Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 42

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

Sorry to bother you, but I've got another copyright question. So in my time on WP, I've seen a lot of images of commercial products, and a few are listed as fair use, while many are just listed as a CC own work license. From my understanding, trade dress is considered intellectual property. The threshold of originality will play into if something is going to be considered public domain or under copyright. I just don't know if a photo of trade dress is under copyright or not (there's no WP:Trade dress or Commons:Trade dress, and I don't know where else to look). For instance, compare File:MtnDewmocracyRevolutionVoltageSupernova.jpg (fair use) vs File:Campbell's (Andy Warhol Special edition).jpg (CC-BY-3.0). The Mountain Dew image clearly is above the threshold of originality, and I would image the color design and font effects on the Campbell's cans would surely be above the threshold too. So is there a clear opinion on trade dress and copyright, as it's very divergently applied. Hog Farm Talk 23:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, trade dress is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. A particular product/package design can be protected by copyright, depending on its level of creativity as well as its separability. The relevant Commons guidance is commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to test my comprehension, if you don't mind, (sorry to be such a bother!) with the soup cans example, the shape of the can is not copyrightable (utilitarian object), but the packaging of the can may be (the printed design is separable). And per commons rules, it's only acceptable on Commons if the separable, copyrightable portion is 1.) a minimal part of the image (so like a Coke can in the background of a photo) 2.) if it's below the threshold of originality, and 3.) if it is so old the copyright has expired. So, going back to the images question at the Campbell's Soup Cans FAR, I would be justified in nominating File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 01.jpg for deletion on Commons, right, as the printed design is separable and thus copyrightable, is not de minimis in the image, appears to be above Commons:Threshold of originality#United States of America, and since the image description indicates that these specific can designs were sent to stores in 2012, the specific design would not be old enough for PD. Hog Farm Talk 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, your explanation is correct in principle. The Campbell's case is slightly more complicated because the image is a derivative work of an original label design which is older, and therefore (potentially) out of copyright (depending on the exact date of this design, which I haven't looked into). The question then becomes not just does the design overall meet the threshold of originality, but is it sufficiently different from an out-of-copyright design to warrant separate protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the case of that specific image, I'd wonder about what the OTRS message said. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short footnotes for websites

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, hoping to tap into your FA experience regarding British Empire. I've converted all book and journal sources to the most common format, which is short citations. However, I am unsure how to do it for the websites. (Help:Shortened footnotes provides little enlightenment.) Perhaps newspaper articles have authors, but are the rest cited to publishers? Are the full citations mixed in with books and journals? Is there an FA which provides a good model? Thanks, CMD (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, you have two options: you could leave web and news sources inline (compare Columbia, South Carolina, Sesquicentennial half dollar), or you can develop a ref naming scheme for citations without named authors, based either on website/publisher or on title (see for example Pepi I Meryre). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will leave them and note on the FARC page. CMD (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, that's fine, but the long citations still have inconsistencies - for example whether books have locations or no, whether web sources use citation templates or no, use of website vs publisher (and some that have neither), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just adjusting the cite webs, since they can be left. There were only 9 locations, so I've removed those. CMD (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Vincent

[edit]

Hi, I see you've reverted my edit (new infobox). If you can let me know what was wrong I'd be grateful. The article needs improvement. Leisad (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leisad , as the subject is best known as a musician, the previous specific version was IMO more appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, military service is relevant and important. (Vincent was brought up in a naval community, planned a long career in the U.S. Navy, discharged following the accident. Started music with his navy buddies.) It was a huge part of his image as a musician: The Blue Caps, Korean war stories, passion for guns and knives etc. Please, check Elvis Presley for its infobox as example. Featured article. Leisad (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it was important to him, but IMO the previous version appropriately highlights the data likely to be of most relevance to readers. To resolve this disagreement, I suggest seeking input from WT:MUSICIANS. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Proposed deletion of Wolfgang Kornberger

[edit]
Notice

The article Wolfgang Kornberger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable musician. Tagged since 2009

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. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Nikki, I hope all is well. I’ve recently created Harlem (poem). While the poem is in copyright (1951 publication), it’s only 11 short lines long. Would it be permissible to put the poem’s text on the page? I’m not sure how copyright feels about short quotes that are the entirety of a work. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie891, it's not the total length that's the issue, but the relative length, impacting to what extent the copying is "substantial". There's a couple of cases mentioned here that would lead me to believe that this use would not be permissible, but it's really a matter of interpretation and IANAL. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is in section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 / Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Lukoschus

[edit]

Hi, just out of curiosity: why did you remove the cause of death? It's sourced to the obituary. I don't edit bios that often, so I may be missing something here. (Like when I remembered that the names of children should not be included unless they're notable themselves after you took them out). Thanks and happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty, that template is a wrapper for {{infobox person}}, which in the documentation indicates that cause of death "should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability, e.g. James Dean, John Lennon. It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, makes sense, thanks. Perhaps we should put a note on infoboxes like that to look for documentation at the main infobox. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miramar

[edit]

I notice that you approved my request to access the Miramar Ship Index on the Wikipedia Library site. Can you please tell me how I would access my TWL account? Lettlerhello • contribs 00:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lettler, you have email. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Anis al-Naqqash

[edit]

Hi

Why did yo delete {{Image requested}} tag from Anis al-Naqqash article?

Cheers Shkuru Afshar (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shkuru Afshar, I moved it to Talk:Anis al-Naqqash - that's where those tags go. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Shkuru Afshar (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WL Application

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for reviewing my Wikipedia Library application for access to Springer Link. Aureum doxadius (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nikkimaria: Last February I got access to SpringerLink. But I cannot read many articles. Most of the times it says "this is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.". This articles or books are from SpringeLink. And I don't get access not even through the Wikipedia library. Is there any problem? Or Everything is not permissible even through the Wikipedia library? Thanks in advance. Aureum doxadius (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aureum doxadius, Springer access is pending renewal so is not currently working - in the interim you can request sources via WP:RX. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ada Ballin

[edit]

Nikkimaria, can you please take a look at this nomination and see whether the short copyvio I found is the sole issue, or if there's more of the same there. I'd been hoping to include this in one of the sets for International Women's Day (March 8), but while that seems less likely, it's still eminently possible for Women's History Month. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March flowers

[edit]

Thank you for having done the image review for Carmen - and so many others - with Bizet's music "expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters" as Brian worded it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prompted by your edit summary for Frank Matcham, I searched for "the archives" and found just one, Talk:Frank Matcham/Archive 1, with an interesting discussion from 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Carmen: today (IWD): MMMM --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'm meant to be looking at in that link; could you clarify? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to look at what you like, - I liked two women for DYK on International Women's Day, and mention not only those two but five female characters, two of them title roles, and four beginning with M which I found funny, plus a famous colleague also beginning with M. - In case you meant the Matcham link, I found my friends plea to permit even idiots the entry to an article (he was politer) quite convincing: "I would urge everyone not to dismiss lightly the argument that we should not be prejudging how our readers consume articles. If a visitor to our site only wants a brief, "dumbed-down" overview, who are we to deny them that facility? We must always remember we are writing Wikipedia for all of our readers (including re-users), not for our editors." Who are we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since then we have gained many other and better options for reusers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should have made "..." instead of the brackets, - I don't care about reusers much, but was too tired to cut it out. Do we have a better option for the "idiots"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume our readers are? It will of course depend on the case, but too often we go too far. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I never used the term idiotbox, but others do. They claim that a reader should read their "beautifully crafted article", not "factoids, and I say: nothing wrong with the beautifully crafted article, but in addition we can offer something for a reader who just needs one factoid. Some have argued as if it was infobox or lead, and I never understood why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some topics lend themselves to factoids; on others, they miss the point, or worse obscure. And unfortunately having some factoids tends to attract others. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus for a moment on opera. The template has few parameters, intentionally so. None of them is inviting trivia and obscurity. The language should be given in all cases. While English is the default for our sources, it's not for operas. The librettist should be given in all cases that we know the person. If it's the composer, that's extra information worth giving, - while no value for the parameter means we don't know. I thought this was discussed but have no time to check. - Looking beyond opera: the infoboxes for Bach and Beethoven have been stable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When we're at a point where the template is longer than the actual article text, few is too many. And if they truly don't understand "The work is based on X", saying instead "Based on X" is not likely to help. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know and like articles where the template is longer than the text, but I better don't tell you ;) - It's not the same knowing where at a glance to find the based_on parameter, and having to search in the prose. I met many opera articles recently. Some mention the thing in the lead, some in the history, some not at all. The based_on parameter should only be empty when we don't know, or the librettist made the plot (otherwise that imagined reader may not even search), - same as librettist, - what about that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, I don't agree. I don't see a functional difference between saying "X, the subject" in caption versus a separate "Based on the life of X" - actually in the case of Mary the former makes more sense, because it immediately provides explanation of the image. And when the whole article is three sentences long, really no parameter is essential. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thésée (Mondonville)

[edit]

Can you please explain what "restore" is short for, which you used as edit summary for operas and the architect above? Seeking the common ground mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a previous iteration. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got that much, but why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As above, given the extremely short length of the article I think the previous design was appropriate. Didn't you say as well above that editor wishes should be respected? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For how long do we respect wishes? I - as you may have noticed - do respect the wishes of Tim riley, Smerus and Smeat75, for good relations with editors who are or may be around? I believe that Kleinzach doesn't care anymore, Folantin stopped editing in 2018, and Cassianto vanished. I regard the information of our readers, and accessibility, as the higher values, compared to satisfying their personal preference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that edits like this one improve either accessibility or reader experience. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have a sophisticated way to evade a question. Fine, I include you and Ssilvers in the list of authors whose wish I respect, as active editors with whom I don't want conflict. This goes for articles you and the others have created. I am sorry that I didn't check for Die lustige Witwe, or would not have bothered. The title of the thread is one opera, and can we please look for a moment at that one opera. It was created by a user who hasn't edited in years, and for how long do you think we have to obey his wish (and yours) for no infobox? ... even if the community doesn't agree (asked in 2021 for Cary Grant and Ian Fleming), and, needless to say, I do see better accessibility with an infobox, but would only repeat what I have said in years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's your argument, I would ask you: you advocated above for an editor last active six years ago - to whom does that courtesy extend, or not? Why would we say only active editors for one viewpoint and not the other? And again, this specific article is extremely short, and introducing a (relatively) long template causes its own accessibility concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other things do exist. Please, let's look at Thésée (Mondonville). This looks to me - at a glance - like an article about a person. Anything saying Opera or Tragédie en musique on top would make it more accessible. The formatted date in the infobox works in other languages. (I imagine someone wanting to translate this article.) The article doesn't tell the reader that the title hero is from Greek mythology. Someone searching for the librettist has to read for a while, looking at things they don't care about, while in the infobox, they could see him immediately. - If article length is a concern (which I don't understand), then we better expand the article. In this specific one, all we win by not having an infobox is white space. I don't see your accessibility concerns, please explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What white space you have depends on your screen size. On my tablet with the template in place you have a lot more, plus compress the table practically to the point of unusability. And the first thing the article says is "Thésée (Theseus) is an opera". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

shining star

[edit]

Thank you for reviewing Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. I'll forget about the little things above, - not worth arguing about an article with 0 to 2 readers on a normal day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Caroline Island, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dr Salvus (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus, could you explain what your concerns were with those edits? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you vandalize. Can you tell me why you think these changes are in good faith? What do you want to do, maybe I'll help you too. Dr Salvus (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think that I vandalize based on what, exactly? What specific problems do you see with those edits warranting an assumption of bad faith? See the article's Featured Article Review commentary. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me. I admit I was wrong. But I did it in good faith. Dr Salvus (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allright Dr Salvus, you did it in good faith and have now apologized. But please be more careful in the future to check out an article’s history, talk page, etcetera; the history of the editor you are reverting (Nikkimaria doesn’t vandalize, and she is the Coordinator of WP:FAR) and also please be aware of WP:DTTR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you

[edit]
You are a great! Dr Salvus (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donner Party - Nisenan not Miwok

[edit]

You and I have been undoing each other’s edit for weeks on this topic which seems unproductive. The Donner Party page references the Snowshoe Party (“Forlorn Hope”) ‘stumbling upon a Miwok settlement...’. Although several novelists, some with academic credentials (including King, Stewart, Rarick and others) have said this settlement was Miwok, more detailed and recent research including tribal oral history for Forlorn Hope has determined they were Nisenan. I welcome a discussion exchanging references and resources to help us settle the apparent difference of our findings.

Below is a list of written references from which my findings have been derived. In addition, over seven years of researching the Snowshoe Party, there have been a preponderance of meetings with the National Parks Service, California State Parks, Donner Memorial State Park, Nisenan Museum, Nisenan Tribal Counsel, Maidu Tribal Counsel, Donner Summit Historical Society, Truckee-Donner Historical Society, Wheatland Historical Society, Oregon-California Trail Association (OCTA), Trails West, Inc., Sutter Fort Museum, California State Library, Bancroft Library, several archeologists (Dixon, Johnson, etc.) all who agree with the fact that it was a Nisenan settlement, not Miwok, that the Forlorn Hope discovered in the latter days of their 33 day sojourn.

Many historians have confused that Luis and Salvador were both believed to be Miwok and carried this to assume, erroneously, that the settlements were also Miwok.

Luis and Salvador were pressed into service (some 13:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Imcrowley (talk)say slavery or servitude) by John Sutter to work as guides from his fort in Sacramento. Sutter had found them both in the Bay Area following the war. The Miwok Tribe were predominantly Bay Area (not Sierra foothills) settlers. Luis and Salvador accompanied Charles Stanton upon his return to the Donner Party, bringing provisions.

But the settlements encountered by Forlorn Hope were Nisenan, not Miwok. Indeed Miwok settled in the Bay Area. The foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains were occupied by several tribes and sub-tribes. Specifically along the Bear River which is the body of water the Forlorn Hope travelled in the last week of their journey, was settled by a sub-sect of the Maidu tribe called, “Nisenan”.

I live in this area and have interviewed several tribal leaders pertaining to the verbal history of the area and specifically Forlorn Hope. There is no doubt that the fact was erroneously documented by several - at the time - prominent authors, that the settlements encountered were Miwok. This was then perpetuated by later authors and historians without having fact checked and done further research. The most recent work has discovered the error and going about the process of having it corrected in numerous sources and locations, including Wikipedia.

I hope this explanation helps you understand that the small edit I have made on the Donner Party page pertaining to this topic is done with tremendous prior research and confirmation. As with so many “facts” in history, some can be unequivocally defended and others are recollections recorded, then perpetuated, in many cases erroneously; the latter the case here.

</ref></ref> https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=hornbeck_ind_1 </ref></ref> https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=usupress_pubs </ref></ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisenan </ref></ref> https://sierrafund.org/tag/nisenan-tribute-site/ </ref></ref> http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/california-indian-history/ </ref></ref> https://www.forlornhope.org/research-resources/ </ref></ref> http://www.donnersummithistoricalsociety.org/ </ref></ref> http://www.wheatlandhistoricalsociety.org/ </ref></ref> https://www.nisenan.org/ </ref></ref> https://octa-trails.org/ </ref></ref> https://emigranttrailswest.org/

Imcrowley (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imcrowley, most of those links are to multipage documents or websites - what specific pages do you believe support your version? The changes you made to the article were not accompanied by sources, and the sources already present support the previous version. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, a brief note regarding on our apparent difference of opinion as to if findagrave links can be included specifically in External links sections. Could you clarify the reasoning for actively removing findagrave from External links? For context: I see inclusion of findagrave as adding value to biographies, notwithstanding WP:RS concerns for use elsewhere (I agree that it should generally not be used as a source within an article). I do not see that findagrave lands outside of WP:ELPEREN (which reads in part: "unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images of a grave") or Template:Find a Grave (which reads in part: "contains unique information not already mentioned and cited in the body of the article"). Nor do I see WP:LINKVIO as blanket for findagrave, in contrast to a site like azlyrics.com. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The LINKVIO concern is not blanket, but regarding specific links - there are many that include copyrighted content without evidence of permission, including both text and uploaded media. Regarding ELPEREN, as noted there it should rarely be included, as often it does fails WP:ELNO. This has been backed up by multiple discussions at WP:ELN. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Rather than responding in detail here, I will add comment (at some point this week) over at WP:ELN in the already lengthy "Find A Grave links as external links" discussion. I feel (as others may have already pointed out in that thread) that if we are serious about discouraging use of findagrave and making its use truly "rarely", the TEMPLATE:findagrave needs to be deprecated. I'm actually on the fence about whether that's the "right" action to take, but I do feel strongly that having a Template for it while supposedly having "a widely adopted consensus" is highly problematic. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to include links to such a discussion in your edit summaries; as it is, those of us whose links you are removing having been left to ponder or research why. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox settlement/Wikidata

[edit]

Hello, why did you cancel my changes on "Infobox settlement/Wikidata" without a comment? I'd appreciate a comment as to what was the problem so that we could come to an agreement to find a way to improve the code. Thanks. - Liinisx (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that land/water areas should be included indiscriminately - the template is mostly used on smaller settlement articles. As for density, I believe in the main template it's calculated based on total rather than land area, and I don't see a reason to approach that differently here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If no data is available on particular territory in Wikidata, it is not visible in infobox, thus I don't see any problems of including it. Calculating density per land area is recommended approach by Eurostat (see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00003/default/table?lang=en) and should be used instead of total area if land area is available. Dāvis Kļaviņš (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest raising the issue of how density is calculated at the main template, if you think it ought to be changed - as I said, so long as that one uses total I don't see a reason to approach this one differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Source review query

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope this message finds you well. I'm in a bit of a pickle with my source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 Tour de France/archive1 and was wondering if you could offer any insight. The source in question is this one by Pieter van den Akker; the source is self published, so fails WP:SELFPUB and the author does not seem to be a subject-matter expert (at least, I cannot find anything about him online). The nominator left a comment, including I would find it a travesty if his book should be excluded as a reliable source simply because he self-published it. That does not make a source unreliable. It might make it questionable, but that question can be answered by taking a thorough look at the source. If he were to be removed from this and all other Tour de France articles, a lot of information would be a lot harder to come by, since we would go through the years-long process that Mr van den Akker has, in great detail and thoroughness, done for us already.—I am not sure what to do, the article cites the book quite a bit, but it doesn't seem to be usable...? The author hosts this website as well if that's any evidence of "subject-matter expertise"?Aza24 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24, another self-published work wouldn't really qualify as evidence of expertise under SELFPUB, nor would just looking at the source as suggested by the nom. What we'd be looking for would be whether he had been published (or potentially cited) by reliable venues on this topic. If this doesn't exist, then unfortunately as you suggest it wouldn't qualify as being a high-quality reliable source. (Noting though that it is possible there is relevant material in Dutch - maybe ask the nom about that?) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I had a feeling the website's existence wasn't enough; I'll ask about their possible authorship of dutch sources, good idea—though I suspect the source may have to be replaced in the end. Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit in your user page

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Forgive me to edit your page. DrSalvus (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgiven, but please don't edit user pages other than your own any more. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hells Canyon Massacre

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm sharing this with you as the most recent contributor to the page about the [Canyon Massacre]. While watching the TV series, Leverage, they used the Snake River Massacre as the basis for an episode in season 4: Episode 16, “The Gold Job.” Perhaps this could be an addition under the subtitle, "Legacy."

Thank you for your contribution to this page. FairExchange — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.162.160 (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP - do you have a secondary source supporting that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Fontaine

[edit]

Why did you change the edit on Tina Fontaine? I had changed to article to "Murder of Tina Fontaine" from "Death of Tina Fontaine" as she was clearly murdered. I don't see how that is debatable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The move request closed as having consensus against moving the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French source spot check

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I have a feeling the spot check for the Tibesti Mountains FAC might be a little intimidating for a lot of reviewers given that about a quarter of the sources are in French. I saw your name on the French-language reviewers list... would you be able to squeeze in a spot check on it? I'm definitely impressed by your work around here. Thank you. Brycehughes (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup ! Brycehughes (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging to see if this weekend you might have time to look at my responses on the Tibesti Mountains source review. I realise we all work for free here, so if not no worries. Thank you! Brycehughes (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

  • New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
  • 1Lib1Ref
  • Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April editathons from Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Female perspective

[edit]

Without further comment or overt canvassing, there's a discussion lacking a female perspective. —ATS (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian image improperly copied to commons?

[edit]

An editor has started adding images to some of my destroyer articles, but there's a weird issues with at least one of them, File:Corazziere Caria.jpg. It's sourced to the Italian wikipedia, but that says not to copy to Commons. The photo was out of copyright in Italy in 1996, so shouldn't it fall under the URAA tag and be usable on Commons?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, I see the Italian page says the photo had to have been taken in the late 1930s or early 1940s, but do we know when and where it was first published? Not everything that was PD in source country in 1996 necessarily falls under the URAA tag; publication date and details are also important. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was worried about. More than likely it's an official photo from the Royal Italian Navy as the ship was only in existence during 39–43, but who knows? It might have been published in some of the post-war books on Italian ships, but I'll have to check. If it wasn't published until after '96, I suppose we could use it with the reservations about assumed official photographer and no known publication like we did with the Japanese ship photos. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, but I think that agency's control over Italian records was more limited compared to Japanese - for example this source doesn't seem to specifically mention any Italian sources, and the possibility is not reflected in commons:Template:PD-Italy/US. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any publication of the photo and the Italian Wiki page says that it was donated by a user who served aboard the ship during the war. So I'm fairly certain that this falls under the 120-year rule and have nominated it for deletion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

adam lambert musical

[edit]

can you tell me why you deleted most of the edit regarding the stage musical adam lambert is working on? you also deleted the reference, so even the one short line left has none. there are multiple references on this topic - please let me know your reasoning... at the very least i would otherwise replace the reference. thanks Jordan200 (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jordan200, the reference that was used is not reliable. See its entry here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I’ll replace the ref. Jordan200 (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Jordan200 (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin

[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, I had thought that issues on this article had subsided. The problem began when a group of editors tried to steer the article into saying that Chopin was gay, for which in fact there is no evidence from any authority. There is evidence that he wrote erotic letters to his male friend Titus when he was 19 or 20, and reputable authorities have discussed these and put them in context. An RfC concluded rather inconclusively. The problem is now the opposite - some editors, capitalizing on the rout of the previous comabtants, are seeking to deny or delete any reference to the Titus episode and are deleting and redeleting cited material which relates to it. It is clear that this article has become a battleground for some gay activists and some anti-gay activists. The editors concerned have had little or no hand in developing the article to date. I therefore think that while this battle continues the article should have its FA rescinded. On a broader front I am very concerned that WP is being used to fight such battles - is there some forum to which I could refer this? Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smerus, I see that Ritchie has full-protected the article, which should help. You could also try posting at WP:NPOVN. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, "on a broader front", WP is already "being used to fight such battles". I suggest sitting tight for a while until the next target-du-jour comes along. And I agree with Nikkimaria on bringing it to the attention of a noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, thanks. I have made a submission to NPOVN - my first time there. Let's see what happens.--Smerus (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

[edit]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

So in what cases is Find a Grave allowed as a external link? Because you just removed the template from the article. It doesn't make sense for it to even be a template here if your mass removing the template on almost any biographical page. Are we 100% sure that headstone photograph is copyrighted? Because the find a grave external link contains unique information her grave location. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it's credited to a commercial photographer and source there, yes, we need to assume it's copyrighted. Whether the page contains unique info is a secondary consideration, although in this case the information is not unique - following up on the USA Today photo brings up sources like this one that include that detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Thank you, I will add some info about her grave location using that source you just provided. P.S., So can Find a Grave be used as external link if the subject's entry onto the site has no copyrighted content? ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just the first thing to assess. As per WP:ELPEREN it should be included rarely. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Then I wonder, why do we even have this template on the Wikipedia in the first place if it is taboo to use it? ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because rarely doesn't mean never - it just means usually not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McLaren Senna

[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia and you removed tons of content from the McLaren Senna article and I am new! I do not know how to source and why do you want people to source? You are too lazy to even tell editors how to source. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to use sources and I am a new user! Why do you expect people to use sources!? This is why I do not like Wikipedia or the Wikia/Fandom websites because they require too much coding and they require you to be a typing expert. You tried to start an edit war on the McLaren Senna article because you deleted tons of content and the links were the sources!!! VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022, this page explains how to technically add citations, but the issue with your addition was not the coding - it's that open wikis like Wikipedia and Wikia/Fandom are not reliable sources. You might find going through the Introduction helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Citation Barnstar
For finding sources for the Australia article pretty much immediately after I tagged it. CMD (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
You are a great! Dr Salvus 19:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nawal El Kuwaitia albums

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Nawal El Kuwaitia albums 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! 15:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

revert of page

[edit]

I was wondering why you keep reverting this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BadBoyHalo&action=history

Hi ChromiumOverload, because the subject of that page is a living person, we have special rules about how the article has to be written if it's to remain. Self-published sources like open wikis do not meet this standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter

[edit]

Hi. I wish you an happy Easter. Forgive me if I have edited your user page and thinking that you are a vandal Dr Salvus 21:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Riel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lynch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nawal El Kuwaitia albums has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Nawal El Kuwaitia albums has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Angela Douglas

[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, I am curious as to why you removed a minor amendment that I made to actress Angela Douglas's page. Please advise. The change I made was to update details of her marriage date to director Bill Bryden.

My amendment was conservative. Both Angela Douglas and Bill Bryden are living persons.

The entry previously stated that their marriage took place in New York City in February 2009 but that a citation was needed. So I did some research and found an article in the Daily Mail online newspaper from that month that directly quoted Angela Douglas. This confirmed to me that they had indeed married. My source is the 5th article down on this url: 

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1155619/Marriage-Caracas-Cracker-fizzles-out.html

However the date of marriage was not given in that article. So I did a search online on the New York City marriage index and found a record of their marriage in October 2008. The information is found by doing a name and date search on my source url: https://www.nycmarriageindex.com/.

After doing the research, I slightly amended the previous text and added both references. As a result of your subsequent amendment, Ms Douglas's entry now does not even contain the unaltered original sentence (where a citation was needed). There is a similar entry that appears on Mr.Bryden's separate entry in wikipedia (re his personal life) and still needs a citation. I was considering updating that one too but will not now, pending any good reason why I should not do so.

I am fairly new to editing wikipedia, so I would be grateful for your response as to why you felt it was necessary to not only remove my amendments but also to not restore the sentence that had been there previously. I am wondering if there is still a way to record the information I found. Do you have a suggestion please?

Yours sincerely, Ortonian (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ortonian. Because of our rules around living persons, we need to be especially careful about sourcing standards. dailymail.co.uk has been found to be generally unreliable and therefore should not be used as a reference. That leaves us with the marriage index, which is a primary source - WP:BLPPRIMARY indicates that court records and public documents of this sort should not be used to support assertions about living people. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nikkimaria, thank you for the information. As an alternative source of information, the Twitter account 'Angela Douglas Official' (@ImAngelaDouglas) states 'Married to Bill Brydon' in the header (although surely a misspelling of Bryden by her agent).

Also her IMDB bio states that she married Bill Bryden on her birthday in 2009: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0234946/bio.

A news story about them in the Evening Standard paper shows they are married: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/supersewer-will-wreck-our-home-says-carry-on-star-8225751.html.

The Douglas History site also gives the February 2009 date: http://www.douglashistory.co.uk/history/angela_douglas.htm.

Would any of them be acceptable for wikipedia? It now is difficult to put the actual date or month of marriage because Ms Douglas's birthday seems to be in October but Bill Bryden's IMDB states they were married in February 2009 (the marriage index states October 2008). Consequently, I suggest a simple statement that "She is married to Bill Bryden" should be acceptable. Ortonian (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ortonian, yes, it should be possible to include that she is married to Bill Bryden. However, note that IMDb is also not considered reliable, and the Douglas History source appears to be questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I am considering adding the sentence about them being married, but omitting a date. The Evening Standard article and the Twitter account references support this so I would use them as references. Ortonian (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot

[edit]

What exactly do you object Citation bot doing on the Louis Riel article? You've reverted it several times after it fixed a slew of problems on these citations, and have re-introduced issues that were fixed by reverting. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What problems are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those fixed by [1]. What do you object to in that edit? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems being solved by that edit. Can you specify what you're referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answer the question. You've reverted Citation bot's fixed twice now. What do you object to here? If you can't answer that question, I'll reinstate the changes, since you can't explain yours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that any of the changes made in that edit were necessary or improved the article. And since you haven't explained what specific benefits it provides, reinstating it would be inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you have nothing. Several errors were fixed (e.g. using |url=https://web.archive.org/... instead of |archive-url=/|archive-date=/|url=foobar), several things were standardized (e.g. using |encyclopedia= instead of |work=, consistently hyphenating multiword parameters), and several missing identifiers were added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that those identifiers are mandatory; could you point me to the discussion where that was decided? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why do you object to them? These are useful resources to readers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem to me particularly useful, and increase clutter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since that's your only tangible objection, I've restored the edit with the s2cids commented. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. As I said, I don't agree that any of the changes made in that edit were necessary or improved the article, and nothing you've said here has demonstrated otherwise. There is no reason for example to require use of encyclopedia over work, nor forbid using archived links as URLs. And since the edit is disputed, as I've said the reinstatement is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice request

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I remember you giving a particularly thorough FAC source review, so I thought I'd ask for some simple advice. I've been working on improving the List of artworks in University City of Caracas for a few years now, and at some point would consider proposing it as a FL candidate (there's no GA equivalent, though I know lists can be nominated as regular GAs the reviews for such can be complicated, but I'd probably go through GA first). The advice I'd like is on sources; the official university heritage group, in lieu of an official website, has used a couple wordpress/blogspot type blogs over the years, as have other similar groups (both smaller ones within the university, and ones on a national scale). Now, a lot of this information is duplicated on Venezuelan government websites - but almost all of these are hard blocked outside Venezuela or not preferred due to government propaganda. So, is it "safe" to continue using the original sources, though they're hosted on free blogs (this appears to be because of massive financial constraints and the ability to "host" on non-Venezuelan web servers), rather than use the government duplicates? Kingsif (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsif, the constraints of WP:SPS are that these types of sources can be used if they are produced by a subject-matter expert. I would be inclined to agree that the official university heritage group and the like would qualify, as long as they're not being used to cite anything too self-serving. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Greenough Orr

[edit]

Hi Nikki, it’s been a long time. I hope all is well. I am still very thankful to this day for how you pulled my butt out of the fire. And I still miss your edits although I haven’t been writing as many new articles the last year due having a job now. But could you do me a quick favor on an article? It’s a pretty short one, I’m not the creator but myself and another editor have contributed significantly to it. It’s a very important rodeo article historically; the subject practically created the barrel racing event. It’s been templated for copyright vio. There’s a sandbox but we can’t seem to make the copyright editors happy. Can you take a look? Alice Greenough Orr Thanks! Dawnleelynn Ps I’m new to using my phone to edit and figuring out the coding. Dawnleelynn (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC) dawnleelynn(talk) 19:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC) PS See “Respectfully...” discussion on JLAN’s talk page.[reply]

Hi Dawnleelynn, I see MBW has asked JLAN for a re-review - I'd be inclined to wait to see what that response is. The issue in this particular case is that the contributions of the editor in question are assumed to be copyvio - so even if what you see there doesn't seem unduly closely paraphrased from the sources that are cited, that doesn't automatically mean it's going to be acceptable. It would probably be much easier to just write the article from scratch. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Actually MBW is the other editor I mentioned in my first message. It has been since 9:30 MST since she asked for a re-review so I guess we were being too impatient for it. However, I do appreciate your response and advice as usual. I can always count on you for some type of assistance even if it isn't what I initially requested. We will see what shakes out when and if they get back to us. Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Louis Riel, you may be blocked from editing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, kettle. Edits are not "vandalism" because you happen to disagree with them; those changes are not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are vandalism because you knee-jerk revert them because you don't like them, and have no substantive objection to them. You're restore a style (bilingual ournal titles) against consensus, removed missing DOIs, removed free links for readers to access and so on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not what vandalism means. You want to make those changes, it's on you to get consensus for them. You still haven't done that. I've explained already that they are needless clutter; you're welcome to disagree with that assessment, but that doesn't mean you can just restore them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing cluttering about them, you do not own the article. Revert this again and I will take you to ANI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you're welcome to your opinion, but you're not welcome to bully the changes into the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Barnstar for hitting 150,000 changes Dr Salvus 20:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

Many users think you are a vandal but this is not the case. I advise you to justify your change in the description of it. This way they will understand your good intentions. Dr Salvus 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maine in popular culture, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gorodechno "rm EL" Meaning?

[edit]

Hi, this is about your change within the article Battle of Gorodechno. I do not understand "rm EL". I use books that can be checked online if needed as a source. I give a URL and by giving an access-date I want to show that this source was available at that time and is not dead for the last ten years... Ruedi33a (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruedi33a, your citation included an external link (EL) to an open wiki. Did you consult the book that that citation references, or are you just citing that wiki? If the latter, please be aware that it is not a reliable source, and if you haven't actually looked at that book you can't cite it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have solved the problem.Ruedi33a (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heminghway

[edit]

I don't understand your revert since most people (famous people) who served in the world wars have that added to their infoboxes. However, I hate edit wars, I won't object to your controversial edits. Double standards are common on Wikipedia. --CoryGlee (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What gets included is decided on an article-by-article basis. If you think this ought to be included here, I'd suggest you make your case on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have more knowledge on policies, perhaps he as writer does not have the same level of importance in his battles as a soldier like Henry Tandey which I recently edited. I just wikilinked "wounded in action" in Hemingway's article, as I think it gives insight as to what he suffered. If I sounded rude in the original message to you, I apologise. It was not my intention, dude. I am all OK with your revert. I now understand it. Hope you understand my POV as well. Kindest regards. --CoryGlee (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

BWV 157

[edit]

Thank you for fixing the refs in BWV 157, - I was just too tired. I find the pdf via google search (https://) www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi77MGv9v_vAhUKgP0HHX4nDpoQFjAAegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bach-chor-berlin.de%2Fde%2Fcomponent%2Fk2%2Fitem%2Fdownload%2F51_d9ebe1b07048be1e5d3e4c442acd1587&usg=AOvVaw3cySiGLWRHbzpJTra4ZI3g - I don't know how to derive a proper url from it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, here's what you can try: do the Google search through which you found that link, and then instead of actually clicking on the link as you would normally do, look for a little downward arrow just above the title. Click on that and then click on Cached. You should get to a copy of the source with a proper link at the top that you can use. For example, I think this is the one you're trying to get? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Walker

[edit]

Clint Walker served in the United States Merchant Marine in World War II. The merchant marines who served during the war were granted WWII military veteran status by an act of Congress in 1988. And thus Walker's wartime veteran status is validated by U.S. law. Ldavid1985 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ldavid1985, I'm not disputing that, but it's not what he's known for. It doesn't warrant that level of prominence. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, It doesn't matter if said celebrity is not primarily known for his or her wartime service. The vast majority of celebrities who have served in uniform are not primarily known for their service, be it whether they are known primarily as actors, directors, writers, athletes, musicians etc. And yet countless celebrities have their wartime service noted in their info box on their respective Wikipedia pages. Ldavid1985 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ldavid1985, there are countless articles that lack sources as well, but that doesn't make that something to aspire to. We don't need to shove every available detail in there. I see you've been doing this in a bunch of places; please don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Baldwin edit

[edit]

Hi, you first deleted two lines from the infobox with the word trim. I reverted because technically that was incorrect. The lines are part of the infobox. You can delete the data added but you should not delete the template fields. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidstewartharvey, there is no technical need to keep template fields if they are not being used, since they are not mandatory. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pierpoint

[edit]

There is no source document showing the name if Richard Pierpoint's owner or owners. There is also no record of where the names Richard or Pierpoint came from. There have been individuals publishing this information erroneously for a number of years. The first documented record of an African known as Richard Pierpoint appears in 1780 as a member of Butler's Rangers. The Wikipedia page shows both of errors of a name of an owner and the source of the name Pierpoint. I have tried to correct this but obviously have not followed the correct Wikipedia prodigals. I'm sorry for that. However, it is important to only publish information about Richard Pierpoint that can be verified. My brother David and I wrote the book "A Stolen Life: Searching for Richard Pierpoint" and are the leading authorities. Regards, Peter Meyler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.72.249 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pierpoint

[edit]

There is no source document showing the name of Richard Pierpoint's owner or owners. There is also no record of where the names Richard or Pierpoint came from. There have been individuals publishing this information erroneously for a number of years. The first documented record of an African known as Richard Pierpoint appears in 1780 as a member of Butler's Rangers. The Wikipedia page shows both of errors of a name of an owner and the source of the name Pierpoint. It is important to only publish information about Richard Pierpoint that can be verified. My brother David and I wrote the book "A Stolen Life: Searching for Richard Pierpoint" and are the leading authorities. Regards, Peter Meyler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.72.249 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tibesti thanks

[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria, I realise all the thanks from an FAC can come across as somewhat forced, but this one is not. Thank you for all your work on the Tibesti FAC. I expect a lot of this is routine for you now, but I hope you know how much your works means for us mortals on here. Half of me still hopes you will review my new sources (obviously don't) even in its archived state, and that is sort-of admiration in a nutshell. See you around, Brycehughes (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tarring and feathering in popular culture, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarring and feathering in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Undelete image revisions

[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if you would be willing to undelete the original revision of File:Originally Brown's Ice Cream this PLUTO pumping station is now a Family Golf venue.jpg? The uploader stated on their talk page that they intended to release their copyright of the image—I'm guessing they didn't realize freedom of panorama applies to this image. Thanks! (t · c) buidhe 16:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry buidhe, can't help with that. Try WP:REFUND? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lets establish consensus if you want to revert Reliable Sources again on its talk page

[edit]

Lets establish consensus if you want to revert Reliable Sources again on its talk page Uni3993 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uni3993, that's not how that works - as per WP:CONLEVEL, bold changes to guideline pages are rarely appropriate, and especially when objections have been raised discussion is needed first. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check the WP:RS talk page again. Uni3993 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a draft article review

[edit]

Hello User:Nikkimaria my name is Dan Cook or User:DanDavidCook. I have been attempting to help a British satirist/comedian named Sheridan 'Shed' Simove restore his article. It was up since 2011 but then summarily deleted last summer by another editor who said it failed the notability standard. I have reconstructed the article with new sources. Would you have the time or inclination to take a quick look at it in my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DanDavidCook/sandbox ? I think he does just meet the standard but as I am a COI editor my opinion counts for little. If he were to hear an opinion from an experienced editor like yourself I think he could live with the verdict even if it were 'not notable.' I am reaching out to you because you recently edited the Paul Reubens article and Shed reminds me of Pee Wee Herman. Thanks in advance for any advice you could offer. DanDavidCook (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DanDavidCook, I think the subject is probably notable, but some of the references don't seem to be working for me - could you verify the links are correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will go back and double check them. I'll ping you when I've done so. Thank you so much! DanDavidCook (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have found a link for the BBC cite that was missing and found another rather weak source for the 2017 PRCA awards (which could be removed if you prefer). The Reuters blog simply does not exist; it was live when I wrote the article and still shows up in a google search but apparently Reuters took down her posts. Otherwise I think it is in good shape. I am a bit concerned about taking it live myself because of my COI status. What would you recommend? And thanks so much for taking the time to help out! DanDavidCook (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PSCOI suggests that either you send the article through WP:AFC (with disclosure of the COI), or go through the request-edit process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do and again many thanks. DanDavidCook (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, sorry to take up more of your time. Quick question: I would like to use the edit request route to propose the article on Sheridan Simove. I have used the template previously, but only for revisions on existing articles. Where would I post this request for a new article? On my talk page? Again, apologies for being a pest, appreciate your guidance! DanDavidCook (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest posting it on the draft's talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAM Request

[edit]

Hi. Since I have failed so many GA, FA and FL nominations and would like to have articles in FA and FL would you be willing to help me? Dr Salvus 18:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For start, I would like promote in to a FL List of Coppa Italia finals. Thank you Dr Salvus 12:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting by making sure you've addressed all of the issues raised in the previous reviews. Once you're satisfied that has been done, you can try asking the previous reviewers to have a look outside of the FL process, if they're willing to do that. That will help ensure that when you do end up going back you're on a more solid foundation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Would you help me with other articles such as History of Juventus F.C.? Dr Salvus 12:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest picking one article to focus on to start, rather than trying to work up several at the same time. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll focus more on the History of Juventus F.C. article. Could you help me since I had problems with Featured content topic Dr Salvus 13:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you start by making the article conform as closely as possible to the FA criteria. Once you think it's there, submit the article to peer review to get more eyes from other editors, particularly those with an interest in the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Dr Salvus 14:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox person/Wikidata

[edit]

Hi, I noticed you oftenly "rework" "Infobox person/Wikidata". Could you explain to me what is the purpose of this work ? Thanks for your feedback, Le Passant (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Le Passant, because the two projects have different sourcing standards, there are often cases where material is technically "sourced" and therefore passed through, but not appropriately sourced for our purposes. For example, GeneaStar cites Wikipedia as a source, so including material cited to that creates a circularity problem. There are also differences in other practices, such as including non-notable relatives. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior

[edit]

I saw that you left a 3rr warning at User DagneyGirl's Talk page. They are continuing to edit war. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jules_Massenet&type=revision&diff=1022273181&oldid=1022253413

and: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orpheus_in_the_Underworld&type=revision&diff=1022253370&oldid=1022253238 All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those were before my warning - let's see if the issue persists after it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

  • New Library Card designs
  • 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Curley Christian

[edit]

On 11 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Curley Christian, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Curley Christian was the only soldier in the First World War to survive a quadruple amputation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Curley Christian. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Curley Christian), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

doc

[edit]

Kindly explain why you - not even a member of project opera - change the documentation of the infobox back to a less useful version? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but I am a member of project opera, and the person who made the bold change was not. As to why, I don't agree that the change was more useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK about membership. The one who changed, to match the documentation to how the parameter is actually used (which was just forgotten to add), was one of the people behind the template, as are you. - Example Akhnaten: not every reader will realize from the title that it's about this pharao; why not give them an easy clue? Another: Adrien - I had no idea that this means the ancient emperor. Why not help to that knowledge at a glance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the latter case, even with the change in documentation this wouldn't be something shown there - the work is more immediately derived from the Metastasio libretto. In the former case, there is an easy clue, in the first sentence displayed before this field, but the details are more complicated. Plus, having looked at the usage, in the vast majority of cases it is used as the documentation has indicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have readers who only look at the infobox, and others who never do. Let's please serve both. I replied at the template talk, and suggest we take the discussion there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not meant to replace the article, just supplement it. Anyone who only looks there will always miss out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

[edit]

Thanks for helping with source-finding at the Research Desk!

EpicPupper (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

[edit]

Thanks for helping with source-finding at the Research Desk!

EpicPupper (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
Just thanks for your continued unobtrusive efforts to keep articles up to a decent standard and our featured content processes ticking over -- I can't check my watchlist without seeing your name somewhere, Nikki, and your work is appreciated. :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted a draft, but have a question

[edit]

Hello User:Nikkimaria, you kindly helped me with my question about the comedian Sheridan "Shed" Simove. I finished working on the article today and I think I moved it from my sandbox to the draft space. But I'm not certain it is in the right form. It is here: Draft:Sheridan_"Shed"_Simove. I made my COI declaration on the talk page. Would you have the time to check it and see if I did it properly? Truly appreciate your help with this. DanDavidCook (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine. I've just moved the AfC template to the top of the draft. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks! DanDavidCook (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Susan Beharriell

[edit]

On 19 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Susan Beharriell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Beharriell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Susan Beharriell), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

[edit]

Hi! I've noticed you've commented on previous FACs of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and was wondering if you'd be able to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/archive5. Thank you. Pamzeis (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sevenhampton, Wiltshire

[edit]

www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Findagrave_removed_as_a_source_for_information Seeing the discussion, community consensus is that the website can't be entirely dismissed. I get mostly the website is user generated and anybody can post anything, but pages for famous people are curated by the website staff and WP:FINDAGRAVE confirms that. This isn't a contentious article and mostly just put in the link for somebody reading the article and wants to see more pictures of the headstone which is allowed under rare exceptions Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find a Grave. Cladeal832 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As those pages make clear, this isn't a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually others disagreed with your position and the policy guidelines established exceptions i.e. other sourcing or famous entries [see Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus]. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No "policy guidelines" that I'm aware of have established famous entries as being reliable sources on English Wikipedia, and none of the pages you've listed do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're unaware of it, but it's in WP:FINDAGRAVECladeal832 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cladeal832, that is neither a policy nor a guideline, and also explicitly notes several times that the site is not considered a reliable source. Additionally, there is absolutely no reason to replace a reliable source with this one, as you did here. Please revert yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice you put in a another source. My mistake. But notes this website can be used under conditions I outlined in that page. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cladeal832, no, again, that page does not say what you're saying it does. It says the source is not considered reliable. Furthermore, it says that "if all the material you add is sourced from reliable sources, do not add a Find a Grave link" - the opposite of what you're arguing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the only source provided so the point is moot. Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find_a_Grave, rarely, but yes, it's allowed a backup and nothing in the articles are solely sourced to. You had this discussed already www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Findagrave_removed_as_a_source_for_information and please disagreed with your position. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's never to used at all under any conditions, why would Wikipedia have a template specifically for it. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cladeal832, Wikidata is a separate project; discussions there are not applicable here. The consensus regarding that source here is outlined at WP:RSP. And again, the page you're citing also doesn't support your argument either - it doesn't say anything about it being used as a backup source, or that it is acceptable to be cited so long as other sources are also cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing. It give specific conditions where findagrave.com can be used as a source. I'm quoting directing from the page,
Sometimes, a link is acceptable
Cladeal832 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cladeal832, you are making arguments that lack foundation. The quote you provide refers to using that site as an external link, not as a cited source. Additionally none of the conditions listed there regarding use as an external link match up with the rationales you've been providing - nothing about famous people, nothing about being cited as an additional source where other better sources already provide the information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my foundational question is just is it inaccurate. It's on the page for Wikipedia page for famous people on findagrave.com Wikipedia:Find a Grave famous people and how it's curated so it's not user generated. I'm just repeated myself. So you'd rather have it in the external links section rather than just right next to relevant part of the article? Cladeal832 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - since there has been no good reason provided to include it, I don't think it should be there at all. We have reliable sources confirming the details in question, and it doesn't provide any added value warranting inclusion as an external link. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your thinking since one can't see the epitaphs on all sides of the monument up close nor it's position within the churchyard which are the specific circumstances cited for why to include it. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are readily supportable with reliable sources - eg this source which actually does a much better job. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it only shows one side of the monument. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you click the link that I've just provided and scroll down, you will find it includes more than that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A flock o' reversions

[edit]

Hello. You might have noticed that I reverted a goodly number of your edits today. I did so mostly because you did not explain them fully enough for my understanding, nor that of other editors, I might assume. It would help if you would give a fulsome reason, even longwinded, if you please. Well, *I* would appreciate it, and so might other editors. When you challenge a citation or anything else as unreliable or not acceptable, you might consider that the person who used it thought it was okay, so it's just a courtesy to explain why that editor was wrong and you are right. Also, on a separate note, it is not necessary to use a federation's name, even its abbreviation (like "US" or "USSR") when a widely understood State names is used, like Missouri or California or Ukraine (or England even though that country is really a kingdom joined with another). Anyway, thanks for all you do, and best wishes to you in the spirit of Wikipedia Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, an edit summary that is not to your satisfaction is not a good rationale for reverting edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback on an article

[edit]

Hi there, hope this is the appropriate place to post this. I'm a student working on the following article, String Quartet No. 10 (Shostakovich), and I see that you have edited articles in this domain. Any feedback you could offer is much appreciated. Thanks so much

Zawinul lava (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zawinul lava, nice work so far. Here are some suggestions:
  • Some of the article's sections are currently quite short. Is there material available to expand them? If no, could they be merged into other sections?
  • Are there any appropriately licensed images or media files that could be added?
  • Is there any information available about the work's publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, I was wondering what is the copyright status of File:Tornado Over Kansas (Curry, 1929).jpg for its FAC. The painting was created in 1929 and its artist, a US citizen, died in 1946. The painting was published in the 23 Nov 1936 issue of Life magazine, which was copyrighted and renewed, however there was not a separate copyright notice for the painting. Thanks in advance. (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was Life the work's first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit more investigation, the painting was also published by Time in 24 December 1934 issue (issue was also copyrighted and renewed, no copyright notice for the painting itself—only stating "Courtesy of Century of Progress Fine Arts Exhibition")[2]. I can't find an earlier publication but can't say for sure there was none. (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The courtesy notice may allow for further investigation, but the information we have isn't sufficient to conclude the image is free. It's pretty common for republishers to not include copyright notice or information; that doesn't mean they shouldn't have. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

E. V. Loustalot

[edit]

Could you please explain reversion of findagrave link? That site provides an image (of uncertain ownership) of Lt. Loustalot not present in the article, not just a picture of gravestone. Thank you. AndersW (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AndersW, if the image is of uncertain origin, how do we know it is of this person? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNH presidents and Find a grave...

[edit]

I am using the links to find other sources to improve the subjects...

Just work on stuff of your own, instead of making it harder for others

Hi Slulek, check out this statement from our Five Pillars. Please also do not restore linkvio - in the absence of permission for that content to be reproduced, we can't link to it. You can link to the original source instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point?

Two points, Slulek: don't make (and especially don't repeat) edits after copyright issues have been pointed out, and if you really don't want your work to be edited at all, then unfortunately here's not the place to post it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find a grave is not a copyright issue (I am not using them a references... just a link for a starting point to find other more information)

The purely factual information contained on Find A Grave — the names of the deceased, their dates of birth and death, the places of the burial — are not and cannot be copyright protected. The law couldn't be clearer that point: only original works with some degree of creativity can be copyrighted

Slulek, if you look at the specific link in question, you will find that it contains text that copies from the link I provided above, which is clearly marked as copyrighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... here is an interesting wrinkle from 1923 to 1963 the copyright was only valid for 28 years.. unless they renewed it.. which unless they were famous.. newspapers didn't... So, wouldn't using any Find a grave info or link before 1963 be ok? https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2012/09/12/copyright-and-the-obit/ _____________________ another wrinkle from the article (the word research)_________________________ And if those aren’t enough “maybes” for you, let’s throw in one more big one. It’s called the fair use doctrine, and it’s set out in federal law at 17 U.S.C. § 107:

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means …, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright

In the case of "maybe", we err on the side of "no". The exemption for fair use, in particular with regards to WP:LINKVIO, is similarly limited, and in the particular case under discussion here I don't agree it would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we just disagree... not sure why you think your opinion is the only one that matters... I could see if the Wikipedia page was copied word for word from an obituary after 1963. I find the Find a Grave links a great way to start looking for pertinent information from better sources, especially with birth and death dates and locations (definitely not good to use as direct references though) if it wasn't meant to be used... why is there a template? slulek (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The external link we're talking about is copied word for word from an obituary after 1963 - this one that I linked above. If the article was also copied, it would need to be deleted entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you so much for the on-going attention and care you bring to the review of edits to the Canadian IRSS page. I had to stop paying close attention after it passed FA review due to bad-faith-argument fatigue so I'm grateful that you've been able to keep on top of things over the past few years, not to mention this week. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chasing the dragon in popular culture 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/Chasing the dragon in popular culture 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.

Waxworker (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wo Menschen sich vergessen

[edit]

I must have problems with English (what's new). If the template documentation doesn't help to specifically say who wrote a text when and who wrote music when, even if the person and the time are the same, we must change the documentation. You cite |written=. The documentation is for "written" as a more general word for "composed". In case of a hymn, however, "written" means specifically the writing of the text. Would you suggest to have a different parameter for that? ... or the same parameter, with different wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding: the parameter received the new function when infobox hymn was merged. Probably we just forgot to update the parameter documentation. Actually, I don't recall examples of "written" as not the text, and - for oratorios, hymns etc. - it's the exception that author of text and music are the same person, and rarely are the years for text and music the same, - we better show. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOX supports the exclusion of unnecessary content and repetition; the documentation is consistent with that. I don't think we need a different parameter to say the same thing we've already said. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That a poet wrote a text a certain year, and a composer wrote music to it a certain year, seems not the same thing even if the year is the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The work that is the subject of the article was written in a certain year. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't tell you that text and melody were written the same year. It's rare among hymns. Many are written with new text to an old melody. Others have text with a melody added much later. There is no default noticeable for a reader who doesn't know our - perhaps too complex? - instructions. Why would you - to save one line - fight to say it without making the reader having to guess and assume? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an average reader would have any problem understanding that when it says the work was created this year, that means the whole work was created this year. I think it's appropriate to continue to default to that and only identify cases where that isn't true. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand, though, that for all works with text that is really the exception? What you say would make sense for collaborations, but in an estimated 95% of hymns, the creators never met, and in many cases, they even lived in different eras. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, it doesn't say "created", but "composed" which only says something about the music, nothing about the text. Until yesterday, both people didn't even have an article, so lifetimes gave no clue. The text could be written before or after the melody. The author isn't famous like Shakespeare where people would possibly know about when he worked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may be overthinking the reader's interpretation. The average reader sees that the work was composed in a year, not that the text was written by a person without an article whose dates they don't know etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For hymns - and it wasn't my idea to merge them in, but that's where we are - it's much more important who wrote the text, and when, Martin Luther, Paul Gerhardt: the content is much more important than the music. Some have a handful of melodies, - the melody doesn't define the work, but the text does. The template docu should say so, and request that written be filled for hymns if known, whatever the other parameters say. Right now, I have to improve an article of a woman who died yesterday, - seems more important. Busy week ahead. Could you, perhaps? You are good in wording such things. - The text author has an article now as I said above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I would suggest splitting the hymn template back out, but I see you supported the merger? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Library advice

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I recently lost full access to my University library' s online journal and publication platform. I still have access to a smaller database via the local College; it includes JSTOR but is really weak when it comes to newspaper archives, which I use to verify BLP content in offline and archived sources. My question for you is, does the Libray Bundle include a newspaper archive, or would it be best to apply for the ProQuest or NewspaperARCHIVE.com access? Also, is there one of those two that has more licenses/access available than the other? I don't want to apply and take the space of another editor who might use the database more extensively than I do.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, TWL does include some ProQuest access but for newspaper archives you need to apply for NewspaperARCHIVE.com (which mostly covers US newspapers and only some of them). Also, if you just need something occasionally, you can always ask at WP:RX. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, buidhe. I'll apply for both the library bundle and NewspaperArchive.com. I was going to try to tackle a few articles here, so a ton of individual requests via WP:RX probably isn't feasible. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like the standard Library Bundle access to ProQuest includes newspaper access, so it may be all I need for now.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe. Yep, ProQuest is Bundle, and Newspaperarchive effectively has unlimited access at the moment so it shouldn't be a problem to apply for that if you do find you need it, Ponyo. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA Grave removals

[edit]

I've noticed that in your tidying up articles, you are removing Find a Grave where it has been used as a source. I have no issue with this, especially the ones that are from "back in the day" when I was first beginning at Wikipedia and didn't know it wasn't accepted as a source. However, I notice you also removed one from External links on Sarah Selby. May I ask why? It wasn't being used as a source, and as far I know, that which is in External links does not have to be a reliable source. If we are removing non-reliable sources from External links, it seems over-kill. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maile, as per WP:ELPEREN it should be included as an EL only rarely. In this particular case it doesn't seem to provide any unique benefit. Do you feel otherwise? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do, and it wasn't hurting anything to have it there. It does say her body was donated to science, and none of the media coverage specify a funeral or burial, no last rites, nothing. Maybe some other reader will find a reliable source about her final remains. Presently, Find A Grave is all there is. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, if there isn't an actual source that confirms that claim, this site isn't going to do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox radio station}} and country listing

[edit]

Putting the country has never been done as a standard in this template. I tried to add a |country= field to it last year but couldn't figure out how to get it and the short description generation to play nicely. There are more than 22,000 transclusions of this template, about 14,000 in the United States, so this would be a larger editing task to handle. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we can get the short description issue fixed so this displays properly. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Michael George Levy

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria: I've just promoted your Michael George Levy article to prep 6, but have a question about the sentence which reads "He escaped from Lunghua with four other internees who made their way on foot and by riding junk to India." What does "riding junk" mean? Can it be clarified, or wikilinked or something? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC, fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that was it, but didn't want to make an assumption. After all, you know what they say about those who assume... ;) MeegsC (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of lines from a template

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Fleets. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Fleets, I've explained the issues to you on multiple occasions, and included a link in my edit summary to the Manual of Style which supports the changes. You're welcome to start a central discussion if you think the MOS ought to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing a line from a template, the MOS does not support this, and the 3O was half in favour of what you were seeking to hear and half against it. Please stop removing lines from templates.Fleets (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fleets, there is absolutely no need to retain blank lines in templates, and as already explained assigning a fixed px size based on what looks good on your screen is not appropriate. Additionally the 3O you reference does not support the edits you are making. Please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is could be deemed an optional field, but there is certainly no need to remove the line altogether, that is just plain wrong, almost like you are trying to remove something altogether. I'm not sure what you're past history is with that line, but it certainly does have validity as there are huge ranges in sizes and quality of images uploaded to wikipedia.Fleets (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fleets, that is incorrect. As has already been explained several times, image size should generally not be fixed per MOS:IMGSIZE, because it overrides user preferences. Aesthetic reasons are not a rationale to override these preferences because what looks good on your screen may not look good on others, and may even cause issues with accessibility. If the parameter is not in use it is perfectly valid to remove the line altogether. Similarly aesthetics is not a good reason to create a sea of blue instead of using the more specific link. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a non-mandatory field that can be set, and the MOS you cited expressly states that fact. I am not using the fixed size, but to remove the line is just plain wrong. I am stating that you are removing a line that should not be removed from the template; filled or otherwise. The removal of that line will remove the ability for future editors to display "reduced images sizes" and other such issues when low quality images are scaled up for example. Perhaps I have got you offside with the SEAOFBLUE stuff, but to remove the image size line just seems plain wrong.Fleets (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fleets, if the line is not used there is absolutely no problem with removing it. If there is a policy or guideline that says otherwise please point that out so it can be addressed; to my knowledge there is not, because parameters that are not used are not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll leave it there, as I've tried to engage, used the links you helpfully provided, but obviously got you offside with the SEAOFBLUE stuff, so I'll just walk away.Fleets (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to be sure you saw this.

[edit]

I have appreciated your patient work with me as we attempt to reach consensus on possible "lack of consensus doesn't support a revert unless ..." text. You have not reacted to my most recent post. I hope that means that you just missed the post. If so, I draw your attention to it now. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butwhatdoiknow, I've seen your most recent question, but I want to make sure I understand what you're looking for. If I remove something longstanding from an article, does that count as a revert or a non-revert? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call that a "change." In contrast, a "revert" is something that rollbacks a particular edit. To clarify that we may want to link the word "revert" in our draft text to wp:Reverting#What is a reversion?
Either way, our current first sentence would apply: "Base edit summaries in support of a bold edit or revert on policy, sources, common sense, or another substantive reason for the change." If the removing editor doesn't doesn't do that then the reverting edit summary might say "unexplained change to longstanding policy." If the removing editor does do that then the reverting edit summary should be substantive (and might include a reference to the effect of the change on thousands of existing articles), Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Butwhatdoiknow. As I said there, I don't think that first sentence is problematic in principle (although looking now there is a very similar sentence in DISCUSSCONSENSUS - might be worth consolidating). But I also think you've given a decent sample answer to your own question: even if someone feels they have a good, common-sense-based rationale, changes to longstanding policy generally shouldn't be made without seeking consensus first, as noted in CONLEVEL. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the current proposed text results in a different outcome: (1) Editor makes a bold change to longstanding policy, giving a substantive reason. (2) Another editor boldly reverts, pointing out (for example) that the change affects thousands of articles - which is not same as saying "no consensus" and nothing else. (3) Discussion ensues. The original supported-by-substance ILIKEIT edit is not privileged over the reverting supported-by-substance IDONTLIKEIT edit. Or is it privileged and I'm missing something? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "the change affects thousands of articles" is an appeal to CONLEVEL. There is a difference of scale, but the underlying policy is the same as it would be if you were reverting a change to a single article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm still lost. How does a reverting editor's appeal to CONLEVEL privilege the proposing editor's change? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't - what I mean is, why is it okay for the reverting editor in this hypothetical case to appeal to CON, but in other cases it is not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the reverting editor in the "thousands of pages" example isn't basing the revert on an appeal to the procedural lack of consensus. Rather, they are reverting based on an appeal to the substantive effect of the proposed change on thousands of articles.
Hence, this footnote at Layout concludes with "Whatever the merits of the original rationale, there is now the additional factor that readers have come to expect the appendices to appear in this order" not "... there is now the additional factor that there is presently no affirmative consensus in favor of a change." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we decided that really we should have external links first, and had a discussion that reached consensus to that effect, we would make the change regardless and expect expectations to adapt. However, in the absence of such a discussion, if there's no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs, then we usually default to that state - the argument being made in that footnote is that statusquo is a factor that has some weight in decision-making. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... if there's no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs ..." I agree 100%. All I'm trying to say with my proposed text is that the phrase "no consensus" is not, by itself, an argument for or against anything (unless there is or was discussion). Does the current version of the text say something else? (The current version is: "Lack of consensus, standing alone, only supports a revert when the content of the reverted change is the subject of a current or prior talk page discussion") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying something else and you're agreeing with me, so I'm not sure which one of us is confused! I think our policies, practices and guidelines have generally supported the following statement: If there is no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs, then we default to the status quo. Your proposal is suggesting that if there is no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs, and no current or past discussion, then the non-status quo is the default (because the bold edit can't be reverted without a substantive argument). Do I have that correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're close. Keep the first sentence in mind: Base edit summaries in support of a bold edit or revert on policy, sources, common sense, or another substantive reason for the change. The original edit should be supported by an edit summary with a clear argument (or, as I would call it, a "substantive rationale").
If it isn't then "unexplained change to policy" would be a clear argument for a revert. In short, if there is no clear argument for a change then the status quo prevails - not because there is no consensus for the change but because there is no rationale for the change.
If it is then the change prevails only if there is no clear argument for the revert (and "no consensus" isn't enough because it is a procedural, not substantive, rationale). If there is a clear argument for the revert then the status quo remains in place during the talk page discussion.
So, as you say, "If there is no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs, then we default to the status quo." Do we need to modify the second sentence to make this clearer? If so, what would you suggest? (The second sentence: Lack of consensus, standing alone, only supports a revert when the content of the reverted change is the subject of a current or prior talk page discussion.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the argument "unexplained change" apply to non-policy pages, where the bold edit did not meet the standard suggested? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before we get too far afield, I want to make it clear that the proposed text does not speak to whether "unexplained change" is sufficient to support a revert. It only discourages "no consensus" when, in fact, there has been no discussion which might or has resulted in a consensus.
That said, I personally think "unexplained change" would be sufficient on any page under the first sentence because it tells the proposing editor what they need to do when they start a discussion on talk: give an explanation. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to modify the second sentence to make this clearer? If so, what would you suggest? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned, I don't have a suggested wording for the second sentence. Your argument is linking the two sentences, but I don't think currently that is inherent to the wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patient help with this. As you'll see on Consensus talk, I've decided to work with the community on the first sentence first. Later, depending on how that goes, I can take a run at the rest. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Günther von Hase

[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, you have again removed the link to the German Empire article from the infobox in the article on Karl-Günther von Hase. As I believe the link should be there, could you please explain in a few words why you consider the link wrong or superfluous? Thank you in advance.--UKcrow93 (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UKcrow93, there are two reasons in MOS:LINK why this should not be linked. First, major geographic features are not linked per MOS:OLINK - Germany certainly falls into that category. Second, MOS:EASTEREGG indicates that linking should be intuitive - if people see a blue link on Germany, they expect to end up at the article for Germany, not some other entity. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your explanation Nikkimaria, the legal pedant inside of me is tempted to elaborate on why I disagree with your second argument, but since the first one is definitely correct and applicable, I will not bore you with that. So Thank you very much and my apologies for the unjustified revertion. Best regards --UKcrow93 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just noticed, another user has again reverted to include the link. I am opening a new section on the article talk page and will copy this discussion there, to include other contributors in the discussion. I hope that will meet with your approval.--UKcrow93 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

DYK for Michael George Levy

[edit]

On 11 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael George Levy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite not identifying as Jewish, Michael George Levy was denied a Military Cross due to his commanding officer's anti-Semitic views? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael George Levy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Michael George Levy), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/BigID

[edit]

Nikkimaria, there has been a bit of back-and-forth on the level of close paraphrasing/copying in this article, and I was wondering whether you'd be able to take a look now that the most recent set of fixes has been made (they were completed a week and a half ago, but no response by the reviewer has yet been made). Under the circumstances, it would be great if you could check it and see whether it's in good shape now. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review request

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you would be willing to provide an image review at the ACR for the Armenian genocide article. I would greatly appreciate it. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Indian Residential Schools

[edit]

Hi there. I am doing you guys the courtesy of trying to discuss any change that might be considered controversial, and expect the same. Now. You reverted an addition to the See only section because it is "linked above". Ok. This is indeed a rule, and a good one, but I suspect you may be misapplying it here. Would you *kindly* tell me where it is linked, then, so I can assess this? My concern is this: the list contains a lot of detail that is not in the overview and probably won't all fit in the overview, and deserves some visibility. If it is linked to something like "school system" then it may not be noticed by people who are looking for specific information about local schools. If it's a section hatnote somewhere and I missed it, that may give it more prominence than the See also section, and I will withdraw my objection. In the meantime, the attitude that the article should not be edited really really concerns me. The article was probably as good as it could be four years ago, but a whole lot of new information is coming in. After spending some time on the talk page for the Kamloops school, I understand why you are guarding this one, but I am probably as experienced as you and almost certainly have more experience with controversial topics. I suggest you reconsider your dismissive attitude to constructive edits, use revert less, and discuss more thanks 01:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby: It is a section hatnote: Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system#Self-governance_and_school_closure. As to the rest of your comment, constructive edits and informed discussion are welcome; if you have concerns about other edits of mine feel free to identify them. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will check it out, thank you. If this is the case then it probably *is* better than what I was trying to do. PS: it is possible to edit without using revert, you know, and prior reverts count against an editor who gets hauled in front of the Administrator's Board for trying to explain that translation is not a copyright violation. (For example) Just so you know. Elinruby (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, just so you know, it is very possible for a translation to be a copyright violation, depending on the details of the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I wasn't clear, and you don't realize that I primarily function as a translator on Wikipedia. So let's clarify: The article appeared to be a Google Translate of the Korean Wikipedia article, This would not be a copyright violation, if it was tagged as such, but the editor took the suggestion as an affront, especially as I also flagged it as needing an edit, and demanded an apology for supposedly accusing them of academic dishonesty, eyeroll. Then they filed the complaint when I refused and told them the tag was required. So yeah. I realize I was just unclear and this is why you are attempting to instruct me in my area of expertise, lol, but when when we say page needing translation, we mean from the corresponding article of another language's Wikipedia ;) The actual point of my remark though was that I do not enjoy contention, but sometimes it finds me, and lazy reverts sometimes have unintended consequences on the drama boards Elinruby (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:STATUSQUO:

Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.

Elinruby (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - the tag mentioned above is Template:Translation attribution shell which is what we use, because different Wikipedias are subject to different copyright laws, but as long as it's Wikipedia, and has the attribution, it is legally required. Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harmattan - Wikipedia Library

[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you on this project but I was not sure how to contact you on the Wikipedia Library platform. I was wondering if you might be able to see my query viz the Harmattan application which I believe you approved a month ago? Many thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron, you have email. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DNB

[edit]

Thomas Laubach: "You'd have to take up the formatting at the template, but the content (link) is the same" - Sorry, I don't understand, because I don't see the link in the template. I see countries when I open, but not Germany. Help? - (On top of finding all collapsed content not suitable for accessibility even if I could find it in AC.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, I believe you should be able to uncollapse the template at the article level if desired, but both autocollapse and lack of "Germany" text are design decisions best discussed at the template page, if you disagree with how they're presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you because often you see something that I don't see. If you also don't see Germany how can you say "dup"? - I'd accept that the template is collapsed if the one information relevant to this person - an author! - which is his representation on the German National Library, was available immediately, and would not even care if it was duplicated somewhere hidden. Today is Sunday, - I'll address the template talk tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say "dup" because it's the same link, and I don't see a need to provide the same link twice. As an alternative you could take it out of the template and just show above? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see the link? Still the same question. I don't see it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first link in the template - here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See? What I said. You see more. I looked where France is, and could bet that other readers will also overlook it, hidden under a header that makes no sense to me. Why not have it explicit also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think people will miss it, and do not pursue a change to the template, why not just have the inline? What do you see as the value of having it also? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow ... - Can you tell we what "Integrated Authority File" means? ... and where Germany isn't where France is? (just for curiosity) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on it, but to simplify it is a database of records managed by DNB used for eg. distinguishing one person from another in cataloguing. As to why Germany isn't where France is, I know the template was recently redesigned, but I don't know why that particular decision was made. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, helped, and will eventually inquire, after my planned article of the day, and unplanned updating another recent death bio I just discovered, Gianna Rolandi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked over there. Some flowers and music for you, with more thanks for consistent improvements than the little clicks can say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Same for "Commons category" template and "In other projects: Wikimedia Commons" (on the left column). It's also a redundant external link. The problem is, that 218,549 pages have this redundant link. And same for "Musicbrainz artist" template. Grimes2 (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it would be better to remove MB from the authority control template and allow it to be added more selectively. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Infobox of Death of Seble Tefera

[edit]

You removed an infobox in Betoch#Death of Seble Tefera. Why you do that? The infobox doesn't make any problems with an article.The Supermind (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That person isn't the subject of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

[edit]
Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
  • This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

[edit]
 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 11 reviews between April and June 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Citation Removals

[edit]

Hello,

I have seen you removed my citations on my page 'AK-205'. I am new to Wikipedia so I don't understand all the twerks, did I do something wrong, if so what is it and what can I do to prevent it from happening in the future?Mig Pilot (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! User-generated sources like open wikis are not generally considered reliable, so you should generally avoid using them as citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embedding Infobox golfer

[edit]

Hi, contacting you first for this since you made the embed request on Template talk:Infobox golfer in March.

On Sammy Byrd the Infobox golfer template is throwing a "Page using Template:Infobox golfer with unknown parameter "embed" " warning. Any idea why? It's embedding correctly, it's just complaining that it doesn't know what embed is (case is not the issue ie, embed vs Embed). The other template embeded on that article doesn't effect it and doesn't have any warnings appearing on that other one. I thought I should ask you rather than post a change request form on this and get smacked with a "request not made in change X to Y format" type message since I don't see the solution needed for how to fix this. If you don't know what the issue is, that's fine. Zinnober9 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zinnober9, it looks like you'd need to request embed be added to the list of accepted parameters after "invoke:Check for unknown parameters" at the bottom of the template code. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you! I'll write this request up in a moment. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Bill Lovelady

[edit]

I know that many Williams are simply called Bill. This one, however, is William Lovelady when publishing serious music, but Bill Lovelady when appearing is a singer-sonwriter, - I believe that should show. - Thank you for fixing my typos! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally discussion at the template talk has concluded that birth name/other name should only be included when truly different, not for a case where someone is William vs Bill. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see a difference between some William been called Bill by his friends, and having Bill printed on concert announcement, but won't spend much time arguing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Mentoring

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. I am interested in taking the New Albion article to a FA status. I was the user who brought it to a GA status with some excellent help from Kingsif who did a marvelous job of assisting me in the process. I see you listed as one to approach as a mentor. Might you assist me with this article?Hu Nhu (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hu Nhu, I can take a look at it. Can you tell me what was your approach to finding and selecting sources for the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Nikkimaria. While it is difficult to remember specific sources, I do have some information. Generally, I approached the matter by looking at quality of both the source and authors and by assessing the relevance of the sourced material to the article. Know that I did not initially choose all the sources as the article was significant in length when I began wholesale changes. One user had done much textual change and then dropped out. After several months, I continued the work. Until then, I had mostly inserted pics. I had, however, reviewed each source by the time I nominated this for GA.
There were some sources which were by quality authors, those who had been otherwise published--sometimes in distinguished publications--that I did not use because the source which held the information I was looking for was self-published. As, I said, I looked carefully through the materiel that others had provided in earlier versions. One, the article by Admiral Nimitz, existed before I began editing. I thought it would be very interesting to read an article by such a famous WWII hero, so I found it in a special collections at a university. While in the area of that university, I made a trip to the university and was able to actually read it. I took photos and included it in my personal library. Another one I found particularly interesting was the second book listed, one authored by Anon. Previously, it had been a digital link. I was able to find the book for purchased and added it too to my library. I changed the reference to that of a book, not a digital source. But I do not have nor did I lay eyes on every source that exists in hard form. I was able to confirm the existence of each, however.
When accessing digital material, I mostly looked to those that represented respected, authoritative publications or U.S. government offices. The journals are also respected, authoritative journals. Some of these are certainly not mainstream. For example Vormen Vit Vuur or The Mariner's Mirror are specialty publications. They are authoritative, reliable. They are not mainstream, though, as one usually considers a publication such as National Geographic mainstream. But the facts to which they relate are specialty facts. Hence the use of them as a source.
Many of the authors are written about on Wikipedia. Of course this includes Nimitz, but also applies to Oko, Gough, Wagner, Aker, Von der Porten, Davidson, Hakluyt, and others. Tribe of Tiger was very gracious and edited the sources for archiving and other such digital type matters that mostly mystify me.
I know the article needs attention, even not for FA status. The section on the legacy has been changed, and not done with a great deal of quality--at least I think that is the case. The article was once rather troubled. However, around the beginning of 2018, editing settled and so did the contention. Stability has been typical since then. I do hope this helps.Hu Nhu (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you began working on the article, did you notice any issues with the pre-existing content, particularly around either content that was too close or too far from the sources? In other words, do you feel that there are likely to be issues with either close paraphrasing or original research for that content not developed by you? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria. I do not think there is any close paraphrasing in the article. Kingsif did a very thorough and detailed GA review which you may read HERE. He found such problems which I addressed to his satisfaction. There has been no significant change to the text of the article since then, just minor text changes, mostly in the localized legacy section which I believe needs to be entirely re-written. I am uncertain about this, but there may have been discussion at one point if that section if localized legacy was even appropriate to the article.
There was at one time a significant problem with WP:OR and WP:SELFPUBLISH. HERE you can see that in 2012 and 2015 there were such matters addressed by SQGibbon and 217IP. There is an article about New Albion fringe theories which you can read HERE. In it, there are indeed problems with WP:OR and WP:SELFPUBLISH. So, when I reviewed and edited the section in the New Albion article about fringe theories, I was certain to review WP:FRINGE to check the admonishments of editors there. I wanted to ensure that the two alternative locations in the New Albion article, while fringe, were appropriate and their inclusion solid. The two alternative locations written about in the article are absolutely "based upon independent reliable sources" and do "not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is" as is stated on the WP:FRINGE page.
Looking in this section HERE about localised legacy, there are two citations that are a bit unusual in that they seem to be necessary to each other. Those are numbers 102 and 103. I'm not sure if they are used according to accepted style. Number 104 is one which might be WP:SElFPUBLISH. Those three references are the only ones added since the GA review. Other than those references, I believe all is very solid and all the text is properly written to avoid close paraphrasing. Since the GA review in which Kingsif brought close paraphrasing for my attention, there has been little change in the text. The only major editing came from Tribe of Tiger in which she addressed formatting matters of the sources. Thank you for your kind attention.Hu Nhu (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Nikkimaria. Please know that I have just made some alterations to the sources by checking for and making author links to all which could be made. There were many. Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I have questioned the appropriateness of the New Albion article's section of Localised legacy, I have examined each Geography and places FA to look for localised legacy sections. No article has such a section. Of all these articles, I found four (Brownsea Island Scout Camp, Fort Yellowstone, Gurian Republic, and Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia) that each had a section titled Legacy. And none of these addressed localised legacy. The editors wrote in broad terms.
I also looked at when the New Albion article first included a section about Legacy, it was about the naming of a community. This Legacy section was created on 22 May 2008 well before I began editing. It was from that point, that the Localised legacy evolved. And from my perspective now, I believe it has evolved into WP:Trivia. The section is mostly a list of namesakes, things that were not really so important to the claim made by Drake. Other Geography FA articles certainly did address legacy, but it was in general context and typically not listed as legacy. The New Albion article does so, too, in the section of Historical impact which you can read HERE. So, I am thinking that this section on Localised legacy should be eliminated. But I am unsure because I've never written a FA. So, what are your thoughts? Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although this isn't a "traditional" geography article, I would tend to agree. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please know Nikkimaria that I very much appreciate the kind assistance you've so far provided. I've acted on it and made other changes to the New Albion article, too. Is a comprehensive FA mentoring something you are able to provide at this time or would it be best if I sought another editor? Hu Nhu (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in a hurry, that might be a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to devote attention to the article into the next few months. After the first of the year, I may be traveling into areas with internet access which is not always adequate. Remembering the effort it took to GA, I imagine FA will be an even greater amount of work. So, now is a good time for me to exert that effort. I will solicit further assistance on the FA talk page. Your questions were excellent and prompted much further thought on my part. With much appreciation for your kind attention,Hu Nhu (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Esther Dingley

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria, sorry to trouble and please ignore if you're too busy.

I started VERY recently editing wiki and am very much still in learning mode. I see that you edited my edits at the entry above. I'm sure you're right, but I don't know why and I'd like to understand for the future. As far as I can see, you removed a reference in respect of a quote which you've left and you removed a couple of facts. I think perhaps in my edits I over-quoted and it may have affected the scanning? And perhaps some of my facts were too one-sided and gave the appearance of not adhering to NPV? Not sure and would massively appreciate a steer!

best, SteveCree13)

Hi SteveCree2, the source you cited for those facts is one that the Wikipedia community has agreed should not be considered reliable - see WP:DAILYMAIL. I left the quote in place because it's readily verifiable from other sources; if you can find more reliable sources for the other facts, feel free to re-add those as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Disappearance of Esther Dingley

[edit]

Thanks so much for that, Nikkimaria! Very helpful.

Oh god

[edit]

When I was depressed, I was a total dick to you. I’m so sorry. I have no idea how to repair the damage other than to say I’m sorry and try harder to be a nicer person in future. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC mentor

[edit]

Hello. The article Tala tank was recently promoted to GA. I want to try for FA now. Would you like to be my mentor?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saha, I can offer some suggestions on the article and the process, but unfortunately I don't have the language skills that would be needed for a full assessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks. also, can you recommend to me, whom shall I contact for mentorship on this article?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest posting to WT:FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August Editathons from Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

a barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
You are a great! 1RingFB (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kaufmann-Bohren edit

[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you are suggesting an edit (trim) of an endnote in the Peter Kaufmann-Bohren article. I agree that some detail about Cromwell’s relations should be deleted.

But I feel that the reference to his wife, Georgia Engelhard, should remain in the endnote. She was also a mountain climber and moved in circles of fellow climbers; moreover, Tony and Georgia’s retirement in Interlaken is again directly connected to mountaineering and underlines their connection to Grindelwald, a few miles way. Readers interested in the Kaufmann-Cromwell story would certainly be interested in the references to Engelhard and Interlaken.

The reference to Cromwell’s grave could be omitted, but it does give a some final closure to the Cromwell connection.

Please tell me what you think. I suggest the deleted section be edited and added as follows:

In 1947, Cromwell married Georgia Engelhard (1906–1986), his third wife, who, aside from being an artist and photographer, was also an accomplished climber. Mount Engelhard in Jasper National Park, Canada, was named in her honor. Tony with his wife Georgia retired to Interlaken, Switzerland, and he lived there until the death of his wife in 1986; he was buried in his family plot at Green-Wood Cemetery.

Thanks. P.dreher

Hi P.dreher, given that we have an article on Cromwell, why does this information need to be in the Kaufmann-Bohren article at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accolade (company) repeat FA nomination

[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria. You had previously reviewed Accolade (company) for the quality and consistency of its sources, and you gave it a green light. That nomination ultimately failed as life got too busy for me to respond to other reviewers in time, but I've renominated the article and the sources should largely be the same. I figure another source review would be a quick formality? That said I respect being diligent, let alone that you likely have your plate full as someone who does a lot for the project. Let me know if you think you can get to it or not, either way. Never any pressure as this is always a WP:VOLUNTEER project. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

  • Library design improvements continue
  • New partnerships
  • 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I noticed you recently removed the Find A Grave external link from Powell Clayton. I understand that you have removed Find A Grave as a reference from several pages and I agree since it violates user generated content - however under what guidance do you remove it as an external link? I reviewed WP:EL and WP:LINKSTOAVOID and do not see user generated content sites such as Find A Grave listed as violative. Thanks! Dwkaminski (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dwkaminski, see WP:ELPEREN. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen II

[edit]

Just checking with you about updates on former FAC article Frozen II. Are you happy now? Wingwatchers (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've submitted a GOCE request, so I will wait to revisit until after that is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to take forever for a copyeditor to accept the request, can I request more suggestions? Wingwatchers (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a look at MOS:FILM, particularly the two points I noted in the review? The other thing you can do while you wait is go through the citations to make sure they all support the material they are meant to be citing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Wingwatchers (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the theme section because I found it unnecessary. A copyeditor is on the way. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Nevermind. I will draft a Theme section. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now  Done, copyedited by GOCE member Tenryuu via a personal request, added themes section, checked the sources. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. With regards to sourcing, what makes Richard LeBeau a high-quality reliable source? One of Us? Cartoon Brew? Film Music Reporter? What's On Disney Plus? MovieWeb? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will changed. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All removed or replaced except for MovieWeb, that source is used for a general critical review, not standard factual information. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the reliability of that source cannot be justified, why do we care what they thought of the film? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced to the Los Angeles Times.  Done Wingwatchers (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable per Wikipedia:LATIMES Wingwatchers (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any further comments? Can you now support it on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen II/archive 2? Wingwatchers (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

[edit]

The action is bold revert discuss. The fact that I did not add the image, but you were reverted, you should discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, the bold edit was the addition of the image; since that was reverted, pending discussion, it should stay out according to both BRD and WP:ONUS. Please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the edit history. I did not not add the image. It was added, reverted by Moxy, restored by the original, you removed, I restored, you did not revert me (which is not right, so I don't even know if you actually reverted correctly because I got no notification), and I restored. The image is fine and useful. if you want it removed ... Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz, I'm well aware of the edit history. The image was boldly added, and was reverted; BRD would have discussion at that point, without the image in the article. Whether or not you were the one to add it initially, if you want to include it the onus is still the same, and the image should still remain out pending consensus for its addition. Again, please revert your re-addition until that consensus is achieved. You can make whatever arguments you like in favour of its inclusion at the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Learn how to indent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Typequick

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I hope you are well. I don't know whether pinging works for you these days, so though I pinged you on the DYK nomination page, I thought I should also make a direct request that you check out the article in question (and perhaps the collapsed prior review) to give your opinion as to whether there is currently any close paraphrasing or plagiarism or the like in the article. Thank you very much for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image permissions issue

[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering whether these two screenshots are sufficient to consider File:Cuyuna.jpg released under the stated license? This came up during the FAC for Manganese, Minnesota. Thanks in advance. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi buidhe, I would say no - it includes that the photographer will be attributed, but does not specifically say that the described uses from that license tag are permitted. (The texts could reasonably also be interpreted as a "all rights reserved, used by permission"-type statement). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick reply. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fac stuff

[edit]

its great that your helping on featured article stuff 😉😉😉😉😉 Esaïe Prickett (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

legibility

[edit]

on the wiki page, click the image, on the image page click the image, it's larg, zoomed, easily readable down to the smallest text Dave Rave (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Rave, if people need to do that to have a chance of reading it, it's an accessibility issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2021

[edit]


Headlines
  • Albania report: Collaboration with the New Vision Organization in Tirana; Summer of Wikivoyage Campaign 2021
  • Australia report: Representation and erasure: opportunities and risks that Wikipedia presents for First Nations knowledges
  • Brazil report: A wikicontest to celebrate and make visible the state of Bahia
  • India report: Rabimas proofread contest ends on Bengali Wikisource
  • New Zealand report: New Zealand holds its second Wikimedia conference, and a performing arts Wikiproject gathers steam
  • Serbia report: New chances for GLAM success
  • Sweden report: Photos of Childrens theatre
  • UK report: A Thousand Images of Islam, British Library Updates
  • USA report: Smithsonian Wiki Focus: Black Women in Food History; San Diego 73; Black Lunch Table Black artists
  • WMF GLAM report: A conversation about depicts and Structured Data on Commons
  • Calendar: August'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.

Manganese, Minnesota FAC Review

[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria! As a part of the general review comments, I have added three additional citations, specifically 16, 17 and 66. I don't know if you need to review them at this point or not, but your criticisms are always helpful. Also, if you would look at the licensing for the replacement images I have uploaded, it would be appreciated. I left a message for User:Buidhe on Monday, but he has not yet responded. I don't know if he is ill, on vacation, or if in someway he may be offended, but I'd appreciate the feedback. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrGregMN, I'll look at it now. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Clarke

[edit]

Hello, I saw that you removed my edit to Rebecca Clarke. It is often said that she started at RCM in 1907 (also in the article referenced currently at the end of the sentence). This was because of a mixing-up of dates, so I found it useful to add the correct year in Wikipedia (with a up-to-date reference). Maybe giving the months is not necessary but the time period is surely not obsolete information. CharlesVilliers (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the specific dates are necessary to the narrative, particularly since sources disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So when sources disagree you don't evaluate them and choose the one that takes into account newest findings but ignore both of them? The dates were given before in the article, but when you correct them, they are suddenly not relevant anymore? I can't follow your reasoning here. CharlesVilliers (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The dates were given before in the article; that doesn't make the dates necessary to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but disagreeing sources doesn't make it necessary to exclude them, otherwise Wikipedia would be rather empty. CharlesVilliers (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annunziata Rees mogg

[edit]

Hello. I appreciate your interest in my recent edit and I can understand your inclination not to want to include such a reference as that which you removed because of the media outlet and the article's title.

However the include of that article was as a cultural occurrence in itself in the UK and hence extremely relevant. (Also, whilst we all have our own opinions, at the end of the day a media outlet is a media outlet. That is very important.)

The reference is about showing through this example (there are other examples of similar interviews with the subject) that,

"Mogg had been one of the highest profile Brexit Party voices and strongest backers of the party and the great need for it."

The reference is merely about the very high profile in the British media which Rees Mogg chose herself very clearly to cultivate, attached to her standing as a candidate for and then becoming a Brexit party politician.

Please understand, the article was not included to be a source for information which it contains (whether reliable or unreliable) but only because it exists, and was made to exist by Rees Mogg, as a cultural happening. This is the very point itself of include the reference and this reference can possibly be more insight than the others.

I think the reference has an important place. The author Jan Moir, an opinion article writer on the lighter side of the news and society, may otherwise be a questionable source for any information itself. However in this case regarding the profile of the politician concerned, and considering the politician chose to give Moir an interview, this specific cultural occurrence of the interview itself is all the more relevant and insightful as a reference.

I wonder if you have read the article itself.

It can also be very relevant as a reference as Moir knows Rees Mogg since they used to be fairly close working colleagues in journalism. Separately, whilst not the principle reason for including it, I don't believe it would be a good practice to delete a reference about a journalist written by another journalist who has worked with the person. There can be a good source in itself there.

I hope you would not mind if I revert from your edit on the basis of what I have put here. Lcb500 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse word form errors above produced by the auto-correct of my device. Lcb500 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree that the citation is necessary to make the point being put forward, which is not specifically regarding the significance of the Moir interview, but rather a much more general "high profile" claim. The significance of the Moir interview that you suggest, in the absence of secondary sourcing, would seem to be an interpretation that does not warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, as I do not understand what you are trying to communicate there, what do you actually mean by "in the absence of secondary sourcing"?

In the absence of secondary sourcing for the Jan Moir interview which is published and available for all to read? Do you mean secondary sourcing for that the interview exists? (Again, please remember the interview reference is included for its existence itself, the cultural meaning thereof. Please understand that the very well-known journalist Jan Moir in The Mail, described as a "middle market newspaper" here in Wikipedia, is not going to falsify the basic fact that she had an interview with a prominent person in the public eye who has been a politician and herself works in the same world of journalism. The Mail as a newspaper, for all its shortcomings, is really nowhere close to that unstable or untrustworthy as to go and falsify such an interview which never existed.)

Did you really mean the absence of sourcing for that there really was an interview? Or the absence of sourcing for a point or numerous points within the interview? (And if the latter, which point or points would you prefer a further source for? Again, the relevance of the reference was general and in its overall social meaning and effect.)

I think you have not understood what I communicated above.

Once again, and I ask you to please appreciate this, the very reason why the reference is included, is not particularly about points in the interview and only for Mrs RM's curating of a high profile presence in relation to the Brexit Party position. Once again, the inclusion of the reference was made because it was an interview given precisely to establish a public profile, chosen by Mrs RM as all her press appearances which she contributed to were. (This is of course why people in the public eye often choose to give interviews, for their public profile, generally or connected with a particular concern or concern of the time.)

The reference is exactly to attest to Mrs RM establishing a high-profile presence over her then Brexit Party identity.

There is no piece of information or pieces of information to establish a secondary source for. I am unable to understand the point which you have been trying to make.

In any case, how would one add a secondary reference as a reference to a mere reference?

Finally, your reasoning for disagreeing with the reference appears now to be different to what you had given in your edit description.

Originally you had given that your edit was because of a non reliable source ("non-RS").

Now you are saying something else, "I would not agree that the citation is necessary to make the point being put forward".

That's clearly a different question altogether. However, to answer that, when possibly the most read article of all in the UK is given as an example exactly of Mrs RM establishing a high-profile media presence over her new political endeavour, how can that be irrelevant?

As regards your claim of not being necessary, what does that mean? This might be the best reference available to show how Mrs RM was courting the media. Perhaps not necessary in the sense that one can argue that no individual reference is necessary, but your claim doesn't make sense here in considering what are good or very good references to show the facts given in the text about building a media profile.

Finally I have never seen a request for a further reference required to attest to an existing reference. The suggestion is further incomprehensible to me since I am explaining that the reference is about the very existence of reference article and the cultural meaning of that, which needs no further reference as it is there for all to see.

Not being particularly au-fait with how Wikipedia works beyond ordinary user contributions, I don't know if you are a staff member or someone with some kind of authority.

Therefore as you have not explained the reason for the removal of reference, have not seemed to understand the context in which it is most relevantly included and in which it has meaning, as explained, and now as you offer a different reason for removing it than originally, as well as because your request for a reference for a reference doesn't seem to make sense, I am reverting the edit.

If you do have some kind of authority, then please enlighten me as to how that works.

Thank you for your time. Lcb500 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for secondary sourcing to demonstrate that the reference exists; as you note, the reference itself is sufficient to convey that. However, you have made a number of claims regarding the significance of this interview which cannot be supported by the interview itself. For context, this particular source has been deprecated, meaning its potential uses are limited - one of which being where it is a source of information about itself. If you're saying that it's simply being included as an example of her courting the media, then it doesn't warrant being included for that purpose; if you're saying it should be included because it is in some way a significant or exceptional example, we need something other than your assertion to back that up. If you disagree with my removal, your next step is not to simply restore the edit; I would suggest instead you post to the reliable sources noticeboard or another similar board to solicit opinions from others in an effort to gain consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EASTER has an RFC

[edit]

WP:EASTER has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Hwy43 (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive treason

[edit]

Treason Act 1351#Content says "'compassed or imagined' (i.e. planned ...)". I just used a slightly different wording. You might like to adjust how that article discusses those words. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think in that context what is written is reasonable, but in the context of the other article it is too narrow given how that clause was interpreted. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see talk

[edit]

Regarding the revert for P.S., I told the user it was likely to happen. Next time, you can just say "see talk" instead of "see talk archives" because the charming kindness of infobox discussions is found right on top (unless it was archived since I discovered that, triggered by the addition). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That particular entry was why I referred to archives rather than talk, since there was more fulsome discussion previously. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I probably don't understand the meaning of that word, fulsome ;) - I didn't know it was a synonym for hopeless waste of time, which shows best in the most recent exchange. Stay away, that's my recommendation to everybody. Life is too short and in danger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed code...

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montacute_House&type=revision&diff=1040525039&oldid=1040442007

You restored a broken version, What was the correct repair so this doesn't generate malformed HTML? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any error so can't speak to repairs. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The error shows up when I run a specialist script, (User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint), for the purposes of identifying parser edge cases (Linterrors), that currently generate malformed HTML. (The error is not obvious from reading the markup in the page, but what seems to be happening is that the Module code for the location map is treating the closing tag for the collapsed section as part of the caption, and then tries to erronously wrap that inside the wrapper it generates) As removing the collapsed section templates solved the problem, the relevant templates were commented until someone with the requisite skill can make the module or the relevant templates work as intended.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no visible error, I don't think that is necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

List of Marvel Comics superhero debuts

[edit]

I have no idea what happened in this diff - it looks nothing like my edit, which I've just repeated here. Narky Blert (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somehow you ended up editing an older revision. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mike Herrera's Tumbledown albums

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Mike Herrera's Tumbledown albums indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santos Dumont

[edit]

I've undone your recent edit to this article since you removed valid and accurate content, with a disingenuous edit summary. You were not trimming but REMOVING CONTENT.TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See explanations in edit history. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

[edit]

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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Goertzen

[edit]

Hello. Kelvin Goertzen is the 23rd premier of Nova Scotia, while being the 'interim' PC party leader. When the party chooses the next leader, that person will become the 24th premier. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, I would be very interested to see a citation claiming that he's any kind of premier of Nova Scotia. As I noted, the source included describes him as interim premier of Manitoba. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion I've pinged you to. CBC news, says he's the 23rd premier. A few sources tend to get interim leader mixed up with premier, in these situations. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly doesn't say he's the 23rd premier of Nova Scotia! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please join the discussion over at WP:CANADA. It's the same situation like it was with Premier Tom Marshall of Newfoundland and Labrador, in 2014. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria – I did an image review at FLC, but stumbled upon File:Chumash basket, circa 1800.JPG. I am not sure about this one, as it has "all rights reserved" on Flickr. Would it be fine to use, and is its licencing correct. Please suggest. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kavyansh.Singh. Photographs of three-dimensional objects are complicated under US law because there is no freedom of panorama - this means that we need to account for the copyright of the object pictured and also for the photograph of that object. As noted in the comment on Flickr, the object itself is in the public domain due to its age, and that's what's reflected in the tag on Commons. However, the photograph of the object is itself copyrighted, thus the Flickr licensing. Long story short, as things stand we can't use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring

[edit]

I've just fucking had it.

Of the nine articles on my watchlist, one needs a steward: Ike Altgens. This FA still gets the occasional edit by someone trying to add or change data that is not germane to the article subject. I hope you know someone willing to take it on.

Thanks for being there when I needed you. Take care of yourself.

—ATS (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 🖖🏻[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it, and hope to see you around sometime. Best wishes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes to you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You will be missed ATS. Thank you for all your work here over the years. Please take care of yourself and best wishes to you. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

[edit]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptic Skeptic

[edit]

Thanks! You learn something every day!!! Since all the other spellings I have seen in this article are spelled "skeptic" what are your thoughts around any need to maintain a uniform spelling throughout? Kumlina (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kumlina, our approach to spelling variations is spelled out (pun intended ;-) ) in WP:ENGVAR - since the article is on a British subject we would want to consistently use UK spellings throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for this--very necessary. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

  • Library design improvements deployed
  • New collections available in English and German
  • Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

[edit]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case

[edit]

Hello N. Long time no bump into each other. I hope you are well. When I make edits like this I try to include WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL in the edit summary. In fact, if memory serves, I learned about it from you. It's not required I just mention it in case you get static about it. It did give me a chance to stop by and say hi and that is the only important bit. Best regards and enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 00:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Same to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your pointless reverts

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria

I was surprised by your revert[3] of my edit[4] to List of adventure films of the 1980s.

As explained in my edit summary, my edit was a workaround to a wee bug in IAbot, which I wanted to invoke to rescue dead refs. I cannot fix the bot as you suggested; only the bot owners can do that. The best I can do is to file a bug report, and as per my edit summary I have done so at phab:T291704.

In the meantime, the only way I can use the bot without creating CS1 errors is by firstly running my script User:BrownHairedGirl/CiteParamDashes.js, to convert the cite parameters to the canonical form. So I have reverted your edit. The bot job is queued at https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php?page=viewjob&id=8758, which may take a week or two to run. If you revert again, you will cause the bot to create CS1 errors when it runs. If that happens, I will consider it to be deliberately disruptive editing by you.

This morning, I checked the history of that page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_adventure_films_of_the_1980s&action=history

I see there that in June 2021, you twice reverted similar edits by @Trappist the monk: [5], [6].

Those reverts were disruptive, because while you might have a point that conversion to the canonical form is cosmetic and therefore not worthy of an edit, there is absolutely no justification for your reversion to the non-canonical form.

The result of your pointless reverts is that there are now six edits in the page's recent history which could all have been avoided. Whatever problem you were trying to resolve, that avoidable clutter in the page history is far more disruptive.

Please stop this. If you object to such edits, raise the matter with the editor who makes them ... but reverting such edits is always u unhelpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrownHairedGirl. While I sympathize with the problem of a buggy bot, creating a script like this one as a workaround is not an appropriate solution. Not only is the script cosmetic, but the community consensus is that those forms are acceptable; the bot needs to be fixed to account for that, not the other way around. I see that you have restored your edit without consensus; please self-revert here and on other pages where you might have employed this script. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, your response is bizarre and perverse.
Of course the bot needs to fixed, which is why I filed a bug report at phab:T291704. But until it is fixed, the workaround is needed to avoid creating errors when the bot is used, which is why I made those changes on a few pages where I intend to invoke the bot. When the bot is fixed, I will delete the script.
So no, I will not self-revert.
LPlease stop being disruptive. Your pointless reverts are all cosmetic, and repeatedly restoring the non-canonical form is disruptive. Your attitude amounts to time-wasting pedantry which impedes improving the 'pedia, and your actions are WP:POINTy. I will escalate this to ANI if you persist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, I appreciate that you reported the issue, and I see that the bot has been stopped by the operator pending its resolution. So it would seem the appropriate next step would be to allow the operator time to correct the problem, rather than implementing a cosmetic script. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bot has not been stopped by the operator. See e.g. [7] and [8], both within the last few minutes.
Please stop being so WP:POINTily pedantic. Stop your cosmetic reversions, stop impeding improvements to the 'pedia, and please stop wasting my time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for clarifying; it appears that the management console stops only the bot account and not the user-driven edits. That is a problem worth correcting, since it results in a buggy bot continuing to run. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is still usable with the workaround which I devised, and per WP:COMMONSENSE this work should not be halted.. Please resist your urge to impede others from continuing to use the bot to improve the 'pedia, and please do not resume the cosmetic reverts by which which you try to disrupt such improvement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing the app to run when the bot is disabled for being buggy is a problem quite apart from your script; you're not the only one to use the app. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bug applies only in a minority of uses. I and others cleanup those cases, which are listed at Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter. As you can see, there is no huge pile of errors to be fixed, just a trickle. So yes, of course the bug should be fixed; but no, the bot's important work does not need to be stopped in the meantime. Please stop trying to make a glitch into a crisis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a crisis, just a bug that needs fixing. Once it's fixed then the work can be done properly, without the need for workarounds and cleanup and the like. And in the general case, it seems clear that if there is a bug warranting the bot being disabled, then the bot should be disabled wholly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake, Nikkimaria. The work is continuing, and the glitches are being fixed. If you really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really want to be so perverse as to prevent the 'pedia being improved until the work is done perfectly first time, then go to ANI and ask for the bot to be blocked. Alternatively, just stop wasting time on your disruptive pedantry and your disruptive pointy reverts, and go do something useful. I won't reply again here; but if you do take this to ANI, please notify me and please link at ANI to both this discussion and your WP:POINTy reverts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking a block of the bot account would be useless since the bot is already stopped; we just need to allow the operator time to fix the bug you identified, and fix the app loophole which won't happen via ANI. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Agreed. We don't need those superficial "moderation" of content efforts here. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 02:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

[edit]

Hi,

It is bad practice to revert good faith edits without explaining why.

Could you explain this revert? Thanks. --Thibaut (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per the previous editor's revert, that note is likely to be confusing. Further discussion would be required to make changes to the existing display. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

[edit]
 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 11 reviews between July and September 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Image review question

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm on the fence about approving File:Theodosios III. front side of a solidus.jpg for an image review and I'm wondering if you could help. On the one hand, I can't find it on the internet before it was uploaded to Commons. On the other, the resolution and exif data suggest that it may not be the uploader's own work. The uploader claims to be a coin collector and as far as I can tell it is possible for a private person to own Byzantine coins. Go or no go? (t · c) buidhe 10:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi buidhe, without more to go on you're basically left with AGF - that was what ended up happening with commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Arab_Sasanian_Coin_-_Khusru_II_Silver_Drachm_with_the_insignia_of_al-Muhallab_ibn_Abi_Sufra_Drachm_-_minted_in_Bishapur_in_AD_696_-_3.93g_-_32,5_mm.jpg from the same uploader. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isa Briones talk page

[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could advise me regarding our discussion of Isa Briones's name in the lead section. As it's only the two of us discussing it, would it make sense for me to request an outside opinion at WP:Third opinion or WP:DRN? We haven't exhausted the topic yet, so I feel like this would be overkill. Is there another way to get editors on Briones's page to weigh in, such as a template at the top of the page? I've had a Wikipedia account for some time, but am still fairly new to the processes here, so I would really appreciate your feedback on any of these suggestions. Thank you! Dog Starkiller (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dog Starkiller, you could pursue either 3O or an RFC as a formal option; if you're looking for a more informal option, I would suggest posting to one of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, for a more informal option, it would be acceptable for me to post to the talk page of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers? Thanks in advance for your patience. Dog Starkiller (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dog Starkiller, yes, you'll just want to make sure your notification is neutral to avoid any potential canvassing issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! I'll go post over there. Dog Starkiller (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Kubrick RfC

[edit]

I apologize for my somewhat selective pinging on the Stanley Kubrick infobox RfC. What would you like me to do? Songwaters (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point about the only thing you can do is close it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello. Apologies for this random message. I have been using the Wikipedia Library to find sources for the "Laundromat" (song) article, and I find a useful resource through EBSCO Host. I am not really sure how to use the link (here) in a citation.

I have used ProQuest in the past, and I've been told to remove certain portions of the URL that are tied to my account. Would I have to do something similar here? What would be your advice for using EBSCO Host links in an article? Apologies if this is obvious, as I have not used this in the past and I was only able to find a limited number of Wikipedia articles for comparison. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you are having an enjoyable start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, the kind of link you've shared is not persistent, so I'm not actually able to tell what source you're trying to cite. Do you have the bibliographic details? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I did not think the link would work, but I wanted to try just in case. I have included the citation below, which should have all the details:
  • "'Laundromat'/'Don't Mess With My Man' (Music)". Music Week (15): 7. April 19, 2003a. ISSN 0265-1548 – via EBSCO Information Services. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. To be honest, I tried both. I used the Cite link, but I am still getting the error screen. The error screen provides some advice on how to revise a proxy link, but I am not sure if it helps in this particular situation. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Why did you delete one of my edits?

[edit]

Hello, sometime ago I added a new paragraph to Dr Villiers Graaff's page and you deleted it. I do not care about the fact you don't think it should be there because it's from a game so, please, redo it or I will edit it back on the 16th of October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CartofulMaro (talk • contribs) 21:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CartofulMaro, your addition lacked reliable sources supporting its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Axelsen

[edit]

Hallo. Not sure how to proceed, but your "rm dub" is a 3rd revert on said article. Could you please restore and take issue to talk page. Best regards Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ip says, it appears that the stable version is unlinked; if you want to change that it'll be up to you to get consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a proper reason, and its besides the point regarding staple version. This isn't content but formatting. You are conveniently popping into an ongoing issue that had been referred to the talk page, prior to your edit. It is part of wp:mos and linking the first occurrence of a subject is not unreasonable. This is a silly conversation. Best regards Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all beside the point - if you believe your proposed formatting is correct according to MOS, please put forward arguments to that effect at the article talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images - copyright questions

[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. May I bother you, as one who regularly does the honours with image reviews at FAC, to comment on these two images which were added - before I removed them - to the FA on Ralph Vaughan Williams? They are Ralph Vaughan Williams 1910.png and Ralph Vaughan Williams 1917 with Adeline.png. The second, in particular, is excellent and would be good to keep, but I am far from sure we are allowed to use it or the other one, or that they should be on Commons. Grateful for your advice. Tim riley talk 13:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, at the moment there isn't enough info in either case to be assured that the images are in the public domain - the uploader has claimed CC0 but without evidence of their right to do so, and in both cases the source states the images are reproduced by permission of the trust. Is there any reason that you're aware of to believe the uploader is associated with the trust? Failing that, do we have any further details on publication history of these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that, Nikkimaria. The uploader may possibly have been more enthusiastic than mindful of WP rules. I'll quote your guidance on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 18:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source

[edit]

Hi there, TVSGuy is here. I understand I am trying to contribute, but may I know what is a RS, or Reliable source is? Although I know that it was not a reliable content (It's worth a shot I tried), but just to clarify that is Fandom not a RS, and whether if there is there some suggestions so that I do it correctly?

Thanks and cheers. TVSGuy (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TVSGuy, there is a list here of some common reliable and not-reliable sources that might be helpful for you. Generally speaking, user-generated content is not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Frank Carson

[edit]

Hi there. Can you let me know why you removed my referenced addition of Frank Carson's two catchphrases? When anyone over 50 in this part of the world thinks of Carson, those things are likely among the first things they would say. Hence, they are anything but trivialities. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Billsmith60, the reference you used was not reliable - see WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the Battle of the Granicus

[edit]

Hello, some time ago you commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Granicus/archive1. I didn't have to time to respond before the discussion there closed and took a break from Wikipedia afterwards, so I'm responding on your talk page now. I had some questions and comments. 1) I agree with you about the OSM map directly under the infobox, but I've noticed it doesn't even show in the mobile Wikipedia app. I'll ask the person who made the map to fix first, then I'll make sure the caption is more appropriate. 2) I actually want to remove that battle map altogether because it shows that Alexander the Great attacked the Persian center, which is actually contested by the historians cited in the article. I'll create, or ask someone else to create, a new map in time. 3) What is a US tag? --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlexanderVanLoon, if you look at the image description on Commons, the tag that is currently in use specifies that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." That's what I meant by US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joyce Hemlow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen's University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World War II vs. Second World War

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria:, please show me a source which states that Second World War is the default term in Canadian English. I've searched online, and I think you're just making that up. On Wiki, as in general, World War II is the default and most commonly used term. Just as World War Im is commonplace to "the Great War". The fact that Canada in World War II exists also suggests you are mistaken. I'm British and we say the Second World War too (in addition to saying World War II) so I'm not being bias / there isn't a linguistic barrier here. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the Canadian Encyclopedia article, Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Archivaria, UBC, and many more. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Hall (judge)

[edit]

I believe that adding a Find a Grave link here was permissible by policy because it features an image of a portrait that is not present in the article. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a unique resource - other sources such as NCpedia have portraits available. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team Seas

[edit]

Good God, who wrote that shit? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help protect the page

[edit]

Hello, colleague, help protect the page about the biography of one musician, there are more than 43 sources, it was mined for deletion, please help urgently! --Robotkaka20 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article itself: Kholmat Odilov --Robotkaka20 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Jets

[edit]

Howdy. Would be best if you got a consensus at WP:HOCKEY, before adding Canada to the former & current NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at WT:NHL. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

[edit]

Well, look, you are better to explain these reverts that go one by one after me across range of loosely related articles, except of by one template {{Infobox noble/Wikidata}}, that seems you don't like.

  1. [04:00, November 7, 2021] - Prokopy Petrovich Lyapunov
  2. [15:24, November 6, 2021] - Aleksander Józef Lisowski
  3. [17:44]—[17:43, November 8, 2021] - Template:Infobox noble/doc
  4. [00:17]—[00:06, November 9, 2021] - Ivan Andreyevich Khovansky

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 00:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already explained multiple times: the way the template is designed allows for the importation of statements that are unsourced or sourced only to Wikipedia. That makes the template in its current form inappropriate for use here. I would suggest redesigning the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tendency to remove

[edit]

23:56, November 8, 2021 - «rm non-RS»
22:36, November 8, 2021 - «rv apparent copyvio»
01:10, November 8, 2021 - «rm non-RS»
01:08, November 8, 2021 - «rm non-RS»
00:46, November 8, 2021 - «rm non-RS» - This one is funny; you removed source that is more reliable than ancestry.com...
02:19, November 6, 2021 - «rm ribbons»

I've checked some of your contribution history (examples above) and it seems that it's mostly red, meaning that you're constantly reverting others contributions. Some of the edits above are more than questionable in my opinion but I won't got into details for now. I strongly encourage you to get a closer look at some nice essays and WP:PAGs that one is assumed to read and follow in case they they feel excessively obsessed with desire to remove something "inappropriate", like Keep it, don't remove!, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ZEAL; hope my friendly advise is welcome; best.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 01:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with our PAGs, thanks - but none of those links go to edits by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well look, I know you were previously an admin but it doesn't automatically make you an experienced editor; even most experienced may fail at the most basic provisions... anyway. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 01:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er... what makes me an experienced editor is being experienced. If you have specific issues with the edits above rather than a general feeling that red = bad, let me know and I'm happy to elaborate on my reasoning. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I really continue on something that others have noticed too, Nikky?: Lots of deletions - right or wrong?; please save me from wasting time on this. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 02:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: don't waste your time on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency difficult to apply

[edit]

Howdy. I tried to bring consistency to the 32 NHL team articles, by either deleting (was reverted), then adding (was reverted) provinces & states in the leads. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External Link: WikiTree

[edit]
[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Disputing_the_removal_of_WikiTree_as_an_External_Link

--Azurerae (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_42&oldid=1248443612"