User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 12

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

GA Mentoring[edit]

Hello! I saw your name listed at WP:GAN/M and hoped that you might be able to help give me a start in reviewing Good Articles. Whilst I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia, I have been reading here for a very long time, and I've read up on all the advice for reviewing, so I hope I have a fairly good idea of what's needed. However, it's always good to have a second opinion, and I'd be delighted if you could give your thoughts.
I've found an article in the nominations list that I am interested in, and have some knowledge about, at Ruislip. If you're able to help, let me know and we'll get started!
Thanks in advance for your time Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd be happy to help out. Would you prefer to co-review the article, or do you want to take the lead and I'll "review" your review? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm not too sure how co-reviewing would work exactly, but it sounds a good way to go, so I'd be happy to co-review the article with you. I'll await your instructions! Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, basically what that means is we both provide commentary and we agree on the result - if we both say pass it passes, if we both say fail it fails, if we have one of each or a hold it's on hold. We can both review all criteria, or you can review the criteria you are most comfortable with and I take the stuff you're maybe less familiar with, as you prefer. Why don't you start the review page and include both of us as a reviewer? You can explain why there are two reviewers or not, it's up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I've set up the page at Talk:Ruislip/GA1, and added you as a co-reviewer. Do you have a set way you like to do these, or shall we use a template? (I think my personal preference might be Template:GATable. Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either's fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I have added a Template:GATable and I'll start getting on with it. I guess I'll write my thoughts down, and you can add your comments and any corrections necessary. Please let me know if (when!) I get anything wrong. Thanks! Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I have made a start! I'd appreciate your help with section 1b on the WP:MOS, particularly on how strict the requirements are. I could probably spend forever nit-picking, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Also, please see what you think of the other things I have put. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good for a first effort! The only major thing missing (besides the MOS review you mentioned) is evidence of spotchecking, which is especially important (at the GA level) for checking for potential copyvio. I'll add my comments shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for the comments! What's your overall feeling on the article? At first I was thinking it would be quite easy to pass this, with just a few SPG corrections, but on second thoughts the balance seems very history-heavy, which concerns me. But on third thoughts, the GA on Ickenham (the next town down the road from Ruislip, with a similar history) is almost identical in terms of balance. As it stands, I am tempted to put a tick on 2a, 2c and 5, and 'on hold' on the others to see if someone can fix them. Is that ok, and if so, how do we go about finding someone to do the editing? Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Hold" is my vote. To find someone to fix, change the talk-page template to hold (to flag it for interested parties), and notify the nominator about that decision. You might also notify the person with the most edits to the article, if that isn't the nominator. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done as you said, changed the template, and left a message on the talk page and with the nominator. I think I did everything right, but it'd be great if you can check to make sure I didn't miss anything. Thanks! Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns[edit]

I fixed the concerns you raised at Template:Did you know nominations/Indus River Delta. Please take a look. Thanks,VR talk 19:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please confirm that all your concerns were addressed and that you no longer see any significant issues with the article?VR talk 06:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have once again addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you still see any issues with the article?VR talk 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed once again. If you have any more specific concerns with the article, please let me know.VR talk 03:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-hop dance FAC[edit]

Thank you for your feedback on the hip-hop dance article. Most of the bullet points you brought up I have addressed. There were a few others that I had a question about. Please visit the nomination page and respond. For your reference, here is a link comparing the changes I have made since your critique. //Gbern3 (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/All Saints Episcopal Church (Chicago, Illinois)[edit]

Have your concerns been addressed at Template:Did you know nominations/All Saints Episcopal Church (Chicago, Illinois)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/All Saints Episcopal Church (Chicago, Illinois).
Message added 23:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011[edit]

Thanks for your help[edit]

Thank you for stepping in with technical and writing advice to various of my students' articles over the last 6 weeks or so. In particular I know you helped Julietbee, and commented on Learning to Read and there may have been others I have missed. This is my first time through this process with students and I appreciate the support we have received. Paula Marentette (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about SL FAC[edit]

Hi Nikki. Hope everything is fine for you. Hmmm, how will i know whether the FAC will pass or fail? Well, i know this question may seem really dumb but i sincerely do not know. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Six supports, three opposes, almost three weeks up - not a clear-cut case. It will probably pass if you can convince 1-2 opposers to strike their votes, or get a couple of uninvolved supports; it will probably fail if someone else opposes. Beyond that, it's up to the delegates. Malleus' opinion tends to carry a lot of weight in terms of prose, but some of your other supporters are less "weighty". Other than pure numbers, you're missing a complete media review, and it definitely wouldn't be promoted without that. I will say this, though: the longer it goes without something changing, the more likely it is to fail, because delegates tend to the "no consensus to promote" result after about 3-4 weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media review... you mean music sample etc? If yes, it has already been reviewed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I must have missed that. Who reviewed it? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two Headed River. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One oppose has been cut but not changed to Support and the reviewer told me something I could not understand here ... I may not be able to certainly justify my previous "vote". WPenguin and Legolas have finally supported. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruislip GA review[edit]

Thank you for your review with Cucumber Mike. I have made changes based on our suggestions so would you mind having another look? Harrison49 (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Maple syrup[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Maple syrup know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 9, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 9, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

A bottle of maple syrup

Maple syrup is a syrup usually made from the xylem sap of sugar maple, red maple, or black maple trees. In cold climates, these trees store starch in their trunks and roots before the winter; the starch is then converted to sugar that rises in the sap in the spring. Maple trees can be tapped by boring holes into their trunks and collecting the exuded sap. The sap is processed by heating to evaporate some of the water, leaving the concentrated syrup. Maple syrup was first collected and used by indigenous people of North America. The practice was adopted by European settlers, who gradually improved production methods. Technological improvements in the 1970s further refined syrup processing. Quebec, Canada is by far the largest producer, making about three-quarters of the world's output. The syrup is graded according to the Canada, United States, or Vermont scales based on its density and translucency. Sucrose is the most prevalent sugar in maple syrup. Maple syrup is often eaten with waffles, pancakes, oatmeal (porridge), and French toast. It is also used as an ingredient in baking, and as a sweetener and flavouring agent. Culinary experts have praised its unique flavour, though the chemistry responsible is not fully understood. Maple syrup and the sugar maple tree are symbols of Canada and several US states, in particular Vermont. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "advance" warning...sigh. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol. Given it was *just* move protected, I think we had another last second scheduling. That said, congrats on the TFA! Resolute 00:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Resolute. I was looking at my watchlist around the time the notice was posted: "oh look, maple syrup is made of vaginas, and I have a message on my talk...oh, I see, that's why the IPs are suddenly swarming". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that, I should perhaps start running this bot at 11 pm or so too. Ucucha (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, no big deal. But that might be a good idea anyways, if the last-minute scheduling is becoming a habit. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where can I buy this vagina-flavoured maple syrup? Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Philadelphia, where you also get the human babies used to make syrup. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Poetry. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I reverted your unexplained large scale removal. If this was an intermediate edit to an improvement, revert me and leave me a note. I'm not watching your talkpage so leave me a {{tb}} template if you reply to this. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Don't worry about being several years late, nor about assuming I have no idea what I'm doing. If you need any help learning about Wikipedia practices and conventions (like this one, for instance), feel free to let me know! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think I was being sarcastic? Please assume good faith. Nevertheless, that's a cool essay, so thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

For promoting one of the best and tastiest FA's ever, I give you some stroopwafels. Though they might not be filled with maple syrup, they are still epically tasty. Congrats on your TFA! Buggie111 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yum, thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Holloway FAC[edit]

Hi there, firstly thank you for your comments and points on the above article, which have now all been addressed. Is there anything else you can see or have all the issues raised been addressed to your satisfaction. All the best -- Cassianto (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review - Ruislip[edit]

Hiya. I've seen the changes made to the article, and I'm generally happy. I think the balance is better now with some information on current affairs and education. However, I'm a little unsure about the list of schools that was added - it seems quite close to being a 'trivia list'. I'm not sure what the policy is with this, so I'd like to know your thoughts. I'm also unsure about the use of the picture from the book of 1907 - I don't feel the license is correct, but I'm not sure how to check. If you could let me know about those two things, and check that I haven't missed anything else that's glaringly obvious, I think I would then be ok to pass it.
Thanks so much for the help! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the schools are okay. I'm with you on the 1907 photo, though - might it be worth a quick query at WP:MCQ? However, you've missed nothing obvious, so if you're satisfied feel free to pass it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. I don't have time right now, but I will ask about the picture tomorrow, and I'll let the nominator know what's going on. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now passed the article. I updated the review, and changed the template on the talk page. Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks for all your help! Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your reviews. Harrison49 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Mike, for future reference: [1]. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seven of Nine[edit]

Hey--thanks for killing that silly trivia section. I put the notice there in April and was remiss in not following up. Seems I'm on an endless campaign against the unsourced and the silly.

Thanks again for the help! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 23:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016[edit]

I've responded to your copyvio comments at this review, and hope that my resolution is satisfactory. I'm still concerned that there may be problems, but I'm watching the article now, and hopefully any problems can be dealt with appropriately. Harrias talk 00:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Prayer[edit]

What do you feel about the sourcing of the above article now at a glance? — Legolas (talk2me) 08:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, I just found out that you wrote Maple syrup. Wow Nikki, that's just really good. You did a pretty intense research. Was it outside your normal interest of writing? I'm intrigued. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Legolas, thanks for the compliment. So far it's my only "food" article, but it roughly fits under the "Canadian" banner. Outside my normal interest of writing? I guess. I have four FAs - maple syrup, Manitoba, Eastbourne manslaughter, and If Day - and I don't know that those demonstrate a strong single-area writing interest (and once you add in GAs, stuff "saved" at FAR, and articles created, it gets even blurrier).
As to your question: you've got a few formatting inconsistencies (wikilinking, doubled periods, stuff like that) and some of your print sources are missing page numbers. There are no citations to Clerk. In terms of reliability, though, on a quick look nothing jumps out. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you...[edit]

...vote as well? I mean, i have seen in other FACs that you vote (I mean Oppose/Support). By the way, I have finally got the Support of Legolas and WPenguin while Efe has struck his oppose but he told me something very confusing. I addressed all his concerns. Then he said that he wanted a better composition section, which i did (i manged to get two very good articles containing some composition analysis after filtering around 40 search pages). After i did that, i contacted him on his talk-page and he said he will not be able to justify his previous vote (after striking the oppose) ... I could not understand what he meant. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jivesh. Usually I only support when I know enough about the subject to be able to vote on all the criteria, not just on a source review. I think what Efe means is that you've addressed his/her points enough to get the oppose struck, but that for whatever reason he/she doesn't want to support. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well, i seriously cannot remember the last time he supported something. Sorry for my honesty. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the oppose is struck it shouldn't be a big problem for you, so I wouldn't worry about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh okay. That's re-assuring. See you later Nikki. Happy editing. May God bless you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 2[edit]

Hi Nikki, would you mind revisiting images at WP:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1? Thanks, Ucucha (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edits to Maple syrup reversed?[edit]

Just really curious as...

  1. "Aboriginal" in the US is considered derogetory (though the term is perfectly acceptable and preferred in Canada), so per WP:IPNA, the preferred neutral "Indigenous" was used.
  2. "Sinzibuckwud" is not the academic spelling of this word. In the Fiero-Nichols orthography, which in WP:IPNA/Nish strives ensure Ojibwe words are in this orthography for consisency, the word is written as "ziinzibaakwad". Etymogy provided is in error. as the preverb ziinz=/ziind=/ziinji- means "wedged, packed, molded, stuffed, crammed" and the inanimate intrasitive verb final =aakwad is associated with wooden objects (opposed to =aatig which is associated with trees themselves), and the word has nothing to do with drawing out of trees but rather packing into a wooden object.
  3. There was an erroneous reference to the syrup being "sweet water" that was corrected as to refer to the sap itself and the Anishinaabemowin word wiishkobaaboo for sap that literally means "sweet water" was added in but I see that this was completely removed.

This is the second edit and I don't understand what is objectionable. Please clarify. miigwech. CJLippert (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your fine trims at Santa Ana winds. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was an eyesore and I am glad you got to it before I did--after all, you are an ageless immortal, and I'm just a crickety human. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Syrup[edit]

I'm getting a little fed up here: you keep making edits to the maple syrup page in regards to birch syrup without consulting the other editors on the talk page. I'm sure everyone will be happy to work something out, but as you are not the sole editor of the article, you can't make decisions for everyone else (especially based of off one person suggesting that birch syrup be incorporated into the article rather than the "See also" section, which has not been discussed in depth). Please discuss the changes you've made on the talk page and explain your reasoning, and listen to what the other editors say. I'm sure we can all come to an agreement, but that won't be happening as long as you continue to make changes without consensus. Thanks. Murmuration (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to "make decisions for everyone else" - you raised a concern, I addressed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You "addressed it" by removing an edit that was agreed upon on the talk page without involving the other editors. As I've said before, I'm sure the other editors will be happy to address your concerns about putting birch sap in the "See also" section, but as I said when I reverted one of your edits (that removed that section) it should remain until we find a solution that satisfies all the editors (or at least the majority), not just you.Murmuration (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Replied on the talk page for most of that, but I would point out that my edit doesn't actually satisfy me, but was an attempt at satisfying others. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

really?[edit]

It is ridiculous that I should be coming to the talk page of an editor with a sysop bit to post the required notification before the 3rr. Knock it off. Use the talk page. Build consensus. Open an RFC if you feel so strongly about it. (I don' t know if you're in the WP:DTR or WP:TR camp, so apologies if I guessed wrong.) Gerardw (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor example, but not worth fighting over. Incidentally, that edit summary was quite ironic given the issue involved. Nice one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unintentional. Obviously the logical antecedent of a pronoun in an edit summary would be the content reverted, but that's not where my head was when I typed it. I apologize, and have made a null edit with an explanatory edit summary. Your revision was not ridiculous. Gerardw (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now, might it be possible for us to find an example we can agree on? The discussion on the talk page remains open. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011[edit]

Dan Gertler[edit]

Perhaps you could review this version and respond on the DYK nom page. I would like to clear this and move on. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

Would you mind commenting on Wikipedia:Peer review/S&M (song)/archive3 please? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 11:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damerius[edit]

I read most of the sources -- including some of the German ones -- and made several edits to that article before I approved the hook. --Orlady (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know - many reviewers can't read German, so that's always helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gertler (2)[edit]

When you have the time, perhaps you could respond to the question in the DYK nomination for this article. I assume you are leaving the {{close paraphrasing}} tag on the article because you still see problems. I would be glad to clear them if you would say what they are. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, honestly, I forgot to remove the tag after the last set of fixes - apologies, I've done that now. I'll take another look at the nom in a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion discussion of essays from "The Newspaper in Canadian Society" class.[edit]

Hi there. Several essays from "The Newspaper in Canadian Society" class have been nominated for deletion. I'm one of the editors arguing against deletion. Were the students instructed to put their articles in the mainspace? Thanks. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but at this point it might be more helpful to userfy all of them. The problem is we're rapidly approaching the end of term, so everyone has decided to mainspace things all at once - ready or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The course (that i TA for) is now drawing to a close and the students have limited time to re-edit to satisfy wikipedia standards. Almost all have had no prior experience using Wikipedia (indeed it is something the academy teaches undergraduates to avoid). We have asked students to adjust their entries (i think you all call it 'userfying') as best they can but now is exam time so we have no sense of what they will be able to achieve before deletions begin. All in all a very negative welcome to first time users - although thanks to you Nikkimaria for your continued help and work. James.p.McKee (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem they have been all userfied yet (James, that word means "to move to User space").. for example The Globe and Mail personality, Toronto-G20 Newspaper Mythologies, Citizen Exploitation, to name a few.. the full list being here. But some of them definitely seem salvagable, such as History of free speech in Canada and maybe Canadian political blogosphere. Thanks for your work being an ambassador! Mlm42 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got the first two. Some of them I deliberately left in mainspace, at least for now, because they are probably able to avoid deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Education Program[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#New Canadian education project. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  12:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFC[edit]

WRT "wouldn't AFC get a bit backlogged?"

(Replied here, 'coz ANI is too frantic)

Yes, it would. Might take us a week or more to get through them. But... no deadline, eh? There shouldn't be a deadline. I know the uni's sometimes impose deadlines, but that's one of the problems here; Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and will not work to deadlines.

AFC is currently backlogged, by 500+, which is about 1 week-average-time-to-do-them. That's... well, it's a "problem I am well aware of". A few weeks ago, it got to 435, and I did ALL of them, in a single session of about 12 hours. I've almost deliberately let it build back up, for...well, kinda "political" reasons... it almost needs to melt down, for anyone on Wikipedia to wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee; that we need to massively shift from warn/block/sock/vandal/CSD games, and towards helping new users.

Not easy. But, necessary. But... I'm going off-topic here; my thoughts on that belong elsewhere.

AFC for WIHE? hell, yeah; totally. It really does not have to take a long time. Give me 1000 AFC's, and I can do them myself in 2 days - and I would, for a WIHE project.  Chzz  ►  17:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've not worked with AFC before, so wasn't sure of the timing involved. I think in this case the problem is external deadlines - end of semester, do-or-die time, etc - but this might be a possibility for future courses. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you mean well...[edit]

I know you mean well, but it's typically considered a conflict of interest when you close an AfD or other discussion if you're directly connected to it (being the online ambassador for that course). But thanks for acting quickly on rescuing the articles! Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That was part of the reason why I raised the issue at ANI and specifically asked for any objections, leaving the matter open for several hours before acting...but yes, I'm aware there was a CoI problem there. My thought in acting as I did was to try to minimize the friction between the community and the class as much as possible. It doesn't seem that that was so successful. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain[edit]

Hi Nikki. I saw this message here. Well i read and understood everything that was written there. But these things (reviews for prose, media, references, and spotcheck of the sources to ensure that there is no accidental copyright infringement) have all already been done for "Single Ladies" and the FAC has not been active lately because i think everything has been addressed. Yet, I see nothing for the FAC, i mean archived or promoted etc... No progress. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jivesh, it's not inactive - you just got a support today, so that's promising. However, I think the FAC delegates (or at least Sandy) are busy in real life right now, so there haven't been decisions on many "maturing" FACs for the last little bit. That's probably why nothing's happened here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that hint at a possible failure? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. It just means that with limited time, they act on the most obvious noms - obvious quickfails, for the most part - and don't have the focused time required to read through an older FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I better not have my hopes up too much. Lol. Take care. See you later. Happy editing. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikki[edit]

Hi Nikki, I hope you are doing great these days. I need a favor from you, since I have been told that you have the tools for spotchecks. Can you do the spotcheck for "Rehab" because its probably the last thing it stayed on the FAC for it to be promoted. I know you are busy as hell, but please try do that, I will be happy if you can :) ! Thanks — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Happy Holidays to you and your family. I read the note on the top of your talkpage, but please can you check this. Is the spotcheck over? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 20:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, Rehab has pass and I am so happy about it. I am grateful for all your help there. Thank You :) ! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Holloway FAC latest editons[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to pester.. could you have another look over this article as all points have been addressed. It could really do with another update re it's content of all fixes done to date. Many Thanks -- Cassianto (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Goldsmith[edit]

You raised some valid concerns about Paul Goldsmith (politician) as part of the Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Anne Genter DYK. That's been fixed, but the nomination had disappeared from the nomination page due to some technicality. It's just been restored and I thought I'd draw your attention to it being back, as there's a question waiting for your attention. And thanks for being such a diligent DYK reviewer—your good work is certainly raising the bar, which can only be good. Schwede66 18:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the FA candidacy of Jud Süß (1940 film)[edit]

Thank you for your comments on the FAC page for Jud Süß (1940 film). I have addressed some of your comments and am working on others. Should I respond to your comments on the FAC page? Should I also leave questions requesting clarification there? There are a couple of comments that I don't understand and a couple that I don't know how to fix. Thanx again for your input. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please feel free to leave replies and questions there, I've got the review watchlisted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Lamba[edit]

May I know why you removed Trivia section? Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA. Also, the material was unsourced, which is problematic in a WP:BLP. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic content vs. Essays, synthesis and NPOV[edit]

Hello, just passing by because you're listed at the online coordinator for this course. I note that several of the articles being worked on there have not much potential at being encyclopedic articles, per their very nature as essays. I'm not sure about the extent of the collaboration you have with Mr. Valpy, but if he hasn't already, perhaps he should be made aware of WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH. I've also noticed some serious POV problems with The Foxification of News. Not sure what should be done, but I figure you might be one who'd want to know about it. Merry Christmas. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little late to the party, Charlie - see a few sections up ;-). There was a communication issue that has hopefully been addressed, and a number of the articles have been (re)userfied. There's one article still at AfD, and some (like Foxification) with issues that can hopefully be addressed via normal community processes. Thanks for checking in, though! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the AN/I thread etc. Little late indeed :-( Happy holidays! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Hilson discography[edit]

Hi there, could you please comment on Wikipedia:Peer review/Keri Hilson discography/archive1 for me? I would love to hear more feedback from other users because I'm planning on taking the article to FL . Oz talk 11:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Oz talk 23:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual communication[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I'm Michael Valpy, the instructor of the course for which the article on ritual communication was written. I'm writing to ask that you reconsider your decision to delete it. The student author of the article received a 95 per cent grade on the basis of her writing, her research and what I judged to be her successful effort to meet both academic and Wikipedia standards. Its content was painstakingly referenced. The student wrote on one of the most significant media theories formulated in the second half of the 20th century. I respectfully disagree with those who labelled it an essay. You can reach me at michael.valpy@utoronto.ca

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greycounty (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the student's userspace, but okay, I'll restore it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this, Nikkimaria. I've passed on to her suggestions for improvement. Greycounty (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011[edit]

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season[edit]

★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers.

- From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jivesh, and happy holidays to you and yours as well! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki and you are welcome. Jut know that we are all very proud to have you here. You are truly exceptional. Keep up your impressive work. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday wishes...[edit]

Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, happy holidays to you as well! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be considered offensive if I was to title the section with the subject[edit]

Something of yours is up for deletion Yomanganitalk 12:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and you're right. Wonder if anyone else will realize that? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecking question[edit]

Hi Nikki. I've been wanting to get more involved in FAC for a long while, but have so far been mostly a silent bystander because a) My prose is not the greatest, b) my knowledge of non-Commons media is fairly lackluster, and c) you do such a great job with the format of references. I realized in the last week or so that one area of FAC that doesn't seem to get much attention until the end of nominations is spotchecking; browsing through a few FAC's I saw that you and Fifelfoo seem to do most of it. You already do a lot at FAC, and Fifelfoo indicated in my "One Tree Hill" FAC that another spotchecker to help with subjects they are unfamiliar with would be of benefit. You mentioned to me before that everyone has access to the tools to spotcheck, but I'm not sure what those tools are. I'd dearly like to help out with spotchecking at FAC in the New Year, but I'm not sure how to go about doing it. When you have time, would you be able to give me a few quick pointers so I can learn the tools of the trade? Cheers, and have a very Merry Christmas season! Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The automated tools most often used are Coren's bot for copyvio from unknown source, and Duplication Detector for known source. There are also non-wiki-based tools that you might have access to through your university. However, these tools, particularly Coren's, are very limited in what they are able to do, and even if they don't report any problems an article can still contain copyvio and close paraphrasing. Furthermore, there's another aspect of spotchecking that can't be checked via automated tools: accurate representation of sources (WP:V). For those reasons, the delegates prefer that a manual spotcheck be performed at FAC. For that, I will indulge in some shameless self-promotion and suggest you check out User:Nikkimaria/How to spotcheck. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! Shameless or not, it will help a lot! Have a very Merry Christmas! (PS. I see you're at Western? I'm a Carleton student myself, but spent half my life in Kitchener). Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, though right now I'm home for the holidays. Hey, any chance you would want to help out Carleton psych students? The education program is still looking to recruit on-campus helpers. Merry Christmas! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd love to help them out (though I'm admittedly unfamiliar with how it works); what would I do as an on-campus helper, and how would I apply/help out? You have a very Merry Christmas too; and if I don't see you for the next week, a Happy New Year too! Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page gives an overview of responsibilities (look for stuff labelled "Campus Ambassadors"); there's going to be a training session in Toronto in mid-January, with travel and accommodations subsidized by Wikimedia. You can volunteer by filling out the form here, or by emailing User:Jaobar. Happy holidays! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki, I've applied using the form. Should be fun if I get accepted! Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Heartfelt Thanks[edit]

I express you my heartfelt thanks. ""Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" has passed. I am very happy. Your feedback and kind words helped me considerably. Thanks again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Jivesh! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki. :)) Merry Christmas (again. Lol). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year ![edit]

Merry Chrismats and Happy New Year !
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! May you be surrounded by all the things that bring Christmas cheer. :D ! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 20:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas to you too Tomica! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas for 2011[edit]

Nikkimaria,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to you as well! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria FAC[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I hope all is going well for you over the holiday season. I'm dropping off this note to ask if you would have time to revisit the Bulgaria FAC, as I looked a bit more into the issue of the attribution tags for PD material, and commented in some detail at the FAC. I'm not sure where things stand at the moment as far as PD material in FACs is concerned, so was hoping you might be able to help there. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of wiki-time over the next couple of days, but I'll take a look once the holiday rush has subsided a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Do you think S&M (song) would pass FAC now? It has just been c/e and peer reviewed (in which you participated). The prose was the main issue at the fourth FAC, and I think that hs been sorted now, but I'd like a reliable second opinion before I go ahead with it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it needs a bit more tweaking prose-wise. For example, I see "hemled" in the lead, and I think that's supposed to be "helmed"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are they the sort of tweaks which would result in Opposes? And is that the problem? The references and amount of information is sufficient? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely to the first question, although it will depend on who reviews. As to the second, a) I didn't spotcheck sources and b) I don't know enough about pop-culture topics to tell you anything about comprehensiveness/summary style/coverage. At this point, and given those caveats, the prose is the issue that I would see as most likely to cause opposes, but not necessarily the only one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OKay thanks. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 15:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[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 here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011[edit]

Abraham Lincoln's patent nomination[edit]

ping.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go now after this re-wording?--Doug Coldwell talk 21:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ping.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ping.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ping.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ping.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there![edit]

Hello! Can you please point out some of the prose issues for What Lies Ahead? I have created a peer review here. Since you are very experience in the matter, your opinions on the state of the article would be very appreciated! :) —DAP388 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Covenant United Methodist Church[edit]

You made a good-faith edit on the page for Covenant United Methodist Church. Your being a sysop is why I'm asking for your insight into what I think is a confusing situation with this article. If it were up to me, I'd propose it for deletion.

  • I first caught this by trying to clean up category listings for National Register of Historic Places in Texas. I find this church nowhere in any county or any state of national marker list resource I have. The short, is that I deleted the NRHP category it had.
  • The first sentence says it's a Methodist church in Austin. But the article is about Dallas and Fort Worth Methodists and Episcopalians, which are two separate denominations. And Dallas and Fort Worth aren't Austin. See the Talk page on this article.
  • Contributions since its creation have been scant.
  • But in looking at the History page of this article, it gets more confusing.
The article was created Feb 2010 by a user named Dilbert66, who was created (it appears) solely for posting this article.
July 2011, a user named Dodgerjammy converted the Dilbert66 user page into a Redirect to go to this church article. WP Userpages says this is not supposed to happen. Since Dodgerjammy has had very few edits since creation of its own user page in 2007, there's no way to tell if one is a sock of the other.

This is complicated enough that I think it takes a sysop to figure out what should be done here. But I don't think this article serves much purpose as is.

Thanks for looking at this. Maile66 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It looks like this article is nearly identical to Cathedral Church of Saint Matthew, Dallas, Texas. Based on that and the history of the article, here's what I suspect happened: Dilbert66 copied the Saint Matthew article onto his userpage, perhaps with the intention of using it as a framework for an article on the Covenant church, but went inactive before doing anything with it. Dodgerjammy comes along and sees this abandoned userpage (which had categories appropriate for mainspace on it), assumes that it's ready for mainspace and moves it. Since he/she isn't a sysop, moving the page automatically creates a redirect from the old userpage to the mainspace page (and from the user talk to mainspace talk), and he/she didn't realize that that was problematic. Given his/her editing history, I think he/she isn't a sock, but more likely someone interested in the general topic area. The specific topic in question is fairly obscure, so nobody (including me) realized that something was funny here. However, it appears that the church in question really exists, even if the article we have about it is completely off-base.
So, here's what I've done about it: deleted the redirect from the user page to this article, and replaced the redirect from user talk to talk with a note asking Dilbert66 to check in with me if ever he/she becomes active again (if that happens, I'll explain what happened and work with them on the article, if they're still interested). I've also left a note for Dodgerjammy (who is still active) asking him/her to check that my description of events is accurate. Since the first version of Covenant was not properly attributed (which is required for licensing purposes), I added an attribution note to the article history. I removed all of the content that was identical between the two articles, leaving a brief history of Covenant that is actually about Covenant, some of which I was able to cite to the church website. I also tagged the "new" article as a stub needing further referencing, fixed the categorization, and responded to the comment on the talk page.
I don't know very much about this topic, so it's not entirely clear to me whether the church this article is actually about meets WP:N, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. If you're not, WP:AFD it. Beyond that, though, I think we should be good to go here! Any more confusion to clear up? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with that you did. I think it's the best possible solution. Thanks for all your hard work to resolve this. Maile66 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi Nikki. Is this source reliable? I badly need it. It is actually SOHH. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking at the author bio, but got a 404 error. Given that he/she isn't using his/her real name, I can't Google it to check qualifications, so that's a big problem in terms of reliability. The embedded video has been deleted due to a copyright claim, so that's also a red flag. It's also a blog, and from what I can tell it isn't vetted by anyone. So...unfortunately, no way is that site reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me really sad. Nikki the blog is respected and recognized by other magazines and online publications. Can those help? I badly need the source. One last question, what do you think of this now? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would help - got some links? The other thing you might do is post to WP:RSN, although I don't know that you'd get a different answer. It would really really help if you knew what the blogger's real name was. I'll take a look at the article you link later - headed out the door shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK Nikki. Thanks. Take care. May God bless you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi, in a FAC review of Mangalorean Catholics early this year you stated that "%" should be spelled out in article text. However, MOS:PERCENT states that "Percent (American English) or per cent (British English) is commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article". Where is it stated that the percentage sign cannot be used outside of scientific or technical articles and in complex listings? Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 11:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking? The full bullet that you're quoting is "Percent (American English) or per cent (British English) is commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings." Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being more clear! I actually wanted to know if MOS states, directly or otherwise, that the % sign cannot be used outside of scientific or technical articles and in complex listings, and instead should be spelled out in the article text. You stated that early this year in the review, but i didn't find it mentioned in MOS:PERCENT. As such, i am confused and would really appreciate it if you clarify this for me. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 16:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is rarely so definitive about such issues ;-). It does not state that % cannot be used, but simply that "percent" is preferred, except in infoboxes, lists and technical contexts. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That explains it! Thanks for clarifying. :-) Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 17:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flatlist at WP:FA[edit]

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#List markup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question re page numbers[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria - I'm thinking about using a source, found here. Strangely there are no page numbers, no copyright page, and the ISBN is in a format I've never seen. I'm thinking this is a Penguin e-edition rather than a digitized edition. Do you have any suggestions what to do about page numbers? Linking directly to the page is all I can think to do, but those links aren't always stable. Anyway, mostly rambling, but was wondering if you have any sage advice. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The version you link to is an e-version, but it appears that a print version exists, so finding that would be a possibility. If not, I would cite by chapter, maybe by paragraph/section if possible. Beyond that, I'm afraid I have no sage advice, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's sage advice. I hadn't thought of chapter/paragraph. I might be able to do that. I can try ordering from the library, but there's only a single sentence that I absolutely need from that source, so ... Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bramcote/Other info[edit]

On the 12th of October you removed the section called "Other information" from the Bramcote article - can I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philsands (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section was a miscellaneous collection of information, largely cited to primary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping (NY 319)[edit]

All done. :) Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 23:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White-necked Rockfowl[edit]

Hey Nikki, happy New Year! Could you clarify whether your image concerns at WP:Featured article candidates/White-necked Rockfowl/archive1 have been resolved? Ucucha (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture review?[edit]

Hey, is there any way you'd be able to help out with an FAC I have right now? I need an image review, and I was sent your way. The FAC is here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilove[edit]

Happy New Year!
I wish you a Happy New Year and hope that everything goes swimmingly for you in 2012 :). Calvin • Watch n' Learn 00:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012[edit]

Em dashes[edit]

Hi there. I'm not quite sure what you mean, so I thought I'd ask for clarification. at the FAC for 24: The Game, you said "Shouldn't use spaced emdashes in titles". I think I may have fixed that in this edit, but I am not sure. Could you clarify what you mean? Thanks, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right problem, wrong solution. You do want a dash in those titles, but it should either be a spaced endash ( – ) or an unspaced emdash (—); you seem to have converted to hyphens instead (which are convenient, as that's what normal keyboards type, but unfortunately not what is appropriate in this context). Hope that clarifies. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. It does clarify, yes. I'll fix that up. One other issue that was raised at the FAC was the reception section not being written properly, so I've made a start on attributing comments in reviews to the reviewer. This is an example of one, I wondered what you thought about it (writing beautiful prose really isn't my strong point.

"Gamespy's Eduardo Vasconcellos praised the game for it's storyline, and the quality of the voice-over work, though characterised some of the visuals as "jagged", with the renderings of characters looking "off". He described the controls as "sloppy", "slow" and "unresponsive", the camera angles as "disjointed and awkward", and criticised the artificial intelligence of enemies, with many slow to react to the player."

How does that read? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, although I'd tweak it a bit: "Eduardo Vasconcellos of Gamespy [check whether that should be italicized or not, I'm not sure] praised the game's storyline and high-quality voice work, but criticised the "jagged" visuals that caused character renderings to look "off" [without looking at the source, I'm not sure whether visuals=>renderings; I'm assuming yes, if not split clause]. He also complained of the lack of responsiveness in the controls [trying to avoid overquoting here], the "disjointed and awkward" camera angles, and the slowness with which some enemies react to the player." Disclaimer: I've not looked at the source, so may have either misrepresented it or used too-close phrasings. What do you think? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks heaps, I'll keep working on the rest of the section. I am rather new to featured content as you can probably tell. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, let me know if I can help at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, I kinda have hit the wall with the #Minigames section. Trying to write a decent intro, and all I can come up with at the moment is something like "Besides the main mission, the game also contains a variety of minigames, predominantly made up of interrogation sequences or computer puzzles." The only other thing (in response to your question at the FAC) is the lack of sources. Perhaps I'm not searching right, but I am finding very few results when I search, and I think it may have to do with the inclusion of "24" in the search results (it returns a lot of irrelevant results). Any ideas? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 02:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Searching "24: The Game" (in quotes) for me comes up with quite a few results - EGM, Televisual, Precision Marketing - 100 total, although not all would be relevant. As to the intro, that's a bit trickier. Perhaps something like "24's minigames serve as interludes from the main mission, and are primarily interrogation sequences or computer puzzles. They are presented both as single puzzles in third-person missions, and as timed stand-alone missions." - which is basically a rephrasing of what you already have. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. And the reason why you review FACs shines through. That wording works better, I'll use that. I replied to your comments at FAC, by the way. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Colt[edit]

Hi, I believe I addressed all the concerns about the references in the Samuel Colt article at FAC. Could you take a minute and let me know? Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Relapse[edit]

Gah, I managed to completely miss the recent fuss at this FAR - thanks for keeping an eye on it. In a quick read it didn't look like there was much for me to do at this point, but let me know if I missed something. Dana boomer (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo sapphire[edit]

Thanks for your fine ce of this article. I do appreciate it. How do you happen to find it? PumpkinSky talk 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted about it on a couple of user talks that I watch; I do a lot of reviewing at FAC, so I thought I'd take a look. It's still a bit rough (pun intended), but I think it looks promising. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks! But Hmm. See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Pre-FA_nom_round_of_edits. The others haven't found much left to do. I'm not so sure it should be put up for FAC now since it's still rough. You and Casliber have both done a ce of it but if it's still rough maybe it shouldn't go to FAC. PumpkinSky talk 02:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not right this minute, but at some point I think it'd do okay at FAC. I've got a few questions that I'll add to that thread in a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see this now someone is bitching about the photos. I don't need this crap. This is why I was wary of FAC. PumpkinSky talk 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I've rarely seen photo quality raised as an issue at FAC, unless there are better pics available. If you think you can do better, then do- but if not, I wouldn't stress over it unnecessarily. Having those pics is better than having no pics at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three of us took photos ourselves. We did the best we could. I own two in the article, Tim1965 owns two and Montanabw took one at a jewelry store. If this guys brings will he be told it doesn't matter? PumpkinSky talk 21:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Pre-FA_feedback, this guys flat out says they aren't good enough. can you comment there? PumpkinSky talk 22:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)...this guy is being a real problem child. I'm not filing til he realizes FAs dont' have to meet his perceived level of quality. NOWHERE does it say FA pics have to be a certain level of quality. PumpkinSky talk 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Toulmin (Unitarian minister).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reliability of Popdust at FAC.[edit]

This is what Katherine St. Asaph replied to me when I emailed her:

"Hi -- thanks for getting in touch. Complete coincidence, but I did more than my share of Wikipedia edits back in the day. So I know all about this.

As far as me personally: I'm a music critic, and Popdust is my day job, but I've also written for the Village Voice, the Singles Jukebox and other publications. I think bylines would be more pertinent to the FA discussion than any journalism or music degree, although I do have the former. You might be better off with the Popdust masthead, though -- our editor-in-chief is formerly of Spin, Billboard and Blender. Link: http://popdust.com/about-us/ Either that, or the NYT article that came out last year: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/bieber-gaga-popdust-wafts-into-crowded-territory/

Or both. Good luck -- I know how tough these things can be, and it's good that at least a few people are doing things with the music articles there.

Hope this helped, Katherine"

I have highlighted things in bold which I think are important for you to know/read. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for just jumping in suddenly. Does this mean that Popdust can be used? That would be great as their composition analysis are so good. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That helps a lot, but part of it is the individual author and their qualifications. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Nikki. Please don't forget to have a quick glance at this and tell me what you think. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you work your magic?[edit]

Hi. I was wondring if you had time to help out with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. E. B. Du Bois/archive1. Any input would be appreciated: a quick scan or a full review. I've noticed your work before and I respect your skills. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC pingie[edit]

No response from the nominator? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, and still no source on the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (don't know how you do it all!!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, would you be interested in reviewing The Hobbit? It think as of now it should at least be an A class and maybe we can even push it to feature level without too much effort. Regards, De728631 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response, I've left some notes over there. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up on review guidelines[edit]

Sorry for the delay. I put some thoughts at User talk:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates. Changing subject, I'm trying to avoid looking at the section above, but I do have several of the books used as sources there on my shelves if any help is needed there. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look in a bit. "Section above" being Hobbit or something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forget that not everyone gets my username. That should answer the question. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faryl Smith/archive2[edit]

Hey; as you commented on the last FAC, I'm just letting you know that I have renominated Faryl Smith for featured article status. Your thoughts would be well received. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources.[edit]

Hey, are Kidzworld.com, artistdirect.com and discogs.com reliable for GA? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the specific page cited, and what it's citing. However, my inclination is no to kidzworld. Artistdirect has some user-generated content (bad) and some content republished from other sources (variable) - possible to use in some circumstances at the GA level, though I can't seem to find an editorial policy for them. Discogs is "user-built", which means it probably isn't a good source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I should remove them from Music of the Sun? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is why it depends on circumstances - the kidzworld and artistdirect links on that page are to interviews, which are conventionally subject to somewhat looser standards. Thus, the artistdirect source is likely fine, certainly for GA. Do you know the full name of the "Sindy" conducting the kidzworld interview? That would help establish reliability of that interview, but again my inclination would be it's acceptable (though perhaps borderline) for GA. I'd remove the discogs source though (and as I'm sure you know, if that hits FAC there'd be a couple of other sources I'd question ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I don't think Music of the Sun would pass FAC. Thanks :). Calvin • Watch n' Learn 00:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niki, I should point out Talk:Music of the Sun/GA1 where I am the reviewer conducting this GA review. I'm not seeing where an "interview" is by policy subject to less strict standards here - WP:SOURCES doesn't have an exception for interviews. They are still subject to editorial bias/errors/problems, and sites hosting them should be subject to the same standards as any other website/publication. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check the review (and I should have, to avoid this type of situation. My apologies). AFAIK that exception isn't in policy, though I've seen it invoked often enough. The reasoning is that instead of considering the host site as a secondary source, you consider the interview with a relevant person (in this case, the artist) as a primary source - meaning you need to be careful about how you use the info, but so long as we've no reason to assume mistranscribing (unintentional or otherwise), the person can be considered a reliable if limited source of info about herself, her opinions and her work. Of course these sources would be questionable in an FAC, but for GA...However, if you're the GA reviewer it is of course to your discretion whether you accept the use of a particular source or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with interviews is that the only reason we know the interview is accurate is the ... reputation of the website. So while in theory the interview itself is a reliable source, the fact that the interview comes through a interviewee and a published site makes the site's reliablity relevant. Now, if the interviewee has made it plain that they consider the interview reliable (say through linking to it on their own site or through statements saying that the interview was "great" or something like that...) then the concerns about the site's reliablity are lessened. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Now, if the interviewee has made it plain that they consider the interview reliable (say through linking to it on their own site or through statements saying that the interview was "great" or something like that...". When does this ever happen? When do you hear people in interviews say that another interview was great? You don't, as it mocks the current interview. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 02:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said "statements" i.e. if they posted on their own blog somethign like "Just saw the great interview we did with blah-site, they were wonderful and they got everything just right." Look, I'm not being an ass to be an ass - reliable sources are very important. I'm certainly not expecting the same high quality I would expect at FAC, but all sources at GA need to meet the basic policy requirements of reliable sources. Does Rihana's site have a link to this interview? How did you find it as a source? I'm trying to work with you here - but you have to understand where *I* am coming from too - GA is a big step and getting a review done right is important, which means the article meets all the criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not sure about mentioning it in a different interview, but linking to it from their own site/blog/twitter/Facebook certainly does happen (although less likely with a prominent, oft-interviewed artist). @E, that makes sense, but given the prominence of this particular artist I'd be very surprised if her handlers weren't a) present at the interview and b) checking the published interview to ensure accuracy (and being prepared to complain or even sue if something was majorly wrong - I actually know someone who spent an internship pretty much doing just that). Your idea about the artist citing the interview does make sense, though I'm not sure how likely it is in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same again, when do you see singers doing that? They say "make sure you read this" or "but this magazine", but not saying how wonderful or how pleasant experience it was. Yeah I get where you are coming from, but the interview consists of what Rihanna herself said. And I literally typed into google: "rihanna music of the sun interview" and it displayed as the third result. We are talking about Rihanna here, she had already experience a lot of success with Pon de Replay, and she was (and still is) under the same management as the one who would have been with her at the interview. Have you actually read the interview, it's full of Rihanna-ism's and how she talks. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 02:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Rihana fan, honestly. I'm not a big pop music fan, either. Not that I hate it, it's just not my favorite type of music (I tend to listen to classical or bagpipes or old 80's tunes when I listen to music at all). Let me think on this, but I'm not convinced totally myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you are a fan or not when reviewing. But if you read the interview, then read other interviews or watch interviews on Youtube, you will see what the way she talks in the Kidzworld interview is consistent with how she talks in others. It's a bit broken. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 02:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Halo[edit]

Thanks Nikki. Thanks wholeheartedly. Can you please check the image again? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to have been changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence/Blocks[edit]

In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAR archives[edit]

Hi Nikki - There's an ongoing discussion on my talk page about the way that FAR archives closed discussions, at User talk:Dana boomer#FAS question. We've been discussing changing to a system like FAC's, where we archive directly to a per-month archive, and Ucucha says that he is willing to do all of the tweaking that is needed to make that happen. Would you mind stopping by and commenting - I don't have any problem with the new system, but didn't want to unilaterally approve it, since obviously there's two of us :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC sources reviewing[edit]

Hi, Nikki, I'm doing some source reviewing on the FAC page. I've done Martha Layne Collins and John Tyler, about to do Mark Satin. If there are any "nasty" (you know what I mean) ones you'd like me to do, give me a buzz. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, I'm just getting caught up after returning from holidays. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyon Conference FAC[edit]

I wonder if you had a second (I doubt it would take much longer) just to have a quick look again at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nyon Conference/archive1 - you noted some small source problems (3) of which I fixed 2 and queried the last. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You very helpfully undertook an image review, could you give it another look (should all be fine). Ta muchly, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Delegate?[edit]

I would like to nominate you for the position of FAC delegate (and by nominate, I mean recommend to Raul). I can't think of anyone else that has made as consistant of a positive impact to the process as you, and if FAC is to continue to stand for our best, we need whomever replaces Sandy to be experianced and heavily involved in the process. Before I brought the idea to Raul though, I wanted to see if you were at all willing to accept the position if it was offered to you. This is also Sven Manguard 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, but I think waiting until the mass of RfCs are (somewhat) resolved would be best - who knows, maybe someone else will be elected, or the position will be abolished (or maybe the delegates will all be replaced by bots ;-). See also this. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limp Bizkit[edit]

I don't know how to change the citation formatting. Can you do it for me?--WTF (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly be willing to help you learn how to deal with citation formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franco-Mongol alliance/archive2[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks again for taking the time to review the Franco-Mongol alliance article. I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Did you have any other actionable concerns about the article, or would you have time to re-review things and check if you are still opposed to the FA promotion? --Elonka 15:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, just checking back, since you're the only oppose. Did you have anything else you'd like me to address? --Elonka 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balkahorani[edit]

It seems I didn't noticed enough good this issue on a couple of sentences. I've did a very carefull check on the specific parts and hope it's finally ready.Alexikoua (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FA question[edit]

Some website articles give the authors and dates (some only one of each) while others don't. If I give the names/dates for the articles that give them, that wouldn't be a problem would it? LittleJerry (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If they don't give the info, there's really not much you can do about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I give all your task. Do I need for you to cross them out? LittleJerry (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice and a possible GAN review[edit]

Hi Nikki, I've just read your work on Ray Farquharson, and I can't be more amazed by how it reads. Looking at my own work on Terminator 2: Judgment Day, I know that, for the article read as well as a good article supposed to read, I should not be the primary contributor, no matter how much I myself try to improve its wording.

I know that your time is valuable, so please disregard the message below if you like. Can you somehow tell me some of the secrets to good writing? Is it in the way a sentence is structured? Or is it way one point relates/leads to another? I'd really love to know.

If I decided to nominate Terminator 2 for GA, would you like or be able to be the reviewer? Thank you, and again, I'd like to reiterate my point that Ray Farquharson is a great read. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sp33dyphil, thanks for the kind words, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article! I'd be happy to review Terminator 2, though I should warn you that I know very little about it - I haven't even seen the movie. But I can give it a shot.
I think my writing style has a lot to do with my background; I've written and read extensively (relatively speaking, at least) in a variety of genres, and also have experience as a proofreader/copyeditor, which has definitely helped improve my writing. Personally, though, I don't really start consciously thinking about sentence structure while writing unless there's something that isn't working, or unless someone points out an issue. For me it's more about how larger sections flow and work together.
As to the "secrets of good writing", let's start by turning it around: what is it about my prose that you see as "better" than yours? Is there anything in particular you'd like to improve about how you write? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Well, my writing is very chronological -- I regard timing as very important to the way I write, as characterized by my heavy usage of conjunctions such as thereafter and prior to. I can't incorporate different ideas into a paragraph properly; for example, let's take the first paragraph of the section "Background" from Boeing 767. I would normally have covered the same contents in two paragraphs, because I wouldn't have any idea how to morph the different ideas into one para. In contrast, you have a very wide range of vocabulary, so I may not seem difficult for you to compose and structure a paragraph succinctly.
Another negative aspect of my writing (to me it seems) is that I tend to incorporate many different ideas into one sentence, instead of using long and short sentences to emphasise different ideas. As an alternative to long sentences, I write short stubby sentences, like in the "Background" section of Airbus A330. But that was last year, and by am I starting to realise what makes a sentence sound good. Nevertheless (here's another conjunction), after I finish composing a sentence, I may ask a copyeditor to rewrite it, and the end results most of the time sound really good, because the words were switched around. Can you explain why that happens? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well, the lucky thing here is that chronological organization is in many cases very suitable for the type of writing in Wikipedia articles. You're right that it tends to produce more fragmented prose, though. As to switching words around, it depends very much on the circumstances - sometimes this can address potential awkwardness or ambiguity, or avoid repetition and redundancy. In other cases, it may be a matter of finding le mot juste for a particular situation, or avoiding a cliched or tired phrasing. Sometimes, though, one phrasing will just "read" better than another, without it being entirely clear why. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just want to pinpoint the cause of my sub-standard writing. Can you have a look at Terminator 2: Judgment Day#Development and suggest any improvements? I want to analyse how you write. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want me to list possibilities here or edit the article directly? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit that section. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've given it a go, see what you think (and please make sure I'm not misinterpreting anything). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I can't believe how well it reads. I can see that for the first paragraph, the more important issue of legal rights, as compared to the technical concerns, has been moved to the end for emphasize. I'm not sure about "Kasser and Carolco eventually paid..." -- it sounds like Kassar and Carolco are two different parties. Also, I'm not sure about "assembling a film crew in North Hollywood, Los Angeles." Perhaps I should replace that with "assembling a film crew from their base in North Hollywood, Los Angeles"? Nevertheless, the quality and impact of your single edit has been more than I hoped for --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either Kasser or Carolco alone for the first point would likely suffice. As to the second, maybe move the location to the beginning of the sentence? I struggled with that part myself, and agree that it doesn't read as well as it might. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Basing themselves in North Hollywood, Los Angeles, under the name T2 Productions,..."?
"Having rented an office in North Hollywood, Los Angeles under the name T2 Productions,..."? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Calling themselves T2 Productions, James and co-producers Stephanie Austin and B.J. Rack rented an office in North Hollywood, Los Angeles, before starting to assemble a production crew for Terminator 2." The ref doesn't say that the team themselves rented the office? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I need to go spend some hours horizontal before I faceplant on my keyboard, so talk again tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you willing to copyedit the rest of the article, or would you like to be the article's GA reviewer? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either would be fine, but not both, so up to you which you'd prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about you review and tell me what to change, so I get more experience along the way. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, go ahead and nom it, then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it. Please go here to start the GAN. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you have another look at the GAN? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll likely do that tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your patience while I made the suggested changes to the article. Thank you for reviewing and passing the article :) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Peaks[edit]

Hi. Just wondering if you can tell me if Toporama – Topographic Maps is suitable for what it covers in this article. I am asking you this because you did a source review for Mount Meager. Volcanoguy 12:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're drawing a lot of inferences from what is basically a primary source; I won't go so far as to say it's unsuitable, but it is borderline. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No guessing involved. The length and width data is from measuring the volcano's largest contour line with the "Measure Distance" tool and the volcano's appearence, vegetation and area information is from looking at it on the topographical map. Volcanoguy 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean that you were guessing, but just overapplying the source. It's to your discretion, though; if it comes up at FAC I'd likely flag it, but until then the source is reliable as far as it goes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Hello. Could you please review the remarks you've posted on the Bulgaria FA nomination ? I want to know if they've been properly addressed. I intend to nominate it again soon, since it will likely not get enough feedback for a promotion now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same with my Jaws FAC. igordebraga ≠ 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be revisiting these and several other FACs tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting further response in the Jaws one. 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, am willing to see you revisit (or elaborate on your comments). And can you strike what you think was solved? igordebraga ≠ 01:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps of interest to you?[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Military history of Canada/archive2.Moxy (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another question 2[edit]

Hi Nikki. How are you? Can this and this be used in GAs? I have a feeling that NO but still I want to hear from you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. The first is a pseudonymous blog; the second provides the author's real name, but identifies her as a college student. No indicators of reliability (unless these have been cited by outside sources, but even that would be a stretch). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks Nikki. I am happy you did not oppose at the FAC of "Halo" this time as that means you were satisfied with the references (I suppose). :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahalya FAC[edit]

Thanks for your comments. Some clarifications are needed. Please take a look. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. Have replied to some of your comments. Please strike out those resolved. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed your reference concerns. Please check. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have cleaned up the references. Please take a look. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry but I can't exactly figure out what is missed in the 4 refs that need to be cleaned. I have changed them a little, but not sure if that was the changes which were desirable. Please take a look. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think I have cleaned all references including the hyphen, but italics appear due to templates. Sorry to bother you again but please take a look. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October-December 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GEL[edit]

Hi Nikki Thanks for your embellishments to the GEL. I'm wondering, what is the most efficient way for our students to find the Course page once in WP? TomHaffie (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once they tell us what their usernames are, we can add a link to their talk pages. We might also add a link on the WebCT page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki! I am just stretching my Wikipedian legs - learning how to post, edit, etc! I just thought a good place to start building my Wiki confidence might be learning how to post on talk pages. Hope you had a great weekend and I'll see you in our meeting tomorrow morning! (Chelsea Hicks (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Image advice[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I'm an editor hoping to take the Katharine Hepburn page to FAC at some point in the future. During the GA review for the article, your name was suggested as someone to ask for image advice, because FAC is tough on images and we were unsure as to whether the PD explanations were good enough. I need to get this checked, because there's no point in me working on polishing the prose if it will fail over images anyway. I'd be really grateful if you could take a look, and see if you think they're okay.

I've just today uploaded them all to the commons (I'd put them straight here before) and attempted to clearly determine their PD status. I will link to them directly, because the ones on the actual page right now are the original images on the english WP (waiting to be deleted).

These ones I still need to re-upload and improve (I got bored), but the copyright claims won't change much:

And then there's this one, which I'm claiming non-free fair use:

Do you think these will be okay, or would they encounter problems? The other images on the page that I haven't linked to here are because I know they need to be removed if trying for FA.

I hope you don't mind me bothering you, I don't need a reply immediately if you are busy. Thanks in advance. :) Lobo512 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lobo512! Some responses:
  • File:Katharine_Hepburn_promo_pic.jpg: your explanation notes that "the photograph does not include the copyright symbol ©, the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr." However, the source provided does not appear to be the original source of the image, and the tag you're using requires that you demonstrate the original publication was without a copyright notice. Copyright notices and watermarks can be removed when a photo is republished, although this is discouraged when the photo is still under copyright.
  • File:Bringing_up_baby_publicity_photo.jpg: explanation of why this should be considered a publicity still should be expanded, as it isn't clearly argued at this point
  • File:Hepburn_bogart_african_queen.png: source link returns 404 error
  • File:Hepburn_guess_whos_coming_to_dinner.jpg and File:Hepburn_rooster_cogburn.jpg need a more specific licensing tag
  • File:Tracy_Hepburn_Desk_Set.jpg: can you demonstrate that copyright was not renewed, or provide an explanation as to why this is considered a publicity still?
  • File:Katharine_Hepburn_in_Love_Affair.jpg: should include time reference for when in the DVD this image occurs.
Images I haven't mentioned I wouldn't have a specific problem with. However, I notice that many of them contain a general explanation about "publicity stills" as a class of images. Honathaner's explanation is really only relevant for the lead image, as it appears she's using the term to refer to what would now be called "headshots" instead of film stills (unless there's context I'm missing?). The rest is fine, but not something I've frequently seen at FAC, so another image reviewer might question it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you very much for the swift response! As for the lead image...yikes, I don't know how I could possibly find the original source. Personally, I do think that's how it was originally published (the studios would regularly take images like these of their contract stars) and I thought the fact that it included written information (name, studio, stock number) proved this. Particularly along with the quotes that say such images weren't usually copyrighted. No? If I use the "not renewed" tag and search copyright records, would that be better? I really want this to stay as the lead image.

It sounds like I would be better off just searching the copyright records for each specific image, to make sure the defense is watertight. I was hoping what I've provided might be good enough, but I know it isn't great that some of them rely on rather general quotes. It will take a bit of time, but I think it's worth doing.

I should be able to fix the other issues you mentioned. Thanks again! I may come back here when I've done more work to ask your opinion again, if that's okay? --Lobo512 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back already. I just noticed an image on this page that would be great to use. It's the African Queen one, and they don't make a point of saying it is copyrighted, like they have with other images. It just says "Courtesy of United Artists Corporation". Can I use that as proof that it is PD? --Lobo512 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't include stock number for the lead image; if you have one, that would certainly go a long way in helping your case. As to the Britannica image, I'm not sure what their policy is with regards to courtesy vs copyright, image licensing, etc - do you know? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the figure in the right-hand corner (MG57063) is a stock number? I don't know what else it could be. That's what made me think it is the original image. I looked at Britannica's FAQs, and they say "Luckily, most of the images on Britannica Online are displayed with the name of the original copyright owner listed in the credit." Looking at the images they provide, some of the credits do include a © and some of them don't. This makes me think the ones without a © must not be copyrighted, otherwise why wouldn't they include the symbol? Maybe I'm thinking too simply, but that seems logical to me. Lobo512 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, silly me, I was looking at the description, not the image itself. That clears that up. From what you're saying about Britannica, I would assume that United Artists held the original copyright, but that it was likely not renewed, which would probably make it acceptable here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012[edit]

DJBooth[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. I did a source check of S&M (song) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive5. I questioned the reliablility of a DJbooth.net, but a reply to the nominator's e-mail to the site regarding its reliability replied:

We're being questioned as a high quality source? I'm actually offended. DJBooth has been active for over six year, becoming one of the premiere destinations for urban music and averaging over 1 million unique visitors a month. Part of the Complex Media Network, DJBooth is also a digital distribution company that has exclusively released Yelawolf's "Trunk Muzik" (Interscope), Big K.R.I.T.'s "KRIT Wuz Here" (Def Jam) and many more. We are also a privately owned company headquartered in Brooklyn, with offices in Chicago in L.A. Hope that helps, really appreciate you fighting to get Wikipedia to include that link Aaron. Peace, Nathan

The e-mail did not respond to the nominator's query on editorial qualifications or fact checking. Although I strongly disagree that Djbooth.net is a reliable source from gut instinct and this RSN thread, could I get a second opinion on what you think as you regularly check sources at FACs? The link is however an album review written by the site's managing editor Nathan S., who has a BA in Creative Writing and Journalism. Could you have a look at the source--[3]? Thanks! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the information here, I would definitely question the use of that source at FAC. Without fact-checking or editorial oversight from a reliable publisher, a source can be evaluated as effectively self-published, and a BA is not sufficient for the author to be considered an expert on the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe it is owned by Complex Media, which owns various sites including the reputed magazine Complex. But the content of djbooth.net appears self-published. The site hires people who are "an aspiring DJ, musician, writer, or just a lover of music", so little editorial oversight here. And, as you say, even if an article is written by the managing editor, a BA is not sufficient. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 09:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia[edit]

Where is the "term already linked in [the] page header"? I see no English Wikipedia link. Are you referring to the Wikipedia link? —David Levy 22:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. I wasn't suggesting that you unilaterally insert such a link, replacing one determined through consensus and present for years. Please see WP:EGG.
2. We don't word ITN's content based upon what's present on the rest of the main page.
ITN is transcluded on other pages as well. And third parties reuse our material, so it isn't safe to assume that it's being read at Wikipedia. This is why we avoid certain self-references (e.g. "This Wikipedia article discusses...").
So even if there were such a link in the page's heading, that wouldn't be a valid rationale for its removal from ITN.
3. It's very unusual for us to have an ITN blurb about Wikipedia, but when we do, it should be treated no differently than we would treat any other item.
Omitting the link is special treatment. It implies that this is a meta-item through which we're praising ourselves. ("You know who we are, so we needn't include a link.") For reasons of informativeness, neutrality and the blurb's aforementioned reuse by third parties (i.e. its appearance in publications other than Wikipedia), this is inappropriate. —David Levy 07:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just state that the wording of the blurb included a link to English Wikipedia when I proposed it, and the proposed blurb was supported by several editors before it was posted. I trust that the article won't be unlinked again whilst the blurb is in ITN. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinked ITN blurbs are frequently approved; that's part of why we have WP:ERRORS, where the link was pointed out. @David: English language is equally an easter egg in that context, and see WP:BOLD. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. No, the link to English language is not an Easter egg in that context; that's a common meaning of the word "English". There are other meanings (which is one of the reasons behind the link's existence), of which "English Wikipedia" is not one.
2. WP:BOLD doesn't mean that all edits are advisable and should be performed without discussion. In particular, it's noted that more caution sometimes is needed when editing pages other than articles. This is especially true of protected pages, of which the main page probably is the one to which undiscussed changes tend to be the most controversial. —David Levy 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the context it was used, "X articles in English" could equally refer to the English language or the English Wikipedia, and I'm aware of the meaning of BOLD, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You stated above that "English language is equally an easter egg in that context". This is incorrect. "English" commonly means "English language", so there's nothing surprising or unintuitive about such a link. English does not mean "English Wikipedia". —David Levy 18:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Context. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the context were "Versions of Wikipedia: English...", I would agree. —David Levy 18:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Romney FAC[edit]

Thanks very much for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2. Changes have been made to the article accordingly and I've posed questions on a few of your items. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes in response to your further comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2. Thanks again. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

Thanks for teaching me everything I know :D Ddiadamo (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newly minted Campus Ambassador![edit]

Campus Ambassador
Thanks for participating in the Indianapolis training! Pongr(talk) 21:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the info on the logo. I think I need to change the (TM) to (R) on my article banner.

Matthewvetter (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder Penfeld[edit]

Care to explain why you felt the need overwrite one navbox with another rather than putting yours underneath so that they would both be on the same page???? Jrcla2 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, thanks for catching. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri River FAC[edit]

I've addressed the points you brought up at this FAC, would be glad to respond to any remaining concerns. Shannºn 19:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about ref formatting, please see aformentioned FAC Shannºn 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/John Henry Devereux[edit]

Is everything alright now? Can we be first in the queue again with the picture? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fellows v. Blacksmith/archive1[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the images. I have responded on the nomination page. Savidan 22:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to reach out to User:Pollinator. My personal view is that the shape of a state is not copyrightable, and thus, whatever Pollinator started from, all of the elements of a map that would be copyrightable (the names, the font, etc.) were obviously created by Pollinator. Since Pollinator appears to have retired from Wikipedia, if you are not satisfied as to the copyright status of the image, I likely will remove it from the article. Please advise. Savidan 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Pollinator is MIA. I have replaced the map with one of the Phelps and Gorham purchase only. Please let me know if this resolves your concern. Savidan 07:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need your skills[edit]

Please see Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Historic_image_captions_-_source.3F. This is about copyright issues. We don't want to run afoul of anything, so could you help us again? Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for helping
Thanks for your help getting W. E. B. Du Bois promoted to FA status. He was a great man, and deserves a great article. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_12&oldid=1089849345"