User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 13

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

New Worlds (magazine)[edit]

Thanks very much -- Ian Rose and Sasata have also expressed an interest though I don't know if they'll actually want to do some of the reading; if they do there is probably enough to share. I will post some more notes on the article talk page tomorrow, but you can get an outline of what the most relevant articles are likely to be about by looking at this and this. New Worlds was where New Wave science fiction got started, and was also a key moment in the careers of several writers, most notably J.G. Ballard, Brian Aldiss, and Michael Moorcock. I think the influence section needs to give a summary of the academic position on New Worlds importance to the New Wave, to the genre overall, and to the writers whose career it launched.

More tomorrow; it's past my bedtime. Thanks again for your offer -- I don't collaborate much so I look forward to having the chance to work with someone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I have quite a few sf-related sources already, just not the literary journals and recent book length studies. You can see most of what I've got via the library link in my sig; I also have a run of Foundation from number 7 through about 60, which may come up in searches. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive2[edit]

Would you be able to strike resolved concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive2 so I can understand how I am progressing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you come by and update your response?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mean to be a pest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are going to have to explain what these three issues mean with respect to this nomination:
    • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers and magazines, and if so how these are notated.
    • Be consistent in what location info is provided for albums
    • Use a consistent notation for multi-author works.
I don't understand these issues well enough to resolve them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in order:
      • Compare for example FNs 116 and 118. Both are magazines, but only the former includes the name of the publisher
      • Both FNs 45 and 115 refer to album notes, but the former specifies only a country, while the latter includes a specific city
      • FN 87 and the first bibliography entry both have multiple authors. The former is formatted "Last1, First1, First2 Last2, First3 Last3", the latter "Last1, First1; Last2, First2". These should be formatted in the same way, with the addition of the third author in the former. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have changed FN 13 to be like 87 and 118. However, I believe that bibliographies and footnotes may have different stylistic formats.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please not three concerns without responses above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, as long as you provide sufficient information to identify the citation and are consistent in how citations are formatted, it makes no difference how you accomplish that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need a specific response to the above question "Do you want the publications that publish themselves to appear both as the work and the publisher, which is literally redundant."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss this query?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I would argue it isn't redundant, but it's your decision what you want to do, so long as you're consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahalya PR: Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2[edit]

Hi. Ahalya failed the FAC, where you had pointed imperfections in references. Please help improve the article by providing your constructive criticism at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Agnew[edit]

Thanks for the comments, I think they've all been addressed. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are so kind :)[edit]

Carousel[edit]

Thanks for the message. I'm watching, but I disagree with several of the things that were done in the previous edit that RexxS seems so arrogant and uncivil about. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review: Blake's 7[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I've requested a peer review for the above article, a television programme, because I'd like to nominate it for promotion to G.A. status. If you have the time and the inclination could you please look over the article and leave some comments here? I have contacted one other editor, though whether s/he'll take part is uncertain. Thank you, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments; I'm working on fixing the issues you've raised. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Ann Scott[edit]

I saw my aunt a few weekends ago and see is not doing to well. I have taken the time to fixup her article. Was wondering if you could read it over. She is coming to Ottawa for a ceremony and I believe this will be her last public appearance. Barbara Ann Scott.Moxy (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikki!Moxy (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks[edit]

Greetings Nikki. Can you please tell me whether you do spotchecks? The one for "Halo" has been pending for days now. Sandy even left a note on the page again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me if this is good to use for FA? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say not: it appears to be a gossip column-type source. If the author is notable or considered an expert, then maybe, but otherwise I would say avoid it. I'll take a look at Halo later tonight. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, thanks for everything. Hmm, the comments you left of "Halo", did you mean i should fix/re-write them? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012[edit]

Farquharson and Locock[edit]

Two completely unrelated comments, but bundling them together here.

  • (1) I was reading WT:FAC and noticed this comment you made. It seemed a bit strange to me that a claim that he was knighted would not be present in at least one of the major sources used in the article, so I Googled Farquharson plus the phrase "Knight of the Military and Hospitaller Order of St Lazarus", and only got copies of the Wikipedia MilHist A-class review where this issue was raised, but when I then switched to a Google Books search, I got a single hit from 'Déliberations et mémoires de la Société royale du Canada', which from looking at the snippet appears to be the second source currently used in the article (Dauphinee, James (1966). "Ray Fletcher Farquharson". Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada, series 4. 4. pp. 83–89.). I'm assuming that you have access to that source, as you said you prepped the article for review. I'm not sure if the comment you made at WT:FAC might need a better example used, but I think the bit commented out in the article can be restored and sourced now.
  • (2) Reading about chess recently, I came across a 'Charles Dealtry Locock', and made this edit to correct the spelling there. The name Locock rung a bell, and on the hunch that it isn't that common a name, I looked into this and found that a Charles Dealtry Locock is described here as "the grandson of Queen Victoria’s obstetrician", who is, of course, Charles Locock, which is where I'd remembered the name from. I still have to double-check the dates, but it looks like the same person as the chess player. Strange how things like that can pop up later, with unexpected connections across the generations.

Not much else to add, but hope the first comment helps and the second is of some interest. Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, interesting. I hadn't thought that bit was in Dauphinee, but I'll take another look. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was waiting until you'd had a chance to check before replying here. I presume from this that the information was in Dauphinee. I hope anyone reading the MilHist ACR at a later date isn't too puzzled at what happened here. When looking at this initially, trying to find a diff where the information was removed, it took me ages to realise that it had been commented out rather than removed (I'd been scanning through the diffs with the edit summary 'per acr' looking for one with the information being removed). The fact that it was initially uncommented in error with a reference to the RSM (for the other bit of that sentence), then commented out again, only confused me further still! And it took ages to track those diffs down as the edit summaries such as 'add' and 'per acr' didn't tell me what was being changed and I had to click on them all to track down the ones in question. Anyway, as I said, I hope that was of some help. I did have one other thought about the article - shall I raise that on the article talk page rather than here? Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was in Dauphinee, though a bit buried (which was why I missed it in the first place). Thanks for that, and article talk would probably be fine for the other thought. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gundred[edit]

I unwatched. The whole stupid arguments show no concept of the encyclopedia and it was just making my blood boil. The article's degenerated, honestly, and it's always been a flashpoint. The fact that the current edit war is from folks supporting the "historically correct" side just makes it worse. It's not worth the blood pressure rise it was causing me. Sorry to abandon you... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I'm going to stick it out for a while yet, but I think I can manage it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ[edit]

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary review[edit]

Hi there :-) Can you please leave some comments? I would like to bring the article to FA status. I already received one feedback from one user on the talk page which I already fixed. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your continuous hard work, I Jona, am pleased to award you this barnstar. Thanks for all you have done and for the review I requested. Hope you have a great weekday ahead. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
Congratulations for being nominated as one of the military historians of the year for 2011 in recognition of your major contributions to reviewing articles within this project's scope (especially FACs), as well as other contributions to the project. I am pleased to award you the WikiChevrons in recognition of this achievement. For the Coordinators, Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You...[edit]

*****************The Beyoncé Knowles WikiProject Thanks You*****************
I, Jivesh, thank you wholeheartedly for your comments on the FAC "Halo", which has now passed. May God bless both you and the day I came across a kind and helpful person like you on Wikipedia.

-> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, am I allowed to nominate another article at FAC? I was only a co-nominator on "Halo". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it passed, so you can. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks Nikki. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki[edit]

Hello Nikki! How are you? Hope you are doing great. I have one question for you. I want "Unfaithful" to be my second FAC, but there is one source that maybe could be questioned. Is Artistdirect reliable for FA, in particular this article. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tomica, do you know who the author is, or whether the site has an editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm to be honest I don't know. Editorial policy would mean, reviewers who comment on singles, albums? I think I should try to e-mail them. Right? — Tomica (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...[edit]

Hi,

On the page "Teletubbies," why did you remove a bit info about some stuff about Teletubbies in popular culture (e.g. a Jeep commercial from 2007, etc) in the "popular culture" section? Is it for a tidy up? Is it trivia while it equals grammar while it's not what Wikipedia is about? I don't know why. It needs to be restored because I know they already have references to them.

68.224.119.202 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying up trivia - not everything that can be referenced should necessarily be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 31[edit]

I saw your update and I was thinking it was really weird because I did the update last night. I had found a few new articles, and had everything ready to go ... except I must not have submitted the changes. How annoying. —howcheng {chat} 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely done that before :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Argolin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Argolin (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck[edit]

Can you please do a source spotcheck for the giraffe article? LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sandy has already done one? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really-- I was concerned about what I found, unsure of the responses I got to that, and haven't gotten back to it. It just seems kinda messy, and you're more experienced at that than I am :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

When an FAC fails, do you have to wait 2 weeks to re-nominate just that article, or can you nominate a different article before the 2 weeks is up? Aaron • You Da One 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to wait two weeks to nominate any article, unless you get delegate permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Hi Nikki. Can you please tell me whether alt texts are compulsory? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. If one is obviously wrong you might get called on it, but you're not required to have them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you Nikki. That's a huge relief. I asked because of this. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OA Needed[edit]

HI Nikki, I want to thank you again for serving as the Online Ambassador for my English class last semester at Clemson University. Do you have time to be my OA again this semester? I'm trying to get a second OA, so hopefully you will have fewer student this semester. What do you think? Have you already been assigned to a class?

Also, I would love your feedback from last semester. What can I do to improve the quality of the student's experience and the quality of the student's work? Thanks again for your help.

Here is my course page for this semester Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Eng_103:_Rhetoric_and_Composition_(Patricia_Fancher)

trish Pfancher (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Trish, welcome back! I've got a couple of in-person courses that I'm assisting this semester, but I'd be happy to be your OA. I've gone ahead and added myself to the course page, but because of the new participation requirements you're going to need at least one more person. In terms of feedback...since you're more experienced now, you probably have a better sense of what works and doesn't, so that's going to help a lot. I would encourage the students to make full use of the course's talk page to ask questions and get help, and get used to the wiki interface early on. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Online Ambassadors[edit]

Hi. Thank you for accepting me into the Online Ambassadors program. Currently I am mostly looking at the Canadian programs, but will be willing to help with a few American courses, if necessary. Can you confirm which courses currently need ambassadors, especially based on editor experience, and the full process for ambassadoring the program? Will I need to sign a MOU? I have created my profile, so please outline any further steps I need to take at this point to get involved, and the timelines for realtime student editor participation. Thanks! ~AH1 (discuss!) 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the Canadian universities list, some programs appear to only have campus ambassadors but no online ambassadors, and vice versa. The U of T Scarborough program has 1,500 students, so it is not surprising there would be a shortage of ambassadors. Another program, the Seminar in Physiology at Western, currently has no ambassadors.
I'd be interested in being an online ambassador for the following programs:
  • The University of Toronto Introduction to Psychology, Part II program
  • If either "Contemporary Research in Personality - Carleton" or "Controversies in Science - Mount Royal" need any further assistance, please sign me up for the one that needs help
  • In the US universities program, please sign me up for ONE OF the following that currently needs the most help: "Writing: The Editing Process - Alverno"; "The Social Web - Carnegie Mellon"; "Cognition - George Fox"; "Adolescent Literature - Indiana-Purdue"; "Wiki-Project Management - Michigan State"; "Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities - Rice"; "Research in Personalities - Kentucky"; "Sustainable Systems - Michigan"; or "Introduction to Mass Communication - Southern Indiana".
I'm available to help in up to three programs. My areas of greatest interest are in science, geography and the environment. Please reply regarding which programs I'm signed up for, or if I am responsible for registering myself. Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 23:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for taking care of most of the technical stuff at the FAC of Nyon Conference, which has been promoted.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of Gold speech[edit]

As the FAC is still open and you did the image review, I am letting you know I added this image to the article. You may wish to add a note to your image review for delegate convenience. The copyright should not be an issue, but let me know of course if you see something. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK on mainpage[edit]

Since we so often see resistance to understanding when the structure of a source is copied, I pinged MRG on this one. What do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it before I saw this. I haven't done rechecks for several days, but based on what I saw today I guess I'm going to need to start again...Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The minute you turn your back, they come back full force. And the faulty and unverified hooks, grammatical errors ... is anything improving or are you doing it all? OK, something is improving: at least most of them are now willing to talk about it, which is in stark contrast to the denial of not so long ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. I'd like to say that it's improving...but five in one day, having not even checked the whole lot? There's usually more attention to grammar than there was in this recent batch, which is all well and good, as far as it goes...but it needs to go further. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Gift Evans House[edit]

You asked for 2 details to be cited in Christmas Gift Evans House, they are in this montanahistorywiki.pbworks.com source. Can it be used to support the details (nothing else), or should they be dropped? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a public wiki, which means it unfortunately does not qualify as a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the article can live without it. I use it as an External link, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Worlds additions[edit]

That looks great; thanks! I am knee deep in an off-wiki project at the moment but will try to find time to come back to the article this week; I've done a bit of tweaking off and on and I think the main thing left now is to write the lead and do a prose pass. I think I can get that done late this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you approve! I could add a bit more, particularly from the Latham source, if you'd like. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you could, that would be great. I'll go through my sources and add some myself when I can, and then we can merge/rewrite the section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me out?[edit]

Hi. Do you have time to perform a source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1? I know you are busy, so any help at all would be appreciated. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki: thanks so much for doing a source check and image check on that FAC. I've fixed all the issues, except for four images. For those four images, I was unable to fully satisfy your suggested resolution. Could you look at my responses at the FAC page and let me know if the progress I was able to make for those four images is sufficient. If not, just add a note in the FAC page, and I will remove the offending image(s) from the article (and perhaps try to find a replacement image). Thanks, --Noleander (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Caroline Birley[edit]

I see that you pulled this nomination from the queue after it had been approved: fair enough, I accept that the initial error was mine. Can you now review the article following the changes I have made? Incidentally, in future, could you bring such concerns to the attention of the nominator by use of the {{DYKproblem}} template? Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the introduction an offer of help[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria; Thanks for your hints on getting started with my class. I am sure they will be in touch as we (most of whom are neophytes) get started in the Wikipedia world. I have asked them as a start, to post a note to your talk page.

Thanks, Milligancl (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Tod FAC[edit]

Howdy, I hope that you do not feel that I am being pushy by drawing your attention to my response to comments that you made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Tod/archive1. No rush for a response, obviously, but I am a bit stuck with some of the issues that you raised and would appreciate some advice/clarification when you do have a moment or five. Particularly the issue of how best to organise anonymous works. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I'll take a look later today. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it, done it. Thanks for doing that, and kudos for your excellent eyesight! There is just one outstanding issue among your points, although you'll probably be trawling through the thing again at some stage. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Radzymin (1920)[edit]

I responded to your questions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Radzymin (1920)/archive1. //Halibutt 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012[edit]

Unanswered request on AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage[edit]

Hi, I placed a request for using the AutoWikiBrowser on the AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage many days ago, but since then I haven't got approved to use the application. If you need the link to the Request for Permissions for using the AutoWikiBroswer here is the link:AWB/CheckPage#Requests for registration. Can you help out to take a look at my request, since I've been waiting for a long time. Hope you can help me and have a great day, Wikih101 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikih101, I'm not familiar with that tool and the criteria for it being given out, so I'm going to defer to another admin on this. Sorry, and good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yndamiro Restano Díaz[edit]

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Yndamiro Restano Díaz, I tried to answer, but am not sure I understood the question. - Different topic: in the PumpkinSky CCI a reviewer observed that

1) the text in lists on people from Montana is taken from the article Montana
2) in four articles on similar wilderness areas the text is not like the source, but the rephrased text the same in all four.
I happen to be the one who reviewed a DYK mentioning two of those, and rejected to have them both bolded for that reason, but I don't see a problem in having the same text in all four if it applies to all four. I think that is better than having people to link from one to the other, or invent paraphrasing which may be different in a way that it is no longer correct. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the second point, that shouldn't be a problem assuming that a) the text is adequately paraphrased from whatever the original source is, b) the text actually is applicable to all four (I'm not entirely convinced that's the case), and c) the same author inserted the text in all four articles, without it having been edited in the interim. For the first, see Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, as it might be a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. Please look at the nom again. Please understand that continuing what Khazar started on top of PumpkinSky is more than I can carry, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcaldy[edit]

hi, Nikkimaria

can you have a look at the economy, culture and landmarks sections, if you able to do so. could some of the information in these sections be simplied or cut back? that's what i'm not sure. as well as this, what else do you think i need to work on the article as a whole, before i begin to consider putting the article forward for FAC. recently, i have recieved help from brianboulton who has done a partial copy-edit of the first three sections, history, governance and geopgraphy for me. Kilnburn (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilnburn, some quick thoughts on those sections:
  1. Economy could definitely be trimmed, because some of the information isn't really important, but is used for presentation purposes. Check this out: "In 1573, Kirkcaldy had 28 salt pans, second to Musselburgh and Prestonpans who both had 31 salt pans.[15] Dunnikier Colliery was built on farmland owned by the Oswald family from in 1881 onwards. The Pannie Pit, which formed part of the colliery, had deep workings stretching to the north beneath Dunnikier House and to the south around the harbour". Everything I've struck could potentially be removed if size is a concern. The second paragraph is much better in terms of content. Some of the details about the town centre could also be taken out. However, I think you're missing some statistical details: unemployment rate, some measure of relative wealth and economic activity (like localized GDP or similar), maybe average salary?
  2. Culture needs an introductory sentence or two before jumping straight into the museum. Details about the renovation could be excluded, as could the Beatles bit.
  3. Landmarks seems quite long relative to other parts of the article. Perhaps group landmarks either by type or by area, and limit each grouping to a paragraph? Alternatively, just take out some of the small details - for example, "18 on each side of the central piece" - and focus on the broader summary.
In general, I think the sections that Brian didn't look at need to be copy-edited, and the See also and External links could be reduced. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's interesting. agree with the second paragraph in economy; looking at the section, i could just about remove most of the first paragraph, for the exception of the opening sentence. i also agree with the removal of some info about the town centre; too much info on the regeneration works on the High Street and expansion plans for The Mercat. the problem with adding more statistical details for Kdy is i don't think the information has been produced or can be found easily. i do know that i can't find information for the no. of employees in any of Kdy's main employers.

strangely enough i was looking at cutting back some info on the Kdy War Memorial in the landmarks section. as a matter of fact, do you think i should add information on the no. of listed buildings in the town here? Kilnburn (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence on that would be helpful, sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism schmagiarism[edit]

Let me know if you get threatened with a topic ban from DYK. I just saw Hawkeye's proposal to topic-ban Sandy from DYK. Unbelievable!

Keep up the good work!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Where is this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read this ANI account, in which Hawkeye exceeds even our expectations, and weep! (Permanent link to diffs).
The discussion---including allegations, suggestions of topic bans, and outing of putative insider-knowledge (utterly fabricated) of a distinguished editor's health---may set a new low on Wikipedia.
My modest proposal is that User:TParis be given a 2" x 4" at the next WMF conference with the authority to knock sense into whomever he sees fit.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Sandy's talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I need to have logged off 10 minutes ago, can Sandy or a TPS please take a look at [[1]]? Fast. I'll try to follow up in a few hours. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Raul's pulled it. Another TFA mini-drama to follow I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all the other craziness going on, I'm cautiously optimistic that it won't turn into another drama bomb. Raul654 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fingers crossed. I'm trying to bring it up to spec, MOS issues, dead links etc. As I said to Raul, well worth having a couple of "mint" benign FAs ready to roll out in the event of an emergency... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at who nominated it at FAC. I suggest, if someone has the inclination, that all his articles are checked out. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. His actions as a bureaucrat have been analysed, so his actions as a featured article nominator probably need similar scrutiny. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a replacement article waiting when a TFA scandal rears its head: Jenna Jameson. No? Really? Yomanganitalk 19:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Yomangani: LOL. @ TRM: It would probably be a good idea. A full list of their FA's can be found at WP:WBFAN - I think there are a dozen or so that are still FAs. Dana boomer (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would sell my soul to see Jenna on the main page. No reason why not, per all the previous discussions. But then I am a liberal fool. Much less offensive than a lane in London or a cartoon episode.... The Rambling Man (talk)
Gropecunt Lane received more than 25,000 hits last month,[2] which I think almost qualifies it as a vital article. Which of course it is, but Jenna Jameson got well over a quarter of a million. Her vital statistics are here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10k hits a day for a former "actress" is a marvellous Wikipedia stat. If Gropecunt is vital, what does that make Jenna? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even I wouldn't claim that the lane is a vital article, but it's an interesting historical reminder of more robust and earthy times nevertheless. To be honest though, Parrot of Doom and I were initially drawn to it as we saw an opportunity to get the word "cunt" on the main page. Sadly though the blurb was somewhat bowdlerised, so we didn't achieve our goal. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help either scrutinising old FAs for plagiarism or preparing some mint ones ready for emergencies. Just let me know. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Hill Cumorah Pageant.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Problematic re-opening[edit]

The DYK-closed banner reads, "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page." Why did you re-open it without following these guidelines? —Eustress talk 23:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Instructions for other editors" section near the top of T:TDYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That just explains the "how to"... you still jumped out of protocol. —Eustress talk 03:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It also explains that when removing an article from prep areas or queue, you should reopen the nomination in the manner that I did. If you feel that and the banner instructions are contradictory, I would suggest raising the issue at WT:DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query about "Mark Satin" source spotcheck[edit]

Hi Nikki. On January 23 you gave my Mark Satin FAC a brief source spotcheck and found two errors. Since then, I have corrected the errors, and I went on to check for similar pagination and paraphrasing errors among the 70 sources where I felt I might have possibly committed them. (Details on my FAC page, still hanging in there at 7th from the bottom of the FAC list.) As you may recall, I am new at this, and I would like to know if I have handled the aftermath of your spotcheck to your satisfaction. - Babel41 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Hill Cumorah Pageant.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Update[edit]

Hello. I believe I have addressed your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Hill Cumorah Pageant. If so, please change your vote to support. Thank you. —Eustress talk 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Coimbatore bypass[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, thanks for pointing out the close paraphrasing. I have removed those, rephrased and checked properly. Now can you please check if it is ready and close the discussion. Thank You :) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 18:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC source/image review[edit]

Hey, Nikki. A nomination of mine hasn't been reviewed on sources and images yet, and you're the first person I thought of asking. I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance, Auree ★★ 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Melville Island (Nova Scotia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Wentworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom for Edna Clarke Hall[edit]

Hi, I've double-checked all the ODNB references in Edna Clarke Hall after you raised concerns. While I did find a couple of similarities (really just a couple of words here and there) that I have addressed, I didn't see that many (perhaps because it's my own writing, an outsider might see others). Please could you have another look and see what you think. Have also commented on DYK nom so if you could follow up I'd appreciate it. Thanks so much. Mabalu (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up[edit]

Did my answer here satisfy your concerns about those Nintendo sources? « ₣M₣ » 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andriasang yes; can't tell about the other one, I can't read it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what about my answer to why such a heavy reliance on Nintendo sources? Was that good enough? « ₣M₣ » 21:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012[edit]

Nice to meet you[edit]

Hi Nikki!

I am excited to learn how to edit wikipedia pages.

(GavynBackus4 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hello and welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seminar in Physiology, UWO[edit]

Hello, I am a fourth year student part of Dr. Louise Milligan's Seminar class and I would just like to introduce myself, so that in the future I can discuss and contribute to Wikipedia with your help. Thank you! Kegseminar (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm one of the students in Dr.Milligan's Seminar class as well! I'm excited to learn how to contribute to wikipedia! Jboogaar (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm also a student in Dr. Milligan's Seminar class, just wanted to introduce myself. (Lbrozic (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi! Ddiadamo (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is intense! I'm from Professor Milligan's class and you are our ambassador, I don't know what I am doing. (Vschurter (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Great work on the "Mark Satin" bio![edit]

The Helping Hands Barnstar
Dear Dank, Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, Ed, Jimfbleak, Nikkimaria, and Noleander, - I could not have brought the Mark Satin bio up to Featured Article status without the unique contributions (not to mention tact and patience) of each of you. I am probably two to three times your age, and not at home with this technology. But working with you gave me a glimpse of a beautiful 21st century world in which individual initiative, collectively honed, can produce socially (in)valuable work that is also first-rate. God bless! - Babel41 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Coimbatore bypass[edit]

Have your concerns been addressed on this DYK nomination by recent edits? The original reviewer was involved in the edits to correct close paraphrasing problems, so someone else has to say whether the article is now okay, and as the person who raised the issue, you're best to give the verdict. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Len Hutton/archive1[edit]

I think I got all your points. The only one I'm not sure on was the wikilinking consistency: not too sure what you mean here, I think my brain may be going soft! Also, would it be possible for you to do an image review on the article? If not, no problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've changed the image license, but I'm rubbish with images so I'd appreciate it if you could see if it is the right one! Thanks for the reviews. --Sarastro1 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hello,

I'm leaving you a message because I saw you make an edit to the DYK page. I've nominated an article which I've written, and received some feedback that I've tried to address. However I think that the editor I was conversing with may have lost interest in the process, or perhaps has missed my response. I would appreciate if you could grant a quick look at the discussion so that it does not become stale. Thank you, Aslbsl (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something wicked this way comes (phrase)[edit]

I'm not sure what your edit summary "tr" means, but the IPC tag is obviously still appropriate on this article. The article is little more than a listing of occurrences in popular culture. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and that's not the problem here. The issue is that the (relatively short) pop-culture section is disproportionate because there's little other content. The solution is not to continue to reduce the pop-culture section, but to add non-pop-culture content so that the proportions are more reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you have switched to "rm". I assume that means "remove". Yes, you removed something. I could see that without the summary. The question is why you did what you did, not what did you do. The article contains numerous minor/trivial mentions. The article should explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply list appearances. The items included would have us add every novel, movie tagline, TV episode, song and album that mentions or alludes to "God" to the article God, resulting in a long, pointless list. That this topic has fewer entries merely means that the pointless list isn't as long. It's still a pointless list of trivia. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the explanation above? If you'd like to rewrite the section, go ahead and do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If the rest of the article was a detailed analysis of the phrase, its history and competing scholarly opinions discussing various possible interpretations of the phrase, all sourced to peer-reviewed journals, the section would still be simply a list of trivial appearances. A garbage dump surrounded by beautiful gardens is still a garbage dump. As it stands, the rest of the article picks a Shakespeare quote, tells us where it's from and gives us some OR about it. The rest of it is a section that contains minor or trivial references. The content needs to be reorganized to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances. Turning it into prose would make it a well organized garbage dump: fast food wrappers here, rotting meat scraps over there. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charming. If you have a grand vision for the article, then fix it. If not, then move on and quit tagging without trying to help address the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

I'm writing this as you have tagged some articles mostly written by me as CV or close paraphrasing. I have though for long time since joining Wikipedia nine months ago that copying and pasting was fine as long as you mentioned the source and that it's only copyright violation if you didn't include the source. Thus I will be doing a review on my edits where I have used copy-paste style (I know where to look), but as you know you're only given one week to make changes or the article (or part of it) will be deleted. So, I'm gently asking you not to tag more articles for deletion, because this could result in reduced activity for me at Wikipedia and probably still leaving copyright violations that are hard to find by others. Bahraini Activist Talk to me 19:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it'd be great if you could work on fixing the problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at this rewrite? Bahraini Activist Talk to me 15:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the CV have been resolved, can you restore the good status of the article so that it can be nominated again in DYK? Bahraini Activist Talk to me 17:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcaldy (contin.)[edit]

right, i have removed some excess information on the economy section. this includes the majority of the first paragraph; High Street regeneration and the Mercat extension plans. can you have a look at the section for a copy-edit? Kilnburn (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overdue GAN[edit]

Hi Nikki, I've noticed that this GAN has been open for nearly two months now -- could you do something about it? Given that there are outstanding issues still unresolved, I think a fail is required here. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky, you did a lot to clarify! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's over, thanks also to you! 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question time[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, re this FAC: shall I continue my prose review below or above your image review? I'm still pretty new to FAC, you see. :) Eisfbnore talk 14:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably above, to keep your commentary together. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 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] 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hutton FAC again[edit]

Sorry to be a nuisance! You did a source and image review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Len Hutton/archive1; just to clarify for the sake of another reviewer, was everything OK with the source and image fixes? Thanks again. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri River[edit]

Nikki, does your oppose at WP:Featured article candidates/Missouri River/archive4 still stand? Thanks, Ucucha (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capcom Five FAC[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments on this FAC. I think I addressed all of your points. Would you care to take a look again and provide support or further opposition? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Axem, I don't generally support based only on a source review, and I don't know enough about that subject to do a substantive review. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Perhaps then you might read through it once to detect prose issues? I've gotten entirely too familiar with the text and a fresh set of eyes never hurts, especially if it's someone who is unfamiliar with the subject to see if there are any explanatory gaps. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but could you possibly pop back in one more time to confirm that your sourcing concerns are addressed? Are the new refs I found reliable? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Been getting caught up in other things, sorry - will re-look tomorrow (and feel free to prod me if I forget). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get a chance to look at the changes in tone I made where you suggested? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple more changes in those two spots you mentioned. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jacqueline Thomas[edit]

Should be ok now, but let me know if more needs to be done. I also wonder if you might do me a small favour if this happens again by highlighting any problem sentences. I use a screen magnifier which can make pinpointing the information a bit of a slow process, so it would be very helpful if I could have more detail on what needs to be fixed. Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:Civility[edit]

How is violating BRD not a convincing rationale? The initial removal did not gain proper consensus, please self revert. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is not a policy, so I'm not sure it can be "violated" in any meaningful sense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot just remove a sentence from a policy without clear consensus and demand a discussion for its reinsertion. A discussion needs to establish consensus for removal first. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the talk page, the sentence was removed two years ago (not by me). Thus, the version without it has become the de facto status quo, and you need consensus to re-add it. Last time I checked, the talk discussion was running three-to-one against, so it's quite clear you don't have it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about numbers, a consensus should reflect sensibility and understanding of the subject. Besides, you did not address the most crucial point of all: was there consensus for the removal that took place two years ago? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether there was or was not consensus for that change two years ago: as the edit stood unchallenged for so long, it is now the stable version from which we work. I would argue that the current discussion does reflect "sensibility and understanding of the subject", and indeed might go so far as to suggest that your debating style is verging on being an example of the point you wish to add. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a threat? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, and I'm not sure how it could be interpreted as one. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from your reply above: "might go so far as to suggest that your debating style is verging on being an example of the point you wish to add. YMMV." In other words: keep insisting on adding the guideline and it'll be used against you. Am I correct? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so, no. I have no intention of seeking sanctions against you at this time, though I do think your behaviour is rather ironic given the material you're advocating. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came here because of a dispute with another editor, who keeps playing dumb to try and aggravate me. I don't do that. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're doing this to try to "outlaw" the behaviour by this other editor, with whom you are in dispute, that you find aggravating? That's not a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, but it's hard to point out the incivility when his apparent hobby is to "have an answer for everything". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should try WP:DR or a WP:RFC/U? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noticeboards would be the absolute last resort for me, but thanks for pointing them out. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012[edit]

Hi are you there?[edit]

Hi, your concern with Monmouth Cap was a good one and has been fixed. However it is about to miss the bus for St Davids Day... could you assist if you have time as you will be able to spot immediately that your issue has been thoroughly dealt with Victuallers (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was offline for the night, and now looks like someone else has already approved it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maple syrup[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Maple syrup". Thank you. --Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm ...[edit]

I'm pretty sure Billy Hathorn is back. Carl Stracener (found while patrolling new medicine articles). Same close paraphrasing of obits. Same focus on Louisiana State and Texas alum. Do you want to help me analyze and present SPI? The DYK people will be no help. [3] [4] [5] and more. Same focus on southern politicians: Charles R. Matthews and Leslie Osterman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn/Archive. I see Orlady was active there, so I've pinged MRG, and will ping Orlady to your talk. Also, I'm unsure if this is enough evidence to add a suspected sock tag ? Also, how is it decided when to submit an SPI requesting CU, versus when to block per the duck test? Isn't it advantageous to submit the SPI for CU so they can collect CU data? I'm never sure on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm never really sure on when CU should be used either. The instructions are a bit nebulous and the application seems a bit uneven to me. But I feel like given his persistence that a sock drawer check might be needed to see if there are other socks involved, and they sometimes do seem to do that. Given the copyright concerns, I think it would be worth doing. Hopefully Orlady can shed some light; I see at the last SPI that she feels pretty confident in Billy's patterns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same, MRG-- that it would be good to have CU data and get it documented. Would like to hear from others, though, since I'm never certain about how to best approach SPI, and when it's a waste of time. Also, will need a new CCI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, although this editor hasn't made that many edits so far. I agree that a CU would be helpful to check for other potential socks and to have this issue on-record. I don't have very much experience with SPI, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, depending on what Orlady thinks, if she doesn't want to submit (she knows him better), than perhaps I will. Wht is your view on Carl Stracener, Nikki-- did I tag it correctly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] I'm about 98% sure this is Billy. My evidence includes choice of topics, edits in a few of Billy's pet articles, editing almost exclusively in article space (no talk page edits), fascination with minor biographical details (like the names of children and the date of the funeral in Carl Stracener and details about the daughter in Leslie Osterman), absence of edit summaries, and the attentiveness to detail evidenced by going into related articles and lists (including those "people from state" lists, but also all of the articles about people who were guests on Faye Emerson's Wonderful Town) to make connections to whatever article he was working on. I think a CU would be appropriate, both to confirm the connection and to see if there is a sock drawer. My gut sense is that it would not be Billy's style to maintain a sock drawer, but I also don't think it's Billy's style to edit as little as this account has done. Therefore, it pays to look. --Orlady (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes ... you do know a lot about him. OK, so who submits? Hate to walk you into a spot, but since you know him better ... I've been reluctant lately to go anywhere on the 'pedia except my medical articles, after months of being targeted, accused, and shot at, ending in me becoming so infuriated that I called someone a vulgarity, and here I was minding my own business patrolling medical articles ... would rather not submit the SPI myself, lest some other DYK regulars accuse me of hounding, because I am really sick of unfair accusations ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just now submitted... --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, now that the CU is done, I hope it's OK to put this here so we can keep it all in one place. There is another aspect of Hathorn's work that I've never understood relative to DYK. As in the case of Carl Stracener, he often put up bios that didn't meet notability, based almost entirely on obits. Obituaries are information submitted most typically by family members, hence not independent or third-party. We have same here-- a small-town obit is the entire basis for the article, with one published paper by him, and one source that doesn't mention him but is used to source what the invention was. So, my question is, considering the massive CCI, why are we trying to clean up these bios rather than just deleting them? There was a recent well publicized example of someone who made up an obit and got it published so he could collect some funds for something-- why are we even accepting small-town newspapers as a single source for info, when that is not independent info, rather typically submitted by relatives? I've been around more than one small-town newspaper obit lately; they do nothing to verify, merely accept what the family submits via the funeral home, so we have information submitted by relatives being picked up by legacy.com and used as the basis for many of Hathorn's (and other DYK) bios, and used as the basis for establishing notability even though they are not third-party. I assume major newspapers like the NYT do verify obits, but I'm not certain. Will ping MRG and Orlady, but my concern was that there were so many bios written by Hathorn that didn't meet notability. We see same in his and others' work for attorney bios, where they put up info that is submitted to websites by the attorneys themselves-- not third-party. The CCI could go a lot faster if those that met notability only on the basis of info submitted by related parties (legacy.com, small town newspaper obits, of other non-third party sites like many of his attorney bios) were deleted for notability rather than copyvio cleaned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nuked the articles he created under WP:CSD#G5 (created by a contributor in violation of block or ban) and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I might not have done this if problems had not been found in one of the articles, but it seems evident that Billy has not stopped violating copyright policies given that issue. That leaves only 20 articles to which he's contributed, much of which is likely to be too small to be an issue.
Extended content
We can add this to the existing CCI or just take care of it, either way works for me. Either way, I'm afraid I won't have time to pitch in right now, but I should be able to help out with it later. Thanks for the note, Sandy. When I scan my page some mornings, I'm afraid I only look for sections with new notes. On the weekends, I usually am more leisurely. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good approach. I'm off for the day, but my decision to patrol new medicine articles (catch the problems at the beginning, not after they've created thousands of copyvios) has turned out to be most depressing. Every new editor I encounter is either cut-and-pasting, or adding uncited OR. And massively so. Ugh, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone through the list and dealt with the ones that needed to be dealt with. Going through the second IP's contribs, I noticed this - see what you think. I haven't checked the first IP. As to notability issues, I agree, but CSD doesn't distinguish how reliable the sources used to claim notability are, so we'd likely have to PROD or AFD such articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having become acquainted with Billy through DYK, my main problem with him has been the profoundly trivial nature of so many of his contributions. I have seen that he is very capable of doing good research and good writing (as an aside, I assume that his published articles in regional history journals are probably at least as solid as many references cited in Wikipedia), but he is indiscriminate in regard to what he contributes and where he gets his content. Even for undeniably notable (and important) subjects, his biographical articles often read like family histories, being larded with interesting anecdotes and nonencyclopedic details. I don't know this guy, but I have come to interpret the copyvios and the non-RS sources as symptoms of an intense interest in documenting local/regional historical topics before the knowledge is lost -- he is so intent on recording the history that he often (but not always) overlooks details like the quality of his sources and whether he has copied from them.
The inherently uninteresting nature of so many of his articles definitely is one reason why the CCI is taking so long. And I don't relish the idea of prodding or AfD-ing his work because experience leads me to expect that someone will rise up to defend nearly every one of his articles (and possibly attack the motives of the nominator). --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked one of the IPs for a month: 71.40.85.2 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). It's been used exclusively by Billy since December and has added quite a bit of content. I found text matches in two of the major articles and reverted. In general, my approach to CCI subjects who are blocked and then persist after the block through block evasion is to remove much more liberally. I feel okay asking the community to mop up after somebody once; asking them to do it again and again because we can't stop the guy is an abuse of resources. That said, this IP has contributed far more content than the named account, and I'm going to have to add it to the CCI. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened across this, which would mean any future SPIs would need explicit diffs. I suspect we'll be there again ... On Orlady's "possibly attack the motives of the nominator", yep, I've had enough of that, so other than pointing all of you at these issues when I happen across them, I'll steer clear. After all, I'm "too partisan to be neutral", [6] dontchaknow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Worlds latest additions[edit]

Looks good. Let me know when you're done and I'll take an overall run through at getting ready for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done with content, though I'm going to look at ref formatting shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done, but as I was going through I noticed there's some overlap between "contents and reception" and "influence". How do you want to deal with that? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a general pass through, and see if I can sort that out as part of it. I'll try to get to it tonight but it's more likely to be this weekend. I'll be adding a lead and checking for completeness in the bibliographic details section and generally copyediting, so I will have an eye to how the whole article flows and what belongs where. When I've made a pass I'll ping you again for review. How does that sound? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 DYK credits -> 1[edit]

You should have contacted me about this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See conversation at WT:DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Could you do spotchecks for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive6 please? Aaron • You Da One 17:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have done them. Aaron • You Da One 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links and source checks[edit]

I was reading through FAC recently and noticed that in your source checks you say "Don't repeat cited sources in External links". That's mostly true in general, but there are exceptions to this, and I was wondering if you would be willing to discuss this? My reasoning would be that it depends on what function the citation and the external links are serving. If they are serving the same purpose, then the external link is indeed redundant, but citations and properly used external links are different (by their very nature) and can serve different purposes. The citation will generally be to enable editors and readers to verify a fact or opinion cited. An external link can have a broader purpose, directing the reader to further reading on a topic, or to point out other information contained in the same source, but not used for the article.

To try and explain this further, some websites break up their information across multiple pages and some don't. In the former case, a citation can point to one subpage of the website and an external link for further reading can point to another subpage. How is using a citation to one subpage of a website, and an external link to another subpage of the same website, different from using a link to single webpage twice, but for different purposes?

There are also cases where an external link placed in that section for reason A, mentions fact B in passing, gets used to cite fact B, is hence removed from the external links, is then later still replaced with a better citation for fact B, but is not replaced in the external links section. This is why I think it is necessary to examine why a webpage is being cited, and how it is being used as an external link. If the two purposes are different, then it might be an exception to this 'rule. I may raise this at WT:EL or WT:CITE, but wanted to see what you thought first.

The other thing I noticed (on reading through WP:EL) was the guidance to avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." That seems, to me, to be saying that the common practice of using external links as a temporary dumping ground for sources that might be of use in later editing (or for readers wanting to find out more), is deprecated (some use the talk page instead for this, but this doesn't work for articles with no active editors). I've often thought that articles in an early stage of development should have a section specifically called "further editing" or "suggested sources", as this is a different concept to that of "further reading" or "external links", and I think as an article approaches FA level (when the number of suggested sources is naturally diminishing as they are being used in the article), the two can sometimes get conflated. Anyway, I've written far too much here, but wanted to get these thoughts down as I've been mulling on this for a while and wanted to see what others think. Carcharoth (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth, I would be interested in what kind of response you'd get at WT:EL. I disagree with the deprecation of external links as potential sources. However, I do (to a certain extent) look at how use differs between citations and external links. For example, when different subpages are used, or when the "home page" of a site whose subpage is cited appears, I don't flag it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid[edit]

I received a call for help, in fear of the Bozeman Carnegie Library effect: have a hook pulled from the Main page while you are offline. Would you please check that article before it goes to prep? Marrante and I did, but you have sharper eyes, and I am afraid I didn't see the problem in the library either, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gerda, I'm afraid I can't do much with that article in terms of paraphrasing, as the sources are mostly in a language I don't speak. The only potentially problematic phrase from the English source I noticed was the verbiage about men being at the centre, and I wouldn't personally pull a hook for that- but I can't speak to the non-English sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, if you have time, look at Great Dismal Swamp maroons, all English sources, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that one's more problematic. Compare for example "a large militia force with dogs was sent in to eliminate the maroon communities" with "a large militia force with dogs was sent to wipe out the colony of slaves", or "No human remains have been found in the swamp; it is possible that the acidity of the swamp water destroyed bones" with "No human remains have been found...It is possible, Sayers said, that the acidity of the swamp disintegrated the bones". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I would try to keep the details. Would it help to make the second a quote, like: "According to Sayers it is possible "that the acidity of the swamp disintegrated the bones". As for the first, the same source also has "It was difficult to capture a slave once they reached the swamp although occasional forays were made into the swamp to recapture runaways with specially trained dogs." Could I combine to "a militia force with trained dogs tried to eliminate the maroon communities in the swamp."? I am not competent enough in English to tell if there is a good alternative term for "militia force" that would still mean the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ongoing problem. The person who reviews the source sometimes has a great deal of difficulty figuring out how things can be worded without either losing the nuance or venturing into OR -- or just wording things awkwardly. The solution is often for someone who has NEVER seen the source do a rewording, but then, my experience is that another editor comes in and starts screaming "WP:OR"! "WP:OR" and accuses the poor person trying to help that they are just making things up. I'm getting so I don't want to write anything at all any more. (sad sigh...) That said, your specific examples, Nikki, are helpful and I will take a whack at fixing them. Montanabw(talk) 17:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to approach it would be as Gerda suggests above: either direct-quote or combine material from different sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawking[edit]

Hi there,

Thank you for your recommendations at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Stephen_Hawking/archive1#Stephen_Hawking. I've just been working though them and have updated the FAC page (I'm going to sort out first/last name order shortly - just about to make dinner) there are a few were I was unsure of myself and it would be great to get your take on how far the article still has to go to satisfy your recommendations... Fayedizard (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll check back in tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right question[edit]

Hello Nikki I am sure you have noticed the additions by Rjensen at the history of Canada article. I generally like hes additions though his refs are not so good. But I see there may be a bigger problem. Was in the middle of adding refs for hes new additions and come to discover some copyright problems. For instance the additions at section History of Canada#Society are just a copy and past from this book review. And the section History of Canada#Politics is a copy and past from here. What to do here?Moxy (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did, though I wasn't watching closely. Some of his additions were flagged as being from other articles; were these among them, or was he claiming these as original work? If the former, they'll need to be taken out of both articles; if the latter, he needs to stop, right now, and all potentially copyrighted additions need to be reverted. Taking a closer look now...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The first was copied from Great Depression in Canada, which contains copyvio. The second might also have been copied from there, but is not as problematic because Citizendium isn't copyrighted and probably got its material from us in the first place. I haven't checked all of his edits yet, but it looks like he's only inadvertently bringing in stuff that was already copyvio, not actually creating it himself. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will look closer to because this additions are new.Moxy (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...added by him, citing Citizendium? Okay, either they've got copyvio, or that's a copy of an old version of ours that had copyvio. Either way, shouldn't be using Citizendium. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

β-testing[edit]

Hi! You indicated you'd like to help us beta-test the new MediaWiki 1.19 extension for the Education Program. Click here to get started.

Thanks, Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012[edit]

Spanish conquest of Guatemala FAC image review[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. A couple of weeks ago you were kind enough to do an image review of the Spanish conquest of Guatemala FAC. I've replied to each of your points; in one case I've switched an image and I also have a licensing query. I'd appreciate it if you could revisit the review page and see if your concerns have been addressed. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back! I think I sorted everything... Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Woman's Day at OTD[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria - I'm curious as to why you thought this way since our article on IWD seems far better than Mother's Day's article, which is included there with no fuss. — foxj 15:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Foxj, if you think the MD article is in poor condition feel free to remove it. Looking at IWD, there are multiple cleanup tags (mostly ref-related), as well as unreliable/broken sources (ex). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jawali Mosque DYK[edit]

Hello Nikki. Hopefully, I have addressed your concerns regarding the al-Jawali Mosque DYK nomination. If not, maybe you could fix anything you think would consider plagiarism. Thank you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba[edit]

please leave the ref dates in yyyy-mm-dd. Note that the original version of the article to which I reverted uses mdy format, so dmy should not be used in the article. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do blanket reverts when useful interim edits have been made - treat it as an extended edit conflict, and make a new edit rather than reverting. That being said, I'm not sure why you're reverting at all - "more compatible with mdy" doesn't really make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while you're here, would you mind reverting the other recent edits you've made with that script that have been incompatible with MOS:DATE? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I manually switched all the ref dates to yyyy-mm-dd (which was the original state of the page), so all of your formatting changes are still in place. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 04:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much more helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan FAC[edit]

Hi, I was advised by one of the reviewers to ask active FAC editors to review the Pakistan article's FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1‎. It has been out for nine days, the problems mentioned in the start were fixed but there have been no further comments. There was a question about a dispute that occurred after the nomination, I've explained about it on the FAC page that there's been no consensus for it on the talk page and the current version is as of consensus. Please take a look at the article and drop your review comments and/or vote. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War in Anbar Province[edit]

Hi, I *THINK* (knock-on-wood) that I've fixed all the problems you named. Either way, the citations have been extensively cleaned-up and are ready for a second look. Thanks! Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look...but I should also point out that per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, you shouldn't be striking other peoples' comments. Just FYI, not a big deal. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it helps keep me task-organized! ;) Is there an approved way for me to indicate when I think I've fixed a particular issue? Just took another whack at it, whenever you have time. Thanks again by the way. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replying inline, while not preferred, is less discouraged. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, am doing that now. Unless there's something I'm missing, I *think* I got them. Since you obviously know way more about citations than I do, can you point out examples for any issues you have, just so I know I'm addressing them? Thanks. Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made the author corrections wherever I could. Removed the '.coms' from every site except "Military.com", which is actually the name of the website. For a lot of them (publishers italicized, dates not in parentheses) I think it might be an issue with the template itself. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the last few authors. Not really sure how to fix the italics. I'm using the "newspaper" section for Template:Cite News, so I guess I could move the wire services to an "Agency" tab, but I don't know if that would solve the problem. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I fixed the Harvard citations with the awesome script you sent me. Was there anything else? Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done sir, done! Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I ain't no sir, no sirree! ;-) Checking now...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got Publisher for 329. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PING! :) Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU!!!!!! Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PING! (And thanks for the copy-editing!) Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PING! Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PING! Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a couple of questions for you[edit]

At Talk:New Worlds. I am incredibly busy but I really want to get this ready for FAC so will try to find more time in the next week or so to work on that last section. I think it's just another hour or two of work. It's not there yet, but most (or maybe all) of the necessary text is in there; it just needs to be massaged into a more readable narrative matrix. Anyway, if you can respond on the questions I left I will take another crack at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O Canada[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. I see by your edits that you're a bit of a deletionist. I've recently made some similar edits to O Canada along the lines of yours on McRib. Before this evolves into an edit war, can we parley a better solution? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Markvs88, I see by your edits that you enjoy engaging in pointy behaviour. The consensus on the talk page you indicated supports the edits I made. Can you provide a more reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring cited points is never pointy. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editing one article to make a point or react to editing on another certainly is. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe spotcheck[edit]

I look over nearly every source have have available and did re-paraphasing when need. Can you do some looking over? LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you look at random smaples? LittleJerry (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It will drink at intervals of three days or less when it has access to water" vs "Giraffes may drink at intervals of three days or less when water is available"; "In low intensity necking, the combatants gently rub their heads and necks together and lean against each other" vs "At low intensity, they proceed to rub heads and necks gently together, and may lean heavily against each other". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadman's Island DYK[edit]

Just went through and checked it off, but I think the article should be located at Deadman's Island (Nova Scotia)...typical geographic feature naming convention.--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joanna Yeates[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for your feedback at the article's FAC. I've addressed most of the things you've mentioned now, but will need a little more information on which refs are in caps, and perhaps one or two other small points. Thanks once again for the review. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review mentorship[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, I noticed you're listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors. I just started my first GA review (for Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting)). Would you mind reviewing it when I'm done? --Fang Aili talk 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished my review. --Fang Aili talk 22:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Fang Aili, that's quite good for a first attempt. A few thoughts:
  1. I like that you gave specific examples of issues. I don't see any indication that you checked for copyvio/plagiarism, but I suspect that's a language issue based on your later comments. Also, Wiktionary links are allowed, even at the FA level, although there may indeed be a better target for such a link.
  2. Language is obviously an issue when it comes to evaluating sourcing, and I can't read Polish either. However, while Wrede et al would more usually be cited as "Wrede and colleagues" when using in-text attribution, naming the work is not required, although it would be helpful to mention who Wrede is. When you don't understand the language used by a source, you can to a certain extent determine basic reliability by looking at such factors as who the author is, who the publisher is, what the source looks like (if online), etc. For example, something like this is reliable (and English-language, so you could check it), while something like this appears less so - in that case, you might query it, and ask the nominator to explain who the author/publisher is. Finally, keep in mind that just because statements are sourced doesn't mean that no original research is present (though AFAICT in this case there isn't any).
  3. Fine, though some of your commentary from the prose section ("The article would benefit from...") would perhaps be better suited to here - not a big deal
  4. Fine, though I might have queried "His passive attitude is seen as a representation..." - seen by whom? Or "The painting does not have one dominant title" - the following sentence shows that multiple titles are used, but not that one does not have prevalence over others. That's rather nitpicky, though.
  5. Fine
  6. I would personally have said ??? rather than nay on 6b, and disagree that the larger-resolution image is unneeded, but that's just my opinion. Licensing is more important and is mostly good; though it would be helpful for File:Konstytucja_3_Maja_guide.jpg to indicate the copyright status of the original image, that's not required.
  7. As a general principle, placing an article on hold isn't required - you should only do that if you feel the article has issues severe enough to prevent promotion, but not so severe that they could not be addressed within a week. However, I agree with the decision to place the article on hold in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria, that's really helpful. --Fang Aili talk 16:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Fang went inactive, any chance you would like to finish the review, as you are already familiar with the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA2.
Message added 02:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your time with the article. I've added some comments. I'm generally accustomed to constructive dialogue and would appreciate some feedback if you have time. Thank you again. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

→ I commented again at the talk page. Thanks again for the constructive feedback. Very appreciated. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Steamtown, USA/archive2[edit]

Hi, I have heeded your source review and entreat you to take another look. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your source review. I made the corrections that I could and I have some questions about others. Can you please look again? Thanks,--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending[edit]

The finland election FA and the DYK for justice and development in libya is pending further notes to improve or approve ;)(Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Ive reworded to answer your concerns on Template:Did you know nominations/Justice and Development Party (Libya) and wated 10 days. can you review?Lihaas (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012[edit]


Regarding your recent Lucknow edit[edit]

Hi Nikki. 100th section on your talkpage. Wow! Saw your edits to Lucknow city. Although you have removed unsourced info from the article, some points need discussion. For instance, see line 379. The Dilkusha Palace, the Baradari (built by Wajid Ali Shah) and the clock tower at Husainabad are historical monuments constructed in the 19th century. They are among the most notable monuments of the city. Also, the sub section on Urdu Literature needs debate. Sure the section has POV but the city is famous for Urdu poets and the section can definitely be improved or merged if such an article exists. The information available there such as list of "famous poets of recent times" would be difficult for anyone to recreate. I am a native of Lucknow and I see the article is kinda dead for a while. Although Lucknow is a well researched subject it's difficult to get verifiable info about Lucknow on the web. Many of the references cited have low credibility or are simply lame (taken from sites promoting tourism and all). You might want to review the edit or revert. Anyways, I leave the decision to you, admin. Hope you are convinced. This is my first piece of communication with another Wikipedian :) — Ashay (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ashay! I need to archive my talkpage, obviously, but I'm glad it hosted your first-ever message. I've made a more conservative cut for now, and feel free to re-add anything you feel is truly notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Lucknow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tehzeeb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your feedback on Spanish conquest of Guatemala, the article has just been promoted. As always, it has come out of the review process in better shape than it went into it. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_13&oldid=1151014140"