer

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well. Could I ask a favour from you please? I have just written a new article, James Humphreys (pornographer), about a rather unsavoury individual. It has three non-free images in it, which I think should all be there (or at least, they are all helpful if they are there). Would you be able to have a look at them when you have a moment? Absolutely no rush on this - it's a long way from getting up to PR or FAC, but I'd just like to know where I stand on them. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, the FUR for Diary_entry_of_James_Humphreys.jpg is incomplete, and I don't think {{non-free television screenshot}} is the correct tag - while it is a television screenshot, the television producers wouldn't hold copyright, and it isn't being used for commentary about the show. I think this is probably the weakest of the three in terms of claiming fair use. With regards to James_Humphreys,_1974.jpg, have you done anything to try to track down the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. I'll work on these a bit more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• A quick supplementary question on this. I've found some background on File:James_Humphreys,_1974.jpg (It's got a listing here, which credits it to Keystone). The rest of the rationale is all OK (ours is a smaller, cropped version with a good reason etc), but I have a nagging thought in the back of my mind that we shouldn't use 'agency' images. I've looked over NFCC, but can't see anything that backs that up: am I remembering that right (in which case I'll look for another image), or should I find something different? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi SchroCat, I think you're remembering the documentation for {{non-free historic image}}? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's what I was remembering. So that means we should be able to use it here (if the FUR is good enough)? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks very much! - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Munsinger

Why are you against the article Gerda Munsinger having an infobox? --John B123 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that such an addition would benefit the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Next time you revert a good-faith edit in territory under DS, could you please offer an edit summary which explains that it is your personal view. My view is different, John B123, but I try hard to stay away. I secretly hope there won't be a next time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Aside from the fact that DS makes no requirement to add a summary, I think you'll see, if you look carefully, that an edit summary was left. The summary of remove was as full of explanation as the summary noting the addition. Still, it's nice to see you still not discussing IB matters as you keep saying you don't... - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not an IB matter but courtesy to leave more than an abbreviation as an edit summary (which I had seen, sorry about not being precise), especially for a contentious topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The meaning was as clear an explanation as that describing the addition. There was no lack of courtesy from either editor in providing a description of their action. If you are looking for an explanation of the action, then neither editor provided one. If you're going to nudge someone to leave an explanation, then please ensure you do it fairly to all parties, not just try to needle one person who has followed the same path as someone you happen to agree with. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I am sad about the death of Márta Kurtág. Sorry for no response. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Given Nikkimaria's explanation of the reversion above, I haven't any issues with what has happened previously and hadn't intended to comment further. However as I seem to be getting dragged into some personal issues or an ongoing argument from elsewhere, I will. @SchroCat:: I have to disagree with you here. "Added needs infobox to WP Sexology template" and "detag" are not equally explanatory, nor is "detag" in compliance with the note at the top of the edit page: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary". Similarly, "Undid revision 922176232 by Nikkimaria (talk) Unexplained removal of needs infobox tag" and "switch" are not equally explanatory.

Getting back to the article and whether the general principal of biographies having an infobox shouldn't be the case here, then I think that is better discussed on the articles talk page. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

John B123, please feel free to disagree, but I'm not sure of your grounds. The discussion above concerns the reversion of the IB, nothing else. Your edit summary "Added infobox" is as explanatory as "rm". Both are explaining what steps were taken, both equate to an equal statement of what steps were taken. You provided no explanation of why you were adding an IB; Nikkimaria, following your standard, offered no explanation of why she through it was not needed. I have no idea why Arendt decided to start poking another editor over a matter that did not concern them - you seemed to be happy enough to raise the question with Nikkimaria without her interjection. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat The original conversation was about recent changes on the talk page not about changes back in May, which until today had not been mentioned. But if you want to bring up ancient history, then I remind you again of my earlier point "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary" wasn't adhered to, which is a clear guideline. "Added infobox" gives information if somebody looks back through the page history as to what the edit was about, "rm" gives no information, was it removing extraneous white space, a duplicated word, a whole section? So "both equate to an equal statement of what steps were taken" is not correct. Neither Nikkimaria or myself seem to have a problem with what has happened either in May or a few days ago, so I have no idea why others seem to be having an issue and are putting a spin on the facts to score points. --John B123 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I was not the one who initially brought up the ancient history. That was a third party to whom I replied. I didn't (and still don't) have an issue with it either: that was the same third party. Maybe you missed what I said in my post to you: "I have no idea why Arendt decided to start poking another editor over a matter that did not concern them - you seemed to be happy enough to raise the question with Nikkimaria without her interjection". I think we've gone round in circles enough now. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what your issue with Gerda Arendt is, but clearly there is from the "it's nice to see you still not discussing IB matters as you keep saying you don't" remark. I've no wish to know what the issues are, or the history of it either, I've got far better things to do with my time. I will ask that you don't involve me in it in the future. --John B123 (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should ask her not to interject where it wasn't needed, as she was the one who decided to open things up. You were the one who then pinged me, not the other way round. But I'll repeat: I think we've gone round in circles enough now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

From where I'm standing, not to interject where it wasn't needed applies equally to you. I would suggest if you don't want to keep "going round in circles", then you should resist keep adding comments that provoke a reply. --John B123 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Jen Gunter bias

Hello,

I made edits to reflect a different side of Jen Gunter in order to balance the overall tone as the article seems to glorify and promote her only. I would like to know why it got removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdvr9 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kdvr9, I felt your edit presented issues with WP:RSOPINION, particularly given that the article is a BLP. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	Barnstar of Reliability
	Nikkimaria, thank you for removing citations to questionable and self-published sources from thousands of articles over the years. Your painstaking efforts to preserve article reliability are much appreciated! — Newslinger talk 07:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 at Women in Red

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143 Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red... Online events: New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hans Monderman

Hi, can you please explain your recent changes to Hans Monderman? Your edits do not seem constructive, and I am not familiar with what "doc" might mean. Thanks! 192.118.27.253 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP, it refers to Template:Infobox person/doc - see the notes there about when to include that particular parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thanks for the explanation! 192.118.27.253 (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Hi, perhaps you might provide alternative sources to the Daily Mail rather than just removing them? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes that makes sense, other times removal is the best option. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Caligari

Hey Nikkimaria. The Caligari FAC has been quiet as of late. As you may recall we disagreed over the inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes in the article. I just wanted to check, is that the only thing holding back a support vote or a further review from you? I still feel like the limited inclusion in the article is acceptable, but I don't want to hold up the FAC over such a minor thing, so please let me know. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hunter Kahn, I don't intend to oppose over that issue, the source review should be good to go. (Source and image reviews are required checks at FAC but not generally the basis for supports). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough, just checking. Thanks much! — Hunter Kahn 17:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Odo of France

Hi, Nikkimaria. You erased my (I thought) humble and harmless contribution in Odo of France. Please, perhaps you are right, but I'm a Secondary School teacher (I don't know who you are) and I begin to feel very tired for seeing how very experienced people like you dishearten people like me who try to take their little steps in Wikipedia. Beacause it's not the first time. Instead of helping us or improving our contributions. How did you began? I see you are congratulated for your "terminating" experience. I'm not attacking you, I only ask for mercy, I'm sure it's possible to do these things other way. Please, don't ignore my call. Thank you very much.--Habibicb (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Habibicb, thanks for your note. Wikipedia allows anyone to contribute regardless of their background or expertise - but the flip side of that is we need additions to have reliable sourcing, rather than other open wikis. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review request

Hi Nikkimaria. I wonder if you would be willing to do an image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carlos Castillo Armas/archive1? I don't usually ask, as a number of FACs need your attention; but you've already done an image review for this one at ACR, and the only difference is this image, which I've already done as much research on as I can; so it ought to be quick. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2019

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue X, October 2019 Headlines Australia report: WikiD at the Design Museum Colombia report: Wikimedia Colombia in Argentinean event Czech Republic report: Wikipedia Week of Libraries in Broumov Estonia report: Nordic cooperation + Wikisource + library information Finland report: Collaborative histories France report: GLAM working group at WMFr; Partnership with AAF Indonesia report: Numismatic items from Sumatran Numismatic Museum Malaysia report: Wikipedia Penang Meetup 2 @ Tuanku Fauziah Museum and Gallery, University of Science Malaysia Netherlands report: Share Your Data master classes for GLAMs; New project manager WMNL; Images from Africa Norway report: Radio Cinema at the National Library in Oslo Sweden report: Nordic Museum publications on Wikidata and Commons; Wikipedia training in Härnösand; Open cultural heritage data in focus in Visby UK report: Khalili; Museums + Tech; Oxford WIR placement ends USA report: Spooky Autumn meetups Special story: #WikiForHumanRights Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Getting started, Tool highlights, Blog posts and presentations about SDC Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 35, July–August 2019 Wikidata report: We Are Seven Wikimedia and Libraries User Group report: October 16th meeting minutes Wikisource report: Community Wishlist Survey 2020 and Wiki Advanced Training 2019 WMF GLAM report: 1Lib1Ref, Wikimedia Sweden Research and other updates 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.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 09:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

non-RS removal - good one

I found this recentchanges tag and saw you got to most of them! Are you following this tag? If so, it'll save me some time, and I'll keep idly removing DM refs ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: No, but I think this overlaps somewhat. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

I wanted to ask whether you are always supposed to omit causes of death from biographical infoboxes, given this edit in which you removed it. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@IntoThinAir: See the documentation for that parameter at Template:Infobox person/doc. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Julia Morgan & Hearst Castle

Dear Nikkimaria, I'm working on Hearst Castle, with the ultimate goal of FAC. I'm having an issue with the two images of the castle's architect, Julia Morgan, which appear to be the only two we actually have of her. The images are [[File:Julia Morgan.jpg]] and [[File:Hearst and Morgan.jpg]]. The first is being used on Morgan's own article page, but has been removed from Hearst Castle on the grounds that Morgan isn't the subject of that article. The second is currently flagged for deletion on 21 November. If those are the rules then regrettably, so be it. But it does seem a huge shame that we can't have at least one image of Morgan in the article about her most important building. Until pretty recently, she was a very undervalued architect, receiving a posthumous AIA Gold Medal in 2014 and a New York Times obituary as late as 2019! To me, the Hearst Castle article is almost as much about her as the castle itself. I should add that another editor disagrees, see here: User talk:JJMC89#Julia Morgan. I'd be very grateful for any advice. Thanks in advance. KJP1 (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, regarding the second image, the "unique historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself is the subject of commentary, not just what it depicts - eg Tank Man. That's a very high bar for inclusion and probably wouldn't be met in this case. If you're not able to include the first image you may be able to make a fair use case using a different tag. That being said, regarding the first image, it appears this was published in 1926 as a carte de visite - that would likely make it public-domain per {{PD-Pre1978}}, assuming that was in the US, which would avoid any possible fair-use question. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Morning Nikkimaria - many thanks indeed. Really helpful as ever. I shall float the idea of a public domain status for the visiting card; to me that seems strong as, by their very nature, visiting cards are meant to be public. It's a real shame re. the other, as it shows Morgan and Hearst's "rare, true collaboration" very well. But we'll try to save at least one. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR access

Hi Nikkimaria! It seems I now have JSTOR access, but I don't know how to log in. If I do my usual login routine, I still get blocked at six articles as a normal user. Should I login differently? Thank you पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC) @Sitush: Pinging Sitush in case he has any hints.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi पाटलिपुत्र, JSTOR has to process the approval on their side, which could take a couple of days yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Great! Thank you!! (by the way, I mistakenly pushed the button for "Renew application" as I was searching for a solution) पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! It just works as usual now, with the usual login method, but without the article number limit. Great! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, it really isn't much of a dispute since you are probably right anyways, but the header on the page says that I have to give you this notice if I want to ask a question there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review on Brennus

I'd be obliged if you could find the time to look over the images in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Brennus/archive1 as it only lacks an image review to be promoted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

• #1Lib1Ref January 2020
• #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147 Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red... Online events: New: Parliamentarians / Classical musicians / 2019 deaths / Geofocus: Arab world Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

Hi, hope you're well. Thanks for approving my access to the above on 13th October. Unfortunately I've yet to receive my login details six weeks since, I wonder how to proceed. Cowlibob (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Cowlibob, my information is that it was set up today - can you verify you've not received it? (Check spam). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I've checked all the folders on my email but no luck. Cowlibob (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it'll get sent along with the next batch, which might take a few days yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but I've still not received the login details. Cowlibob (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Have emailed OUP. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for chasing this, the account has been approved today. Cowlibob (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Allen

would you please explain this change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_G._Allen&diff=next&oldid=927915083

deisenbe (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe, cause of death should be included only when significant, and |parents= is intended to name notable parents rather than indicating their race. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award

		The Red Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Nikkimaria for writing the fascinating article Battle of the Hatpins and promoting it through DYK during the third year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

science direct access grants?

hi, Ive had access to Science Direct before, do you know if there are any grants available?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately not at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I sent them an email via [11] and they renewed my subscription (I can send you a copy of email if you need one)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

BF43

Sorry to bother you. Any additional comments on the Bengal famine of 1943 FAC? Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, not at this point, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and trouble. I'm emailing you some detailed licensing info that I don't quite understand. If you have time to read it, that would be wonderful. But if not, thank you again! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

• From the editor: Put on your birthday best

• News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

• In the media: You say you want a revolution

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

• Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

• Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

• Gallery: Winter and holidays

• Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

• Essay: Adminitis

• From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

• In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

• Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. SL93 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2019

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue XI, November 2019 Headlines Australia report: Wiki Loves Monuments Finland report: Combining the old and the new France report: Wikimedia training workshops; Conference in the city of Arles Netherlands report: IHLIA starts monthly Wikipedia writing sessions, Wiki Techstorm 2019 New Zealand report: Wellington talks and edit-a-thons Poland report: Transgressing the boundaries of internal academic discourse Sweden report: Minor grants and Library training USA report: A busy conference season, a new Caribbean community and introducing a tool for adding artwork metadata Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Continued development, documentation, and blog posts Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes-Issue 36, September–October 2019 Wikidata report: Research published Wikisource report: Results of Community Wishlist Survey 2020 Calendar: December'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.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 14:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about some edits

Hi Nikkimaria, I would like to ask you about some changes you made on the edits of Joe Adonis and Anthony Anastasio. Days ago I updated the infobox with the informations contained in the pages, also adding "parents", "cause of death" and the links on the countries of birth/death (U.S., Italy). Why did you remove these informations? Obviously I could be wrong, so I ask for clarification. Greetings, −Dipascz (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dipascz, take a look at the documentation for the parent template: countries generally aren't linked, parents are listed only if notable, and cause of death is only included if it is significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, thank you for the ansewer, now I understand. Regards, −Dipascz (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 18:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

ygm from ling

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

 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lingzhi2: Yep, have passed that along, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nocturnes (Debussy)

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this to see whether you had any concerns regarding the quoting here, and also whether you are happy with the fixes made to reduce the close paraphrasing. There was also a concern that the selection of quotes could be considered too similar to those in one of the sources. Thank you very much for whatever you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for checking into it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Death_cause Deleted

Dear Nikkimaria. I saw that you deleted the "death_cause" parameter ("death_cause=consumption") in the article Honora Burke. Please excuse me for bothering, I am a newby and you are a great Wikipedian. I might learn something important from your explanation. I checked: it is a valid parameter (see template infobox_person). With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johannes Schade, if you look at Template:Infobox person/doc (the template's documentation), you will see details about when and how the different parameters should be used. With regards to |death_cause=, the documentation indicates it "should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability... [and] not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness". I removed it in this case because I don't see any indication in the article that the first of these cases is met, and unfortunately at the time death from consumption was quite routine. (In Europe in the 1600s it is believed to have caused 25% of all deaths). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nikkimaria. Indeed. What a learning curve Wikipedia is. With many thanks for your careful answer ... and happy Christmas. Johannes Schade (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well N. MarnetteD|Talk 20:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

		Faithful friends who are dear to us
		... gather near to us once more. May your heart be light and your troubles out of sight, now and in the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Nikkimaria, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, dawnleelynn(talk) 17:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gates of Tears

Nikkimaria, there's been a request at WT:DYK for a third opinion on whether there is close paraphrasing in the article or not, since the original reviewer thinks there is but the nominator and another reviewer disagree. I would greatly appreciate it if you could lend your expertise to this nomination. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはNikkimariaたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

External link to Forgotten Realms Wiki

Hello and Merry Christmas! I have seen that you have removed the link in Forgotten Realms to the Forgotten Realms Wiki, based on WP:ELNO. I assume, you are refering to point 12., open wikis. Could you please let me know if am I correct? If that is the case, I would like to point out that the Forgotten Realms Wiki in my view falls under the "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" clause of that point. I am happy to give more details if you like.
I also have been in a number of deletion discussions of D&D subjects recently, and often the argument of those who wanted articles deleted was "this does not belong here, those interested should go to fan wikis". In that regard I find it important to keep that external link to indeed help those who are interested in these matters to find that wiki. It is to my knowledge the largest, most active and with most well-kept content in matters D&D. Thank you very much for your consideration! Daranios (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Daranios, you are correct. I respect your point regarding deletion discussions directing contributions to fan wikis, but don't agree that that in itself is sufficient to warrant retaining the link - are there other points you feel would support its retention? Actually it would probably be better to have this discussion at WP:ELN to reach a broader consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I have placed my question there. Daranios (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Begotten FA Quotations

Hello Nikkimaria, I read your review on my FA nomination for Begotten and I have replied to the issues and concerns you had with it. I also am here to ask for some input on some possible fixed for quotes in the article that are over 40 words. Here are my possible fixes sorted by section:

Dead and Rebirth- (Merhige) Blockquote (Muir) Remove the last questions part

Development and pre-production- (Merhige) Shorten quote

Post production- (Merhige) Shorten quote

Reception- (Merhige opening quote) Still trying to figure that out as it is essential to the section

Din of Celestial Birds- (Merhige) Blockquote

Influence- (Zola) Shorten

Hopefully this would all work. Feel free to review my reply on the FA review and let me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Just did a little research on some FA class articles and it seems that some quotes used for those are over 40 words. I am just wondering if there is a way to keep the quotes without paraphrasing, trimming or blockquoting.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paleface Jack, last I looked at the review you had mentioned you were planning to make additional edits related to my comments - have you finished that now? And is there a reason you want to avoid blockquoting for longer quotes? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the user that placed the deletion tag on the Din of Celestial Birds poster (I also sought additional opinions on the image after making changes to it, which they all said was good now.) I do think that all the citation formatting errors are fixed but if there are, just let me know. I also added a short sentence in the reception section that (sort of) explains the secondary reviews. In regards to the avoidance of blockquoting for longer quotes, I tried doing that before the second comment I did, but it all feels like a forced breaking from the paragraphs and takes away from the overall flow of the article. There are some though that I did manage to shorten as there were some parts in them that weren't really needed. There is still some clarification on some of the issues you pointed out (I have that all in my reply in the FA review). Hopefully, this all helps.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

• From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

• News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

• Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

• In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

• Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

• Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

• Technology report: User scripts and more

• Gallery: Holiday wishes

• Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

• From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

• WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis, wiki library

Hi Nikki,

It looks like no one has used the talkpage for Taylor and Francis in a few years, and it appeared you were the wiki liaison. Is that still the case? I requested access in November, and received an email stating I was approved and would get further information within a couple of weeks, but it is now almost been six weeks. Any ideas (assuming you are still involved in this)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi EnigmaMcmxc, it looks like AnthroMimus sent off your application to T&F shortly after it was approved - not sure if there may have been a delay due to holidays? He may have more information. Nikkimaria (talk)

Thank you for checking into that. Mostly just glad to know that the process is still going. Cheers :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Infernal machine (weapon)

Nikkimaria, can you please check this nomination? Initially, a large section was copied over from another article, and I pointed out that this meant the article had to be expanded fivefold from the length of the copied material. The section was then deleted, and a paraphrased replacement subsequently inserted. (There are grammatical problems with it, but that's another issue.) Does the paraphrasing mean that no expansion is needed, that a partial one is, or what? And are there issues with paraphrasing the other article, even if not close paraphrasing? (Or even if there is close paraphrasing, since the copying was originally noted.)

I did ping you there, but I remember that pinging doesn't always work for you, so I'm posting this here to be sure you see it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

/* Parliamentary career */ The expenses payback failed to cite a huge amount that was secretly repaid.

Dear Nikkimaria

I am new to wiki but you deleted some edits I made which were correctly sourced using the UK's best selling newspaper .... you stated it was not reliably sourced i think ... anyway I have reverted and left an explanation. If i've done something wrong please explain as I have no desire to break rules or have unnecessary differences and i appreciate your patience given im new and your guidance. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finderman999 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

thank you for your kind response. does this mean wherever the daily mail is used as a source for a living person it is not considered reliable? Where does the wikipedia community decide this as you suggest .... I am somewhat confused but i will get the hang of it eventually. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finderman999 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The DYK Barnstar

		The DYK Barnstar
		Thank you. --evrik (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Algodoo Page Question

What did you remove/add on the page for Algodoo? I am looking over it right now and I'm not sure what has changed. (ThisIsKen (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

Hi ThisIsKen, I removed an inline external link and an unreliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! (ThisIsKen (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

FAC reviewing

Hi Nikkimaria, A very happy new year to you, and I hope you had an enjoyable break over the last week or so.

A quick quesion about FAC reviewing: do you know of any good pages that ourline what an FA review should be? I know that for sources, User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You and Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC are often quoted, but do you know of any that are good for images - or for general prose?

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing_featured_article_candidates? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Perfect - thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Breaking infoboxes

Might I gently suggest that if someone says you've broken something and you can't figure out what, then you ask them via their talk page rather than just going and breaking things again? To take this edit as an example - the article was already reporting the location as Bern - and more importantly, it was extracting that location from Wikidata. More and more factual data is being moved to Wikidata, as it means that Wikipedias in every language can use the version at Wikidata, which only needs to be updated once for any changes to be reflected in every Wikipedia. So not only did you not need to add Bern to the en.wiki article, the way you did so actually broke the infobox as the field name should be location and not located, and you could have worked that out because the article now appeared in Category:Pages using infobox archive with unsupported parameters. Please can you repair the damage that you've done? Le Deluge (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Or, Le Deluge, you could remove the Wikidata box and put in a WP one, compete with sourced information? I have absolutely zero trust in Wikidata - a site that casued WP descriptions of Melania Trump to state she was a "former sex worker and porn star" for nine days after her Wikidata entry was vandalized on 15 June 2019. Sourcing of Wikidata information is too lax; the sytem is too easy to vandalise and it leaves the IBs with those horrible pen images at the end of each line. Using WD boxes is such a lazy and lame way to diseminate (mis)information, and time would better be spent replacing the awful things with sourced information. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Le Deluge, SchroCat's point aside, my primary concern in this case is the reader view: there is absolutely no need to display "Bern, canton of Bern" rather than simply "Bern". If you'd like to change the template in some way to do that automatically you're certainly welcome to do so, but the issue of updating information is in this case not particularly compelling, given that the location of the archives is unlikely to change. Additionally, the error message you point out is due to a problem with the template itself, not my edit - as seen here, using |location= in the article does not accomplish any displayed change, because "located" is actually the name of the relevant parameter. Again, if you'd like to change that in the template, go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Some images

Hi Nikki, Happy New Year! I'm dubious about our using three images recently added by other editors to two articles I took to FAC and wonder if I could get a reality check from you:

• File:William_Bostock.png -- WP file claims government image and it probably is but the source site is an enthusiast's that doesn't seem to mention image copyright anywhere I can see.
• File:TW White (cropped).jpg -- government library source states copyright uncertain.
• File:Sir Thomas White 1950.jpg -- ditto.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

• The image is credited to the Australian Parliamentary Handbook, which our article states is archived at that enthusiast's site. You could track down a hard copy to confirm.

• Not sure about this one - seems likely to be an archival image so would want more information regarding copyright status.

• This is credited to the Australian News and Information Bureau which appears to have been a federal department, so current tagging seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of In the Library with the Lead Pipe

The article In the Library with the Lead Pipe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability since 2016. Not indexed in any selective databases. The three independent references listed are just in-passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of In the Library with the Lead Pipe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article In the Library with the Lead Pipe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Library application

Hi Nikkimaria, it looks like I might be having an issue with my Newspapers.com application. I've had access for a couple years now without any issues, and requested the renewal for 2020, which I see you approved. But when I log in over at Newspapers I have the basic free account instead of the full service one. I see the applications page status says "Renewal - Approved", whereas in the past it always would say "Renewal - Sent to partner". Is it maybe waiting in a queue or something? It's not urgent, just checking to make sure something wasn't missed. ♟♙ (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi ♟♙, yep, it's still in process - should be set to go within the next few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! : ♟♙ (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 32 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2019

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue XII, December 2019 Headlines Armenia report: GLAM+Wikidata Collaboration between Armenia and Albania Czech Republic report: Edit-a-thon Prachatice 2 Kosovo report: Transitional Justice edit-a-thon held in Prishtina New Zealand report: A Wikipedian in Residence and a Wikipedian writes Norway report: Plaintext Wikipedia dumps for the National Library Sweden report: Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Bibliographic data about Swedish periodicals USA report: White Elephant; WikiWednesday Salon; Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: New blog posts Wikidata report: Job vacancies and item 80 million WMF GLAM report: Mapping GLAM-Wiki collaborations Calendar: January'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.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 16:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope you are well. Would you be able to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Humphreys (pornographer)/archive2 for an image review? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons deletion request

You may be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/Auschwitz liberation film, since you earlier expressed an opinion on the public domain status of a still from the film. buidhe 09:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

Dartslilly (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Status of image

Hi Nikkimaria, I have Samuel May Williams at peer review in preparation for an FA nomination. I am reviewing the status of all the images. There is one I have a question about: May Williams House, south side. Would you mind checking the use justification at your convenience? Thank you, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oldsanfelipe2, not sure I follow your question - a use justification is required as part of a fair-use rationale, but this image is claimed to be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Maybe I confabulated image files. Now I see the justification as being the work of a US government official. This answers my own question. Thanks for responding, just the same. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Iris lortetii

Nikkimaria, I was hoping you could check the article to be sure it's now free from close paraphrasing; Yoninah identified a bunch of places where the phrasing was too close in one of the sources; I thought it would be a good idea under the circumstances to make sure nothing else was lurking. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Image discussion at DYK talk page

Nikkimaria, I just noticed a discussion about whether a book cover image was PD (argument is de minimis) at WT:DYK#Query about book cover image used in article. Would you be able to contribute an expert opinion on this, or know of someone who could? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

wikidata infobox Comment

Hi there, I noticed you were tidying up after my inserting of the {{Wikidata Infobox}} template - I am just visiting from Commons, and I apologise for the error. In light of that, can you let me know the best way to insert an infobox on en:, so that perhaps I can get it right (or better anyway)? Thank you in advance! Deadstar (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Deadstar, something from this category would work for biographies - which would depend on the article subject and what information is being presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi & thank you for that link (and quick reply!) I'll see how I get on! Kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dan Leno

Not sure why you removed my additional text. I'm new to this game and deliberately didn't remove any of the pre-existing text about his final illness/death. I was intrigued by the apparent lack of information and as a someone who is medically qualified and a (UK) Medical Examiner with an interest in genealogy I felt that checking his death certificate (which is in the public domain) was reasonable. I got a copy of his death certificate and I have simply quoted from that document. Just in case anyone is concerned about the embarrassment about the nature of his illness - GPI was a common cause of death in that era and features in members of my family tree. I did try to upload a PDF copy of the certificate or a snapshot of it, but the software blocked me under suspected copyright issues. Malcolm Griffiths (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because what you added was not sourced. You should not be adding unsourced information anywhere, let alone a featured article like Dan Leno. Please read WP:CITE. Thanks Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If the information contained on a registered death certificate is considered "unsourced" then IMalcolm Griffiths (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC) am perplexed. removal of the FACTUAL information simply perpetuates MISINFORMATION and INACCURACY. This leaves me somewhat disillusioned with the concept of an open source with collaborative authorship:-( Malcolm Griffiths (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm Griffiths, "collaborative authorship" doesn't mean that we include everything that everyone wants - it means we operate by consensus. You're welcome to bring your proposed addition to the article's talk page for more discussion. However, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is based primarily on secondary sources, rather than primary sources like death certificates. The article does already contain a brief discussion of the different proposed causes of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of content citing only The Daily Mail as a reference.

With reference to your removal of content from Spectre (2015 film), which I presume is due to the fact it cited only references from The Daily Mail, I believe that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to look for alternative sources before deleting such material. In this instance there were other sources available, which in fact largely corroborated the information presented by The Daily Mail. Please could you bear this in mind in future?

For what it‘s worth, in my experience The Daily Mail is no more likely to be in error than Wikipedia, except perhaps where political matters are concerned (and in this respect it is no more biased than most other UK newspapers). I am of the opinion that both institutions demean themselves by engaging in a senseless and petty mutual vendetta. Censorship very rarely benefits anyone and is the very antithesis of open and honest debate (note that neither am I a reader of the Daily Mail nor do I agree with its politics, but I do believe in the freedom of the Press). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin of Northumbria (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)... Two things, firstly, you say "I believe that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to look for alternative sources before deleting such material." No. The onus is on you to find a reliable source and if you don't provide one, the information is fair game to be deleted. Secondly, Wikipedia, for some unknown reason, seems to dislike the right-wing press and considers the likes of the Daily Mail, The Sun and Daily Express to be the devil incarnate and always wrong, yet publications like the Guardian can get caught out lying, yet maintain their reliability reputation...nope, me neither. See this for what is approved and what isn't. Cassianto^Talk 09:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(stalking) ^... ——SN54129 11:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

• From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium

• News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia

• Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta

• In the media: Turkey's back up, but what's happening with Dot-org and a new visual identity?

• Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, we're all winners

• News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations

• Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015

• In focus: Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!

• Recent research: How useful is Wikipedia for novice programmers trying to learn computing concepts?

• From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report

• Humour: Predicting the 6,000,000th article

• Obituary: Remembering Wikipedia contributor Brian Boulton

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Eliza Ashton

Hi, I noticed you removed the cause of death from the infobox of Eliza Ashton with an edit summary of "doc."[12] I have no problem with the edit but was wondering if you could explain the reason, so that I know when is an appropriate time to use that field. Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi From Hill To Shore, take a look at Template:Infobox person/doc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It appears to be a subjective interpretation of whether the cause of death was a key factor of the subject's notability. I had read that guidance and thought it was appropriate to include it at the time. While I think her untimely death (at the end of the decade of her prime notability) is a key factor, I am happy that it is covered in the prose and doesn't need to be repeated in the infobox. As it is a subjective assessment, I'll probably end up in the same position on future articles but I doubt I will challenge another editor's removal of it. Thanks again. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155 Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Explorers / Black Women / Horror / Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Gale Access

Hi! My application for access to Gale through The Wikipedia Library Card Platform was reviewed by you and "sent to partner" on January 12. However, I haven't received any email from Wikipedia or Gale regarding this or any notification of access. I am wondering what my password is supposed to be after being redirected from galesupport.com/wikipedia to https://galeapps.gale.com/apps/auth/wikipedia?cause=https://find.gale.com/menu/commonmenu.do/userGroupName/wikipedia/prodId/MENU/finalAuth/true. Thanks, hope you can help. Heartfox (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Heartfox, could you send me an email? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Heartfox (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

EBSCO

Hi Nikki I hope you are well. I have been getting an error message when I try to log on to EBSCO recently saying that my log in details are invalid or expired. Can you advise the position please? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dudley Miles, those accounts last a year only - you can request renewal here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln FA, GA

I did those noms and you did the reviews, I think, about 10 years ago. I was thinking about it now, and it made me wonder. How did you know so much about the subject? Those reviews were way more in depth (in a good way) than any other review I've ever seen. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, the best answer I have is I had a lot of time on my hands ;-) I took one US history class back in high school and not a thing since, so definitely wouldn't call myself a subject expert! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)