User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 16

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

Wikimania![edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, just wanted to drop by and say it was great meeting you in D.C. (I was the weird staffer who fan-girled out while you were talking to Megan), and I'm sad that I didn't get to corner you for longer and pester you with questions :) I really appreciate all the work you're doing on DYK/FA reviews. You may or may not be aware of this, but, from the perspective of a reviewee, it can feel pretty terrifying to see your name come up on a watchlist, which I imagine is where all the memes about evil reviewers who only care about emdashes come from. But I do understand that despite all our talk of being nice to and encouraging newbies, at the end of the day somebody has to make sure our best material is actually good, and I really am glad you're doing that. I hope I'll get another chance to talk to you soon. Till then, catch you on the wikis (where I will inevitably misuse an emdash, sigh). Cheers, Accedietalk to me 23:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Accedie, thanks, and see you around! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bosom Friends affair[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Lax[edit]

I have cleaned up the references on William Lax. Tell me what you think, as it is still under FA review here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Lax/archive1. Farrtj (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pavle Đurišić peer review[edit]

Thanks very much NikkiMaria! It's great to have fresh eyes on it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QI articles[edit]

The QI articles were tagged, yes, but that does not mandate the removal of content. Your edits were undone to return to the status quo and then to enable discussion. Many people have put a lot of work into those articles so I kindly ask that you revert yourself (the good faith thing to do) and begin discussions. Please think about the work that has gone into these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.166.142 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, seeing as they were tagged for over a year without any clear move to address the problem, removing the problematic content was entirely appropriate. I appreciate that time has gone into those articles, but that time was unfortunately misdirected: adding huge amounts of in-show detail to articles of this type (especially with only primary sources) is simply not what we should be doing - instead of such details, we should be looking for information abotu reception and/or impact in the "real world", per WP:WHIM. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of people that have been involved in these articles and they are a summary of the content of the episodes just the same as plot details of many other popular series. Though you do have some scope for discussion of scaling it back I'm afraid that you've fallen foul of WP:BRD/WP:1RR. Reverting yourself is the appropriate thing to do and then get other people to discuss the matter. 86.143.166.142 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No series should have over a hundred kilobytes of summary. Is there a centralized place we can discuss this other than my talk page? I agree that we should get the input of other contributors, though I think it's better to leave the condensed version for now as it offers more scope for the addition of non-summary, secondary-source material. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main QI article talk page might be sensible. I disagree with your idea of leaving in your preferred version during a dispute - protocol is to return to the status quo especially when it had been in place for such an extended period of time and has been edited by a wide range of contributors. 86.143.166.142 (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of a project page - the main QI page has a bit too much detail for my taste, but certainly doesn't need a major trim like the subpages had. If by "protocol" you mean BRD, that's an essay, and WP:NOT trumps it pending discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson[edit]

Hello

I am very new to Wikipedia and have just added to an already existing page - my school - Clemson University. I would appreciate any feedback that you could offer me to make a better article and suggest any more subheadings that i should add to my existing headings. I would also like to verify that my citations are correct. Look forward to hearing from you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Laxfangirl/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload&editintro=Template%3AUser_sandbox

Tricia Fedele 7/22/12 Laxfangirl (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson Student, Wiki Article review[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I am hoping to add information to the wiki article on Olympic Weightlifting. This is my first time editing on wikipedia and any insight or information you can shed would be very appreciated.

First: I have repeat sources cited, should they all have the same #? Meaning did I add them incorrectly? Instead of treating each repeat citation as a new source should I have, instead, copied and pasted the previous source?

Secondly,I followed the heading/ sub-heading rule of additional = signs for each subsequent heading but when I preview the page things look kind of funky. Funky here being operationally defined as weird or incorrect. What have I done wrong?

Below is a link to my sandbox.

Thank you very much for your time and help!

Brian D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Delgreco15User:Delgreco15 Delgreco15 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KMFDM FAC[edit]

Hi there. Thanks so much for taking the time to go over the referencing for KMFDM. I think I've fixed or responded to everything you brought up in your comments, and I'd appreciate it if you could take another look when you get a chance. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 23:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made more corrections per your second set of comments, but I also had some questions about a couple of things you listed on the discussion page. —Torchiest talkedits 19:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your last set of issues on this, and also started a discussion about the publisher formatting here. Do the responses given sound like a reasonable explanation for allowing some publisher entries to have parentheses while others don't? —Torchiest talkedits 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. I know that website publishers aren't in parentheses while print journals/newspapers are. What I'm still wondering about is how you're determining which refs use which template - I'm not sure I understand your explanation, and I'm still confused about why what I see as "like" sources are formatted differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see there was still some significant jumbling in the formatting. I made another (hopefully complete) pass through all the cite templates, and normalized and matched them all up. Anything that is a daily publication is using "news", anything that is weekly or monthly is using "journal", and anything that is web-only as far as I know is using "web". Do you think using "web" for billboard.com chart information and "journal" for the actual printed form is okay, or should I just set all of those to "journal"? —Torchiest talkedits 15:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should keep the charts as "web", but for the "journal" ones do you have page numbers? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the details to the two that were missing them. —Torchiest talkedits 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked every cite news and cite journal template in the article, and added page numbers to as many as possible. I've also combined duplicate refs and separated tangled refs. Is there anything else I missed? Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 18:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for putting KMFDM through the wringer! I feel like my citation skills have reached a whole new level in the last week. —Torchiest talkedits 14:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson Sudent Article Review[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, I started a new article on editor and publisher Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post. I'm new to editing Wikipedia so any feedback you could give to help improve the article would be very appreciated. Specifically I am worried that I've done my citations wrong; I cited two sources from the same website but from different parts of it. I'm leaving a link to my sandbox below. Thank you for your time.

Goutlaw (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goutlaw/sandbox[reply]

Your comments at RfA[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I suspect you already realize this, but when someone does not provide any rationale for their support of a candidate, it simply means that they do not see any indication that the user in question would go awry if they were granted adminship. Now if it were an oppose, that would be different; the burden of proof is on the dissenter to show the community why the candidate is not suited to be an administrator, at least at the time of the RfA. I happen to agree that it is better to give a rationale when supporting someone, but in the absence thereof, it can be assumed that the supporter is convinced of the candidate's suitability for the role.

Is there a particular reason you wish to see some sort of further explanation for support !votes at RfA? Master&Expert (Talk) 04:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because that double standard is wrong. Why, if you argue that a "support" with no rationale means the supporter is convinced of the candidate's suitability (or that the supporter agrees with the nomination statement, or any number of other explanations available), would you not equally argue that an unqualified "oppose" vote means the opposite? The instructions say "Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning", with no qualifier for opposes vs supports. We have a policy (WP:NOT) that rejects straight votes in favour of consensus-building discussions, and it is frequently said that RfA is "not a vote" - given that, the argument saying that opposers must provide a rationale while supporters need not do so simply does not make sense, and supporting without even a semblance of rationale is poor practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I am also a bit puzzled by this, because if I am not mistaken, you have supported the same candidates that you have annotated the plain support "votes" for. --Rschen7754 03:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not mistaken: I've included this comment on plain supports for RfAs I've both supported and opposed, and indeed for some in which I've not voted at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this, in my opinion, it borders on WP:POINT. Especially considering that you have annotated the comments of sitting arbitrators; I'm sure they know what they are doing when they are supporting. --Rschen7754 22:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think that? Surely it would be more POINTy if I only asked on RfAs where I was opposing? I'm sure arbs know what they're doing too, but I'm also sure that they know how to express their reasoning. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have always seen POINT as doing something just to make a point, even if you are actually supporting the other side. Noting Risker's comments below, I think there are more tactful ways to resolve the issue, such as posting a thread at an appropriate place. We also have bureaucrats for a reason who weigh the strength of arguments, or lack thereof. --Rschen7754 22:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
POINT does require being deliberately disruptive, though, which is certainly not my intent here. I'm open to suggestions: post a thread where? Past threads at WT:RFA haven't really gone anywhere, and besides, this is already something recommended by the RfA instructions. I could certainly post a reminder at RFA talk, but I can't say I'm optimistic that it would result in anything changing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WT:RFA seems like a good place, or you could bring it up or crosspost at a VP subpage or other places. --Rschen7754 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When did anything worth spit ever emerge from a discussion at WT:RFA? I fully support what Nikkimaria is doing by reminding "voters" that the same conventions apply to supporters and opposers; discussing it endlessly at WT:RFA will achieve nothing. . Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK stuff[edit]

Nikkimaria, Muboshgu invoked your name in Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Chee Willeto. Did you want to see whether you agree or not?

Also, Lihaas has updated Template:Did you know nominations/2012 SCO summit; has this addressed your most recent paraphrasing concerns?

Finally, the reviewer's comments on Template:Did you know nominations/Guinness Foreign Extra Stout make me wonder whether copyvio issues were truly considered with the statement made regarding PR Newswire, and duplication detector leads me to believe it wasn't. Can you please take a look to determine just how bad this is? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the Guinness, that needs quite a bit of work. As to Willeto...yes, I saw that comment earlier, but I don't think there's anything I need to say on that nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the news on the Willeto: I'll try to pick it up soon, but had been hesitating because of Muboshgu's comment. I'm sorry to hear about the Guinness, but glad that it's been caught in time; I appreciate you taking care of it. Non-bios are going to be in demand with the virtually all-bio Olympics hooks about to flood, and that one was bound to be picked up in short order with its tick. Now a premature promotion won't be a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't fit Willeto into today's prep set, but I'm hoping to tomorrow. In the meantime, could you take a look at the June 9 Concussions article, which you found problems with? It looks to me as if only minor editing was done, but you'll know whether it was enough. I'm also wondering about the June 6 Goéry Delacôte article, which is asking for guidance on your most recent identification of further problems. As I just discovered some dismaying excessively close paraphrasing on another article by the same author, July 12's Kee Klamp, I'm not sanguine about the June 6 one getting fixed without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answered and reviewed SCO summitLihaas (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lengberg Castle[edit]

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neat new article!PumpkinSky talk 10:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.[edit]

I truly did not mean any disrespect in my phrasing, and wanted to come formally apologize to you. I have done some editing over the past years, in only select areas, but I've done it anonymously, with I believe a real account mixed in. I made this, my newest account, because I don't particularly like signing discussion comments with just an IP address. I did not mean any backhanded meaning in my words, it's just the way I'm accustomed to phrasing when trying to be polite. Hoping to clear the air, VK. VekuKaiba (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey VK, no worries. For clarity, are you the IP that started the discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Twas not I, I'm afraid. VekuKaiba (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012[edit]

You Are My Sunshine[edit]

Please note that your recent edit to this page removed a maintenance template. As no edit summary was provided and the issue the template called to attention was not addressed, I have reinserted it. If you feel the template should not be in place, please discuss at the article's Talk page. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apparently using the template didn't register...please stop removing the template unless you're willing to remove all of the items listed that are missing any citations establishing significance. I've reinserted the material but will be happy to remove it if no cites are provided for another couple of months; the items were only tagged in May, so this doesn't seem unreasonable to me. You're welcome to discuss it at the article's Talk page if you'd like. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, that isn't how this works. We don't need to remove everything lacking a citation, unless it's controversial. I'm not sure why you're reverting my attempts to deal with it, but I've switched to a referencing tag for now. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current version looks acceptable to me. In every discussion of IPC sections I've been in the consensus was that they should either be sourced to establish significance or removed. Consequently I tagged for IPC (think I updated an existing tag actually) with an intent to remove if the situation wasn't resolved. I reverted your changes because you were removing one problematic item while leaving several others in without comment. You shouldn't remove maintenance templates without an edit summary in any case. But, as I said, I'm okay (not great) with how it is now. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I didn't remove tags without an editsum, hm? I removed the more trivial while leaving seemingly more viable entries for possible sourcing. Reverting that because you think it's inadequate doesn't really make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What didn't appear to make sense to me was removing the maintenance tag and one item from the section while leaving in other problematic material and leaving an edit summary that didn't make your intentions clear to me. But I'm not looking for a confrontation here. Doniago (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither am I, I was just a little put out by the reversion/template combo. Let's drop it, then. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like this plan. Thanks for working through this with me! Doniago (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thanks for catching and replacing the copyrighted diagram uploaded by a student! I was just asking a graphic designer to work on that yesterday when I noticed you had replaced it! Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re your new tendency to ask why in RFAs - consider that repetitive asking of that particular question is generally associated with those who have not yet made it through grade school. I've met you, and I know you're more mature than that; please consider whether there might be a more thoughtful way to express your derision for unrationalized support votes. Perhaps more importantly, you give the impression you're trying to singlehandedly change the standards for RFA voting generally on the backs of the RFAs of individual users. Consider how you'd have felt if someone had been trying to make a similar point, completely unrelated to your qualifications, during your RFA. Risker (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wouldn't have minded if someone had done that at my RfA, but I do see your point. Do you have any suggestions? Posting at the talk page of each user seems a little more confrontational, to my mind. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the real issue here is that you are acting against a longstanding (i.e. at least 9-year) community consensus that such supports are perfectly acceptable and do not require further explanation. So your issue isn't actually with the individual users, who are acting in accord with existing consensus; your issue is with the community's consensus. If you want to change community consensus, you take it to the community, not individual editors. It wouldn't just be confrontational to go to each editor's talk page, it would be unjustifiable, especially as you do not appear to be receiving any support from the community in asking these questions. Risker (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the "community consensus" you see is already contradicted by every written policy/guideline/whatever I could find - so how do you change it, when there's nothing concrete to change? If you want to take something to the community, you generally need a solid proposal. Which is what, mandating rationales? They're already recommended for both supports and opposes. What I'm doing with the "why?" is trying to remind people of what they're already "supposed" to be doing. I can't force them to do it, obviously, but I can at least make them think about it. Seriously, if you have an idea of how to effect change here, other than the editor-by-editor approach that you and others disagree with, I'm all ears. I'm doing things this way because I don't see one that I believe would work any better. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendations are not the same as requirements; rationales aren't "supposed" to be there, they're appreciated if they are. And really, of all the problems at RFA, this is so far down the list of issues that I'm baffled why you're pursuing it. The most likely effect of your actions is to drive away participants who are supportive of candidates, hardly a positive effect when we have a hard time even getting people to run anymore, and where longstanding qualified editors are being turned down because they made some questionable CSD tags six months before, or because someone thinks 5000 mainspace edits is insufficient. Perhaps the problem is that the consensus I speak of has been in place much longer than most of the places one might ordinarily look for it; and it is pretty much impossible to consider anything developed on WT:RFA as consensus since so many editors avoid that page like the plague with good reason.

Just for the record, I had your "Why" questions pointed out to me by someone who told me his first instinct was to answer "because it bugs you, Nikkimaria", but then decided he didn't want to ruin someone's RFA to have an argument with you. (I'm paraphrasing it gently, because I believe you're acting in good faith.) Is this the argument that you want to spend your "respected editor" capital on? It's your decision, but I'm surprised it's the area you feel so strongly about, given all of your other interests within the project. Risker (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MH of C[edit]

Would love you to look over the article (your much more aware of our MOS and much much better at spelling etc.. .. I have been using mdy for dates since 2010. As for images the Aboriginal section could use a more warfare type pic over the current one. A few images I would like to see left there if possible - they are unique historic image but copyrighted - the 3 famous pics are File:British Columbia Regiment 1940.jpg (this image most think is American because of how famous it is world wide) - File:Soldier-and-child-octcri.jpg (very unique pic that was seen world wide and was featured in Time life) - File:Oka stare down.jpg (highly publicised image nation wide in virtually every paper of the time). That said they can be replaced if we have no chose as I dont know much about copyright and its usage here on Wiki. PS I uploaded a few of those pics. As for the rest if there are better images yes pls replace.Moxy (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice.... I like this - as it goes well with what we say - By the end of the 17th century, First Nations from the northeastern woodlands, eastern subarctic and the Métis (a people of joint First Nations and European descent[12]) had rapidly adopted the use of firearms, supplanting the traditional bow. Moxy (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KKPsi FAC[edit]

I have added the design dates to the files you requested at the Kappa Kappa Psi FAC. I believe that addresses all of the issues you have mentioned in your source review and image review. Sycamore (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Mass removals[edit]

You've been removing a chunk of stuff from quite a few pages recently. I look at your contributions history and it's a lot of red. And I must admit that I chuckled when I saw that you removed info from a page which talks about the blanking or removing of stuff.

I already did a partial revert on one. Before I go through and just revert the rest per WP:BRD, I thought I'd come ask for clarification/explanation, if you would. - jc37 04:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about project pages or articles? I've been working on a few different projects lately, several of which have involved a net removal of bytes, so it would really help me provide a clear explanation if you could be a bit more specific in what you're concerned about. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initially project pages. But then when I started looking at your contribution history, I saw red edits everywhere. Maybe I'll just work my way through reverting some to make clearer my concerns. There's a lot of info (and links) removed that I'm not certain I see the purpose of removing. - jc37 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through a bunch so far. Apparently you are unaware that Template:Essay already adds a page to the category? Also, there seem to be some essays that you are removing from nearly every page, no vested contributors and you don't own Wikipedia in particular.
So far I've tried to only do partial reverts rather than just mass revert all these policy page changes. - jc37 21:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, missed that template-cat thing, thanks. It looked like someone had added those two essays across multiple pages, even where they're not particularly relevant (and usually with a comment that highlighted that). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Kangaroo[edit]

If you are removing a maintenance template, please be sure you have resolved the problem or give a reason for the removal in the edit summary. Thank you.

I did, and there's a discussion on talk about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subscription only references[edit]

Hello :-), I was told by a user that I shouldn't add the URL of a subscription only reference because they don't add anything important or verifies the content in which was referenced. Since I am working on getting "I Could Fall in Love" to FAC soon, I was wondering should I refrain from adding URLs of subscription-only references? I only add the URL if the claim can be spotted once the reviewer opens it. Should I still add them anyways? Best, Jonatalk to me 16:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say add them, especially if it's a web-only resource, but prefer things like DOIs where available. Just make sure that you use a "stable" weblink where possible (ie. one that doesn't include your login name and/or institution as part of the URL, isn't time-limited, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no I don't have access to the articles archived, I search them on google news like this and then sourced them on the article. But if I still need to provide the URLs I don't mind adding them. Best, Jonatalk to me 18:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to, but you can. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks for helping me out! Have a splendiferous day, Jonatalk to me 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Fejos[edit]

Nikkimaria, is it a concern when an article is paraphrased almost entirely from a single source, using about half of that source's material?

I was worried when the Paul Fejos article, 2901 words, was created from five pages of a modern reference book, and it seemed like it could have been based on nearly all of the entry there. If properly paraphrased, would this much usage be okay? If using half the material, as the article's author says? Or is this not a concern at all, but perfectly okay and not running afoul of fair use or any other copyright issues as long as the paraphrasing is well done. (As it's an offline source, I have no way of checking, but AGF, right?) One sentence comes from another source. Please let me know; I've never run into this before.

Incidentally, as far as I can determine, one person wrote the whole thing, using the Deoliveira account for minor additions plus two IPs, 66.212.78.220 and 206.188.39.191, for the bulk of the writing. I don't believe that's an issue, except that there probably shouldn't be separate DYKmake and DYKnom credits for the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (minor edit at 00:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It can be a concern, depending on how similar the two are - assuming the single author wrote the whole book (as opposed to a one-author-per-entry method), it probably would be fair use if well paraphrased. When you get large-scale paraphrases like that, you also have to think about whether the structure of the article is largely identical, or whether the source has an idiosyncratic view of the subject, or whether using one source allows for adherence to the neutrality policy. I don't have access to the book either, but the GBooks snippet isn't reassuring as far as structural/phrasal similarity: compare "according to him his father was a captain with the Hussars and his mother was a Lady-in-waiting for the Austrian-Hungarian Empress, and that as a youth Fejos himself was an official of the Imperial Court" with "have it that his father was a captain with the Hussars, his mother a lady-in-waiting to the Empress, and Fejos himself later an official of the Imperial Court", or "able to get free film stock from the DuPont company, which was then trying to compete with the more established Kodak and Agfa" with "Filmstock was obtained free from DuPont, then attempting to challenge the domination of Kodak and Agfa", or "When sets or actors were unavailable, Fejos had his crew film close-ups of hands, feet, cars or anything else that stuck him as interesting" with "when sets or actors were unavailable, Fejos kept his crew busy shooting closeups of hands, feet, cars, and anything else that took his fancy". Actually, I'd be inclined to fail the nom on paraphrasing regardless of the one-source issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I've blockquoted the entire "compare" section above in the template, and failed it accordingly. I gave you credit for the search as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead horses[edit]

‎See also: cull. Why? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of See alsos of varying levels of relevance, plus the big "civility essays" template, seemed a bit excessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh ha. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Vermont Ski and Snowboard Museum[edit]

I'm quite dismayed by what I've found here: it was the hook being virtually identical to the wording on a page at the Museum's website that seemed problematic, but that was the tip of the iceberg: the website's collections page had a huge number of hits from Duplication detector, six of 10 words or more, and then I discovered that the entire Mission section of the article itself comes entirely from that page and the home page. The film page is closely paraphrased in the article's Collections paragraph about that collection... and there's probably more. The picture gallery appears to have been taken by the author, but I couldn't tell whether any of it might be of copyrighted artwork, and therefore problematic. Can I ask you to take matters to the appropriate next step, whether it means removing infringing material or worse? I appreciate it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. Newer editor with G12 notice on talk from another article isn't a good start (but on the plus side probably means it's too early for a CCI). Taking a look now. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The overnight fixes by another editor don't seem to have helped appreciably (despite said editor's belief that all is now well), so I'm glad to have your sapient eye.
Speaking of said eye, what about Template:Did you know nominations/Quotient filter? It's a scientific article replete with formulae and proofs and definitions of terms, but Duplication detector went nuts when I ran the article against the main paper about the quotient filter here. Can you take a look? I've stopped the odd AGF approval tick; I had been looking at it in the hopes of adding the final hook needed for prep 1, but found quite a can of worms. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the offending material out of the ski museum article; it's now just under 1500 characters. I've also tagged a few of the images for evaluation on Commons, and depending on how that works out they may end up being deleted. Will look at the quotient next. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quotient also has significant direct copying - I largely agree with your comment on the nom. On these types of articles, though, it's difficult for those without the technical background to do cleanup work; I've tagged it, but am not sure what else I can do beyond straight blanking. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The author of quotient filter has gone through and specifically quoted a great deal of material from Bender, and something from one other source. Is this sufficient? Is it within fair use? I'm happy with the quick response from the author, but would appreciate it if you could check to make sure it meets your standards. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better, but there's still some non-quoted copied material - for example, the fourth sentence of the lead, or the third sentence of Application. The complete Bender article is roughly 3500 words (counting only the article text plus the abstract); the amount of text that's quoted or that I know should be quoted in the quotient article is about 370 words (which could increase if there's other copying I missed); the full quotient article is about 2200 words. Quotation of more than 10% of the source makes up more than 10% of the article about the same topic (ie. not about the source), making it unlikely that this would be considered justified fair use. IANAL, though, so take that for what it's worth. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing policies and guidelines[edit]

Please don't edit these pages lightly. These are based on years of painful fighting, and their editing is not so easy as regular wikipedia articles. While they are not cast in stone, still, it requires a certain effort to convince the community that your changes are with merit. PLease use talk pages to discuss your changes. Please understand that text of a policy requires certain stability, otherwise you will never know tomorrow what rule is in force today. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

I understand that you say you're removing links which are also in the navbox. but you're removing quite a few other "see also" links.

Several people have now questioned (or reverted) these removals.

So at this point, I think the "discuss" part of BRD applies concerning removing see also links from project pages. - jc37 22:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So discuss. I'm not removing "quite a few others" - they're either the ones that are already linked elsewhere on the page, or the spammed one. If you have any specific changes you'd like me to explain, point them out and I'd be happy to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's not what I've been seeing. And "spammed" or not, in some cases those essays may apply, so removing them en masse seems a bit reckless. And further you've re targeted several redirects, without checking whatlinkshere. several were in use already.
So I'll reiterate: please stop for now. The world won't end if we have a few extra links on essays until you can find consensus with others for these removals.
In the meantime, I will revert the removals until such time as such consensus is determined, per WP:BOLD/WP:BRD/WP:CON/etc. - jc37 22:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not removing them en masse, I'm removing them where I think they should be removed. You appear to be re-adding them en masse, though, which is hardly appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A.) No I wasn't, as I noted above, I was trying to only do partial reverts, leaving many of your edits in place. If I had been reverting them en masse, I could easily have done so in a matter of minutes. It's taking much longer to go through and read through your edits, trying to retain as much as possible.
B.) regardless, at this point, I'm seeing now more people reverting your removals.
I was and have been attempting to be kind and collegiate about this. but revert/revert/revert again doesn't help anyone. I'd much rather that a consensus is formed. - jc37 22:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But most of your reverts, partial or not, involve re-adding the spammed link. I appreciate your efforts to be kind, but it would be a lot easier to form consensus if you'd explain why you're reverting, rather than just saying "no consensus". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC: Iraq War in Anbar Province[edit]

Can you review my response to your edits and let me know which ones work and which ones need improvement? Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 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] 09:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fredric Williams -- response regarding user page[edit]

Hi --

To avoid anything that might seem promotional, I have deleted all personal material from my user page and left only a brief statement of my role in Wikipedia.

I hope this will be satisfactory.

FDW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredricwilliams (talk • contribs) 06:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spire (software)[edit]

Although I doubt that this software meets any GNG or other inclusion criteria, would you explain me under which criteria of WP:CSD you did delete it? There is no A7 for software (sadly)... mabdul 10:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Would you like it restored? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, just pointing out to be more careful. ;-) mabdul 17:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012[edit]

FAR[edit]

We finally have consensus that a FAR is needed for Barack Obama. SCjessey, who is opposed to FAR, admitted that FAR is needed but disagrees on the timing. It seems that he wants it after the election. The election is months away, certainly enough time if that is the deadline.

I actually think that Wikipedia is neutral and does not act as an advertising agency so improvements and FAR should be ASAP, not delayed.

To be neutral, I will let you do all the work to start the FAR. Please and thank you. If I do it, someone may wipe it out just as they did when I tried to help someone who had trouble posting a comment.

To be even more neutral, I will hold off comments about how to improve the article either forever or for a while. That way, it doesn't benefit me to have a FAR since I will not be initially adding any comments (unless you want me to).

Thanks for starting the FAR. Wikipedia needs to be improved, not stagnated.

That article is far different from 3 years ago and the FA standards are, according to some, far different than 3 years ago.

I fully agree with President Obama's slogan....it is fitting for you to act...it is Forward.

Evergreenme (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is consensus to have a FAR. Some want it delayed but everyone agrees that it is needed. Therefore, the compromise is to do what we agree, which is FAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evergreenme (talk • contribs) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Evergreenme, I see Dana has already weighed in at the talk page, so I would suggest you listen to her advice. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DiscoverGibraltar.org[edit]

Hi - just to save all this from the nom page. Jim Crone (web owner) has agreed to make all the gib history stuff on DiscoverGibraltar to be cc by sa. To record this intention he has added a Gibraltarpedia.org note to the main page of the site. Meetings/Work are progressing to do this well. We are even doing a press release as this a substantial contribution by one person to our mission. Not sure whether the casemates article should be held from publication, but there is no plagiarism going on so I removed the template from the article . Victuallers (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of musicOMH[edit]

Hello, can you help me to determine if musicOMH is a reliable source to cover music-related articles? Their 'About us' section states: "We're always looking for enthusiastic music, film, opera and theatre fans who would like to write - regardless of age or location", the latter statement makes it sound somewhat unreliable. Till I Go Home 13:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I would say it's only reliable when the author of the specific article you're citing is an expert in the field. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published source that is reliable[edit]

Hi there. You recently questioned the use of this book as a source because it is self-published. At the time, I just removed it, but I recently read some stuff about the author, Piero Scaruffi, that leads me to believe he could be considered reliable, in particular, this New York Times article. Would you say that he could be considered an expert, and thus reliable on the subject of music commentary based on that? Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 15:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a freelance software consultant and occasional university lecturer"? Not sure I'd call him an "expert", though he does have some subject recognition. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarpedia DYK[edit]

There have been responses to your concerns at this nomination; can you please check to see whether the issues have been solved? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Melville Island (Nova Scotia)[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Melville Island (Nova Scotia) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 3, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 3, 2012. 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:

An 1878 photograph of Melville Island by Scheuer Notman

Melville Island is a small peninsula in Nova Scotia, Canada, located in the Northwest Arm of Halifax Harbour, west of Deadman's Island. It is part of the Halifax Regional Municipality. The land is rocky, with thin, acidic soil, but supports a limited woodland habitat. The site was discovered by Europeans in the 1600s, though it was likely earlier explored by aboriginals. It was initially used for storehouses before being purchased by the British, who built a prisoner-of-war camp to hold captives from the Napoleonic Wars and later the War of 1812. The burial ground for the prisoners was on the adjacent Deadman's Island. Melville Island was used as a receiving depot for slaves escaping the United States, then as a quarantine hospital for immigrants arriving from Europe (particularly Ireland). It briefly served as a recruitment centre for the British Foreign Legion during the Crimean War and was then sold to the British for use as a military prison. The land was granted to the Canadian government in 1907, which used it to detain German and Austro-Hungarian nationals during the First World War. During the Second World War, prisoners were sent to McNabs Island instead, and ammunition depots were kept on Melville Island. The peninsula now houses the clubhouse and marina of the Armdale Yacht Club. Melville Island has been the subject of a number of cultural works, most of which concern its use as a prison. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that I never read an article of yours other than Hindemith's clarinet concerto? This one is impressive, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (25 September 2010 and 4 April 2012)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerda. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with Felice Bauer! Hope you enjoyed her meeting with Kafka 100 years ago today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated[edit]

Saints Star Award
For your consistent, reliable, careful, intelligent, policy-based reviewing and general tireless efforts at FAC... thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks hamiltonstone! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Shields DYK[edit]

See question at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Shields (police commissioner). Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • See follow-up question. Thanks for your quick response, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we are making excellent progress here, but am afraid there is another follow-up question. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to move this along without undue delays and to set everyone's mind at ease, perhaps you could confirm that you are not aware of any other issues with this article. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does the nominator believe that there are no further instances of close paraphrasing? If so, I'd be happy to take another look. The tactic of fixing only the specific examples raised, though, isn't really effective, as I only looked far enough to know that there are problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have moved this to the nomination page so the nominator can see what is expected. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War: Chains of Olympus/archive1[edit]

Anything else? JDC808 (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A follow up on Bwilkins[edit]

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

eBooks with no page numbers[edit]

Hi Nikki. I've found two ebooks, solid sources, that support something I'm working on but guess what? They don't have page numbers. What to do?PumpkinSky talk 18:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking my nose in here - when I come across this situation I simply put the chapter....as most books will have sections that are distinguishable.Moxy (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you're a (talk page stalker) eh? PumpkinSky talk 18:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the current version of WP:EBOOK doesn't say this for some reason, it used to say, "If the source is an e-book that does not provide page numbers, the citation should include information that enables readers to locate the source material within the e-book, such as chapter number, paragraph number, or a short quote from the source itself."[1] Why this was changed, I don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, odd, that should still be there... Anyways, thanks for jumping in guys, you're right - section/paragraph/chapter if available/feasible, quote (or unique keyword) to search if not. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: it's also a good idea to indicate that there aren't page numbers with the "np" (no page) designation. Chapter number should be added. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Shields (police commissioner)[edit]

The Teamwork Barnstar
This is to thank you for your thoughtful and positive contributions in bringing this article up to the point where it is almost ready for the front page, and to thank you in advance for your careful and thorough review to identify any remaining issues. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan[edit]

I'd like to notify you that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U, which mentions a dispute that you had with this user, can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Casemates Square[edit]

Nikkimaria, there's a question there addressed to you from Gibmetal if what has been done now is sufficient regarding the material used from the Gibraltar website. Can you please stop by and check? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012[edit]

Fall 2012 Online Ambassador Program[edit]

Hi, Nikki!

If you're still planning to work with a class in the US and Canada Education Program this Fall, please add your name to this census. Once the new class list is available, I will notify you guys so you can sign up for a class (or two) that interests you. You may have already spoken to Andrew, so sorry if this is duplicate information! I hope you're still interested in supporting these students for the coming term. Thanks! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Quotient filter[edit]

Nikkimaria, there have been a number of changes made to the article, but I've basically hit my limit on this one. Can you please take it from here. I need to spend less time on Wikipedia this week, and that includes letting someone else handle the issues here, which need to be parsed by someone with more experience in copyright than I. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look please[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria, sorry to trouble you, but could you have a look at this article please: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. I feel it needs some minor brushing up but would like your opinion first. Cheers, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rsrikanth05, agree some polish is needed here. Some expansion needed, particularly in the tagged sections. I'm seeing some bracketed numbers that tend to indicate copying from either an offline draft or some other source - is that the case? That would be a significant issue. This feels more like a draft than a finished article, so I don't want to get too picky with the critique right now. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it an unifinished article. It has been like that for several months now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing translation / reprint information[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, i noticed you are very experienced with referencing issues, especially on FA. Maybe you can help me with a question, when you got some time.

  • Currently i am working on Otto I and was wondering, how to treat reprints of old publications: f.e. pre-1900 old-style publications over Otto's life and importance are reprinted - sometimes 100+ years later. Ideally i would like to include all information about the new publisher and date and all the "old" information about the original release aswell, but i am unsure, what template (if any) or format would be best to use.
  • The same goes for translations of old, foreign-language texts (with or without editorial changes), f.e. historical primary sources. In one recent FA-nom i saw "Plutarch (1970)", which doesn't seem right - Plutarch is dead by now, afaik :).

Do you have some tips or could point me to available guidelines please? (i looked, but couldn't find anything specific). Thank you for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia-based guidelines for this type of situation beyond WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. When full source information is available for both original and reprint, I've most often seen [details of original.] Reprinted in [details of reprint]. Similarly, for translations: [original source]. Translated in [details of translation]. You can do that either by hand, or by including two citation templates as a single reference. When you don't have full citation details for the original source, it's actually much simpler - put the original year in square brackets (or use "origyear" in template), and cite original author but new translator/editor/publisher. In either case, for a shortened citation you could use something like "Plato, translated by Smith (1970)", or "Plutarch (1970 reprint)". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try your ideas and probably will just see, what looks best or most structured in a given situation. Thanks for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for looking over the refs during the Olmec colossal heads FAC. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Spotchecks[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I wonder if I could please request a reference check on an article currently at FAC: Peter Sellers. I'm reasonably confident of the refs, but with a few other editors also in the process there is always a chance that things have slipped through to add to any of my errors. Many thanks if you have the time! - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your time and effort: it was much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Your time here is much appreciated. :-) -- CassiantoTalk 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012[edit]

Request[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. I saw your name listed under "general copyediting" at WP:PR/V, and was wondering if you could copyedit an article for me. The article is Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy)—a 2009 episode of the medical drama Grey's Anatomy. It has gone through DYK, GA, peer review, A-class, and I am hoping to get it promoted to FA. It is a fairly short article, so it won't take too long to get through. Also, I would like to list you as the co-nom, if you copyedit it. Hope you can, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll help out. Did you write most of the article text yourself? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing to do it! I wrote all of the article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've left some inline comments for you regarding sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any info on cultural impact? Any comment on how this relates to other episodes in the show or season? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This episode was considered very different, as commented on by a few reviewers. I don't think it was really a cultural impact, though.
I did a lot of research on Wetpaint before including it in the article. Wetpaint, owned by The Cambio Network, was formerly a wiki-site. After much criticism, they moved their wiki to a different URL, and formed an editorial staff. Wetpaint has won an award, and has been on several "best sites" lists including one from Time Magazine. They have also interviewed several celebrities including Sarah Drew of Grey's Anatomy, and have partnered with renowned companies such as Fox, The Discovery Channel, and HBO. PopSugar is a subsidiary of Sugar Inc., which has received renown from Fox, Forbes, The New York Times, and USA Today. I consider it a high-quality review, but will remove it if you deem it otherwise. I definitely consider Television Without Pity high-quality. It is owned by NBCUniversal, and is operated by an editorial staff. While discussion boards and blogs do exist on the site, the review in the article is written by an editorial staff member. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After hours of searching for PopSugar and Television Without Pity replacements, I stumbled upon an Entertainment Weekly review and a People review. The EW review also comments on the show's relation with other episodes, which is a plus. I cannot find a replacement for the citation backing up the award Chandra Wilson won.
Do you think I should break up reception into "ratings" and "critical response"? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on sources. I think the current "reception" section is adequate as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Are you done with the copy edit, or is there more to do? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet - busy weekend ahead, may not finish until Monday. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK checks[edit]

Nikkimaria, there are a few DYK nominations that I think are waiting on (hoping for?) your feedback:

There's also the following, where we have a new reviewer who isn't up to doing a check for close paraphrasing as part of a DYK review. It's a double hook; can you check? (It's Tigerboy, so I wouldn't expect anything would be found, but sometimes there are surprises.)

Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Shields in an effort to correct the issues, so was hoping for a third-party review there. I've made a comment on Iparraguirre, but we may need a Spanish speaker to sign off. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I'll see if Crisco 1492 can take on Shields, and hope that someone shows up on Soledad Iparraguirre. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Love references[edit]

I see you have now reverted most of my changes to this article - the most recent of at least 12 similar reverts to recent edits of mine. This despite the fact that you are fully aware that those changes are consistent with the guidelines at Template:Citation/doc#Publisher, and that you have never been able to offer any explanation of how this redundant publisher information in the references is useful to any reader. To go into some detail: in that article alone you have re-added twelve links to Hachette Filipacchi Médias (all of which relate to Digital Spy, which is linked only once); four links to Prometheus Global Media (all associated with Billboard, all of them valueless and in several cases actually incorrect as Prometheus didn't even exist until December 2009: at the time of some of the references, Billboard was owned by Nielsen); the astounding information that BBC News and BBC Music are published by the BBC, and that Yahoo! Music is part of Yahoo! Inc; the incorrectly formatted parameter publisher=(Guardian Media Group) against The Observer; two occurrences of 'Rovi Corporation' against AllMusic; a redlink to Rakuten Group; three links to Associated Newspapers for the Daily Mail; and other similar unhelpful changes. As you know, this whole matter was discussed at Template_talk:Citation#Publisher_and_location_for_periodicals; you should now cease obstructing changes that bring articles into line with the recommendations agreed there. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, we've had this conversation before: recommendations are not mandates, and do not allow you to arbitrarily change the style of citation without discussion, in contravention of WP:CITEVAR. Template pages are not the correct venue for changing policies/guidelines, and your last attempt to address this in the relevant forum did not result in consensus for your position. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask the same question again since you have not once been able to answer it. How is this redundant publisher information in the references actually useful to any reader? That's the real point here. You can stand on procedural quibbles about alleged style changes (which I dispute) as much as you like, but what this whole project is about is helping the reader. How does your insistence on the superfluous, repetitive - and even incorrect - information I detailed above actually help a reader? If it doesn't help, it should go. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's already been answered several times, so while you may not be satisfied, I'm afraid I have no interest in rehashing the entire debate. This information can be helpful to an educated reader, or to a reader who is using Wikipedia for specific (usually academic) purposes, both of which tend to be the groups that actually look at the references. For other readers, while it may not be as helpful, it certainly doesn't do any harm (and most of this group don't look at cites at all). Furthermore, the reader is not the only consideration: things like WP:ENGVAR and WP:CITEVAR exist primarily to prevent inter-editor conflict. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I ask this question, you always resort to claiming it has been answered before, but you neither provide an answer nor provide a link to an answer. I recognise that the average reader doesn't look at the references. My question - which remains unanswered - is how exactly would someone who is choosing to look at the references benefit from this information? Despite being asked the same question repeatedly, you were never able to come up with a valid example in the discussion at Template_talk:Citation#Publisher_and_location_for_periodicals, where the consensus following the discussion (now reflected in the guidelines for using the template) was that the publisher should not normally be included for common periodicals. Instead of offering vague phrases about 'specific' or 'academic' purposes, quote a hard example of how a user of the references would find it helpful to to be told, right there in the article about Nicole Scherzinger's first album, that the publisher of the Daily Mail is Associated Newspapers. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did tell you that the template "guideline" was not an actual guideline. In that specific case, it both allows the reader to distinguish this publication from others of the same name and provides academic completeness and stylistic continuity. I have previously linked to this conversation, where your question was also answered. And even if you disagree that your question has been answered, it doesn't matter - because WP:CITEVAR trumps the suggestions of the template, and you shouldn't be changing the citation style without discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in that discussion, the example you gave there was completely irrelevant; the case you quote would not be affected in any way by the type of changes I'm making. I'll ask yet again: can you give an actual concrete example of how a user of the references would find it helpful to to be told, right there in the article about Nicole Scherzinger's first album, that the publisher of the Daily Mail is Associated Newspapers? It's becoming painfully obvious that you have no example to give, and you're trying to cover that up with yet more impressive-sounding but empty phrases like 'academic completeness' and 'stylistic continuity'. And while we're on the subject of that previous discussion, let me quote back at you a statement you made there "Personally I prefer not to include publishers for newspapers ...". And yet you insist on reinstating exactly those parameters in an article which you yourself have never edited before. Don't you think you could leave any objections to those editors who are active on that article? What gives you the right to speak for them? I'll make once again a suggestion that I've made before but you seem to be afraid to try: let's allow the changes to remain in place for a period - say a week or two - and see if any editors of that article complain. It's an article which is actively edited at frequent intervals by a number of regular editors - let them speak if they want to, instead of taking it upon yourself to be their self-appointed spokesperson. If anyone apart from yourself objects to the changes, I will self-revert and open a discussion. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've pointed out several times now: it makes absolutely no difference what style of citations you (or I) prefer. Editors are allowed to use pretty much any style they choose, and you cannot change the existing style without discussing first. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:BRD, anyone can object to and revert my changes to that article. And since the only objector is you, heroically asserting on principle, despite your own personal preference, the rights of editors you haven't consulted and who are perfectly capable of asserting their rights themselves, if they want to, that puts you in control, doesn't it? I bet that feels good. (And by the way, you still haven't answered my question). Colonies Chris (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I bet that feels good"? I think we're done here, as this obviously isn't going anywhere productive. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WWII image in the Alps[edit]

Thanks for the follow-up. I'm not bothered if the image is deleted for having insufficient copyright. There's an entire category of those from NARA on Commons and a description on NARA of the van Eyck images (they're stored in lots of thousands) so without the image number it's really too much work to track it down and spend the time contacting NARA. Anyway, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Abdulredha Buhmaid[edit]

I just noticed that this has been sitting for almost two weeks, apparently waiting for a paraphrase check. Any chance you can do one for it? If so, many thanks. (If not, let me know, and I'll tell Crisco 1492 that it looks like he's stuck with it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick work! I've left a note for Crisco, saying the final icon placement is all his. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danoli c/e[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I think I've expressed my gratitude before about your eagle-eyes for close paraphrasing at DYK. You certainly make WP a better resource. We've both been commenting on the Danoli article and you mentioned that it could do with a copy-edit. I can't see what the problems are; could you please spell it out for me (on the nomination page)? Schwede66 04:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding sourcing[edit]

Hi, it's me again. Can you take a look at Talk:Grey's Anatomy#Production section? Risker is currently copyediting Grey's Anatomy in preparation for FAC, and we stumbled upon an issue. The production team section says things such as "Crew member A has been crew job B since season C". The claim of their positions are sourced, but when they began is unsourced. While developing the article, I looked at List of Grey's Anatomy episodes to see a crew member's first episode. Would it be sufficient to use a {{cite episode}} of the episode they began with, to back up the claim of when they started? Thanks in advance, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-553 (Michigan highway)/archive1.
Message added 04:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton/archive1[edit]

Thanks for conducting an image review. I have located alternate source links for two of the images, and removed the third. Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns. Thanks again. Savidan 05:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy)/archive1[edit]

Hi! The article is listed at FAC here, with you as the co-nom. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012[edit]

IndieLondon[edit]

Hey again Nikkimaria. Would you classify this as a reliable source, or the site in general? Your response would be appreciated. Thanks. Till 09:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any indication of editorial policy or other markers of reliability on the site, so go by author - who is "Jack Foley", and what qualifications does he have? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find signs which would assert reliability either, or information about the author. Thanks for responding, will remove now. Till 11:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CITEVAR[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#What_does_WP:CITEVAR_cover.3F which may be of interest to you. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign literature[edit]

Hi Nikki. See Franz Kafka. For his works, which were written in German mostly, some in Czech, let's look at the lead for now. The question is what is the rule, if any, for such works mentioned in prose: foreign title with English in parens or vice versa, see: The Judgment (Das Urteil), The Metamorphosis (Die Verwandlung), versus Ein Landarzt (A Country Doctor), etc PumpkinSky talk 16:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved ;) - my suggestion is to have English first in the lead, because that is better known to English readers, but to have German first when it comes to describing for example that he published a book Betrachtung (Contemplation). He did't publish Contemplation, someone did that after he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be consistent and our readers speak English, not Deutsch. PumpkinSky talk 16:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Most of Kafka's works will be better known by their English than their German/Czech titles - are there any of his works for which this is not the case? Unless so, I would say English first, unless you've a reason to do otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beilin-Abu Mazen Agreement DYK? Nomination[edit]

I responded to your latest comments on this DYK? nomination of mine. Futurist110 (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama[edit]

Nikki, This is not an attack, but I think you are asking for FOP in cases where it is not needed. Am concerned that you have gotten a false concept into head and are misapplying something systematically. Saw same thing a year ago. (If you really think those images are noncompliant, let's try deletions to see what the community says, but I don't think it will be even close.)

Huh?  ;-)

TCO (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Thanks for clearing that off my talk page. -T

Most likely you're right that it'd be kept in a debate, but...technically in places without FOP even aerial photos like this one can face copyright claims. This rarely happens, but then again many images that would rarely if ever be challenged are still non-free by our reckoning. Is there anything systematic you're concerned about other than aerials? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you are systematically enforcing an incorrect standard. I have a lot of respect for your attention to detail and calmness. But I have found you mildly off at times (everyone is and you are young). I think there was some grammar thing where you were off and Malleus corrected you and you just accepted it. I am not a rights superstar. But I am smart enough to know who are the best experts. On the FOP thing, I don't think you get the concept of concentration of topic and of utilitarian versus aesthetic...and I am not even some super image guy, but know of them, just from hanging at Commons. And I find CLindberg amazing. And DCoetze pretty damned good too. Both superstar veteran Commons opiners on this sort of thing. See [2] and [3].

Again, not an attack. You are a nice girl and put up with my badboyishness way more than I deserve.

TCO (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remember the second case you're raising, but for the first: I didn't say that the images violated copyright, but only that the nom should consider the impact of lack of FOP. I'm not sure CL is right in everything he's saying in your link, though. Then again, IANAL. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to chime in a bit -- photographs being considered derivative works of buildings are already on the outer fringes of copyright law; while there have been a couple of cases (where the building was the primary focus of the photograph), they are extremely rare. There have also been a few cases which strongly indicate that photographs where a building is just part of the overall scene are not considered derivative works -- for example, there was a French case on an image very similar to File:P1020879 Paris VI Rue de Rennes rwk.JPG, where the architects of that building (the Tour Montparnasse) sued and lost, as the judge said the subject of the photograph was the entire street, of which the building is just an accessory, and therefore does not cause the photo to be a derivative work. Similarly, there was another case where a photo of an entire plaza was deemed to not be derivative of the building or artwork in the middle of the plaza (some of these cases are detailed at fr:Liberté de panorama). In the U.S., there are somewhat similar rulings, though not about public sculpture -- in the Ets Hokins decision, a photograph of an entire bottle can not be derivative of a copyrightable label, unless the photograph is focusing on the label. There was another case about a photo of a motorcycle with a copyrightable design on part of it; again that was ruled "incidental" (the photographer was taking a picture of the bike, regardless of what design happened to be there or not), and so is not derivative. As far as I know, there has never been a successful suit or decision which ruled that something like an aerial photo, or photo of a city skyline, could actually be ruled a derivative work of any building which happened to be there. When you say "this rarely happens", do you know of it happening? I'm always interested in learning about more relevant cases. In the end, judges are going to be balancing the legitimate interests of the two different authors, and the law is generally not so extreme to think that every possible small including will cause a derivative work (indeed, a number of legal doctrines, such as de minimis, the "theory of the accessory" or "incidental inclusion", or fair use, have all been used in mitigating circumstances). The cases I mentioned above are the furthest-edge stuff I'm aware of; there are other rulings which don't even go that far (i.e. photos ruled not derivative even if the main subject is copyrightable) but the bulk do seem to agree on that they can be if the main subject is copyrightable, or a work is intentionally included to enhance the expression in the photograph itself. Lastly and most importantly, photos of buildings are not derivative works per U.S. law (regardless if they are the main subject or not); this virtually certainly goes for foreign buildings as well. Since en-wiki follows U.S. law (and I think UK, Canadian, Australian, Indian, and NZ law would be similar), I don't think such photos are deemed non-free on en-wiki regardless of which country they are from, since they are not subject to the architectural copyright, and so I'm not sure that is really a good reason to remove them from an article (such photos can be uploaded to en-wiki with the {{FoP-USonly}} template, but not to Commons). Photos of sculpture is an entirely different matter, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessarily a good reason to remove the images, but it is a reason to consider whether additional licensing info (such as the template you mention) might be included. I had heard of a copyright case involving an aerial image, but don't recall the details offhand - I do know it wasn't in the US, which probably explains why I'm having trouble finding info online...systematic bias anyone? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For images where the buildings are de minimis, it's probably not worth it. But it would be good to know of the case you are thinking of... there's nothing inherent in aerial photos that makes them OK; if they are focusing on a particular copyrighted building, that could still be an issue in some countries. Any chance you are thinking of the case over the poster of the Hundertwasserhaus? That was a situation were a photographer went to a private apartment a few floors up across the street to get a better angle for a photograph, and sold a poster of it. That was fine in Austria, where the building is located, but the German law requires such photos to actually be taken from a public place in order to be OK, and since the poster was also sold in Germany the architects sued in that country and won. The case is detailed at de:Hundertwasserentscheidung. Not exactly an aerial photo, but one where the location of the photographer makes a difference, depending on the country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Give Peace a Chance was just promoted to FA status! :-) It would not have been possible without your great copyediting! TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators[edit]

Hi. What does prv mean, and does it explain why you removed the paragraph about enforcement actions? AGK [•] 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Partial revert". Those paragraphs need a bit of reworking before being added to policy. Perhaps consider opening a discussion at talk? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've asked for more views at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Special situations. Regards, AGK [•] 16:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if you copy-edit "Nightswimming (Awake)" for a potential FA nomination. It's interesting IMO. Cheers. I am open to doing something in return if so. Cheers, TBrandley 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate bother you again (-facepalm-), but could you let me know when you have finished up your copy-edit to "Nightswimming". A billion thank yous! TBrandley 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably finished as much as I can do - I don't know anything about this episode, so don't want to accidentally misrepresent it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Quotient filter[edit]

The article has been revised again; can you check to see whether it's finally acceptable in terms of close paraphrasing? Please give it whichever icon it deserves at this stage. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coord?[edit]

Nikki, are you running for coord again? Bear in mind there's a right and a wrong answer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll give it another go, see what happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:) - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single quotes[edit]

Hi. I know that on FACs you state that double quotes (") should be single quotes (') on footnotes. But, could you link exactly where that guideline is specify. Thanks, TBrandley 22:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSQUOTE says "When quoting a quotation that itself contains a quotation, single quotes may be replaced with double quotes, and vice versa". MOS:QUOTEMARKS says quotation marks within quotation marks should be single quotes, which is what occurs in titles enclosed by quotation marks in footnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Only reason I ask is someone is questioning me, knew it was somewhere in MOS. Cheers, TBrandley 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012[edit]

GA Mentorship[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, I was perusing the GA mentor list and the dart landed on your username. I was wondering if you could help me with my first attempt at getting an article to GA standard. The article in question is one I created a while ago, the Lyre-guitar. It's quite short but does that matter? I would appreciate at least a cursory glance and brief commentary to get me started. No hurry and of course I understand if you are too busy. Jschnur (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jschnur! It's not the length of the article that matters as much as its coverage: if you've covered the main aspects of the topic (criterion 3), it's long enough. In this case, though, I'm not sure you've done that yet. You tell us about the history of the instrument, but not how it was constructed (materials, design) or how it produced sound (tuning, range, acoustics), what kind of repertoire was written for it, etc. It might be helpful to look at instrument articles that are already GAs as possible models - pipe organ and clarinet are examples, although both will naturally be longer than a more obscure instrument like the lyre-guitar. Look for more sources about the instrument to get an idea of what information is out there; based on the bibliography, there's a whole book and a few articles out there. (If you don't have access to these, let me know and I'll see if I can find them). For the existing text, you'll need more inline citations - reviewers usually expect to see at least one per paragraph, and more as needed. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply. I will take your advice and start with exploring other GA musical instrument articles. I think that I will need help with some of the sources but I will follow that up with you in due course. Some are in French so you may be just what the doctor ordered. Best, Jschnur (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 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] 01:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

smiles[edit]

Hi Nikki, I saw this - and my first thought was: "It's not fair - she has to sleep sometime - and the bot doesn't". :-D — Ched :  ?  22:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob - edit-warring with bots is fun. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

I have nominated Nightswimming (Awake) at FAC now, and have listed you as one of the co-nominators, if that's okay. Cheers, TBrandley 00:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Worlds again[edit]

I'm just getting back to New Worlds again, and I think it's close to being ready for FAC. I will do some more passes and then if you're willing, we can conom.

I have a question about an odd citation situation. The last sentence of the New Wave section quotes Brian Stableford from the online SF Encyclopedia. The article the quote is taken from is attributed to Stableford and two other authors, but the particular quote appears almost unchanged in the 1978 print edition of the encyclopedia. In 1978 it's "It cannot be said that Moorcock's programme met with wide-ranging approval, especially among those readers attuned to the more modest and traditional aspects of Carnell's policy, and it certainly lacked Carnell's sense of balance. Its contribution to sf in the 1960s was, however, considerable -- the paths beaten by the New Worlds writers are now much more generally in use"; in the online version it reads "It cannot be said that Moorcock's programme met with wide-ranging approval, especially among those readers attuned to the more modest and traditional aspects of Carnell's policy, and it certainly lacked Carnell's sense of balance, but its contribution to sf in the 1960s was considerable – the paths beaten by the New Worlds writers are now much more generally in use." The earlier version was written solely by Stableford, so I feel the quote should be attributed to him in the article, but I don't want to cite the 1978 version of the article since it's important to let the reader know the judgement still stands now, thirty-four years later. How do you think this should be handled? It did occur to me that perhaps the decision to leave that text in should not be regarded as solely Stableford's -- with two other authors of that article, they must concur in that judgement, so perhaps they should be cited too. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You could include inline attribution to Stableford and footnote the newer source, or footnote both versions, or include an explanatory note about the situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added an explanatory note; I think that's the most straightforward solution. Do you see anything else needed before we nominate? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're missing bibliographic info for Merril and Latham, can you add it? Doing some editing now. Also, is the source discussed above Clute & Nicholls, or just Nicholls? If the latter, missing that too. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added Merril. I don't have Latham -- I think that was a source you added. The 1979 SF Enc. is Nicholls only, so I think it's correct as is.
I just realized I forgot to add a list of the anthologies drawn from New Worlds to the bibliographic data section. I'll get that done in the next couple of days. Anything else you see that needs fixing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have full bibliographic info for the 1979 edition, just the 1993. I've fixed Latham, so once you've added the list, I think we're good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the 1979 edition of Nicholls. My copy is a 1981 reprint, which is the date I used in the reference, but I left the 1979 date in the explanatory note, which I think is OK since the text was not revised for the reprint. I think we're ready. Shall I do the honours? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beilin-Abu Mazen Agreement Did You Know? Nomination[edit]

Hey Nicki,

I fixed whichever close paraphrasing I could find in this article, but I still need your approval for this article to get that DYK? nomination. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed what you said (FN10 and FN11) right now. Futurist110 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desolation (Llimona)[edit]

I have made edits to this article for tone, but would like your opinion before I remove the tag. If you think the article tone has been improved enough to remove the tag, then please do so. If not, just let me know here and I'll work on it a bit more.

Thanks! TeresaTeresa J. Mayfield (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Teresa. Good work so far, but I think this article needs a little more finessing before removing the tag: things like "feelings that reflect a deep humanity" and "idealism deeply rooted in his solid religious convictions" don't quite meet the ideal of neutral and encyclopedic phrasing. Guidelines like WP:W2W might be helpful in figuring out where the line is. In some cases you can also quote things like that as opinions from critics or authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyre-guitar sources[edit]

Hi again Nikkimaria. Regarding you kind offer to help with sources for this article I was wondering if you can access the third reference by Matanya Ophee, "The Story of the Lyre-Guitar", in Soundboard XIV/4, 1987-88 Winter? This may kill two birds with one stone. Apparently the first reference Plagiat dénoncé aux musiciens et aux amateurs des lyres nouvelles, inventées par Mareschal, Luthier à Paris. is an extremely rare pamphlet. My research googling indicates that the only known copy of it is in the library of the Brussels Instrument Museum. However, Matanya Ophee’s article mentioned above contains a full facsimile of it. BTW What does the pamphlet's title translate to? Again, no hurry. Jschnur (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly, "Plagiarism revealed to musicians and amateurs of the new lyres, invented by Mareschal, a luthier from Paris", which likely is suggesting that the design of the instrument itself was copied. I've put in a request for the article at the library, so will hopefully have it in a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh. The plot thickens. Mareschal sounds a tad angry. I'm so looking forward to this. Thanks Nikkimaria. Jschnur (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012[edit]

File:Feudal organization.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Feudal organization.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAR[edit]

…seems pretty stale. Most of the FARC section hasn't moved in weeks now. How much more stale do things need to get before those articles are de-featured? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Can you tell me what's happening with this? I replied to you 10 days ago and have heard nothing since. The nom has been sitting in limbo for a month now and is the third oldest on there. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish so can't check the other references, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but where does that leave the status of the DYK? Valenciano (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try asking for Spanish-speaking reviewers at WT:DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feudal_organization.png[edit]

Some rude rag from Illinois deleted it from Middle Ages. She (the rude rag) is right about the percentages being wrong, they were variable according to time and place. Maybe you could erase the "About 80% of the population" part, and upload a new version. Other than that there is no reason at all to delete it. Some people just get their rocks off on being troublemakers. 7mike5000 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you were not aware that I have this page watchlisted also? I did not intend to be "rude" but it was indeed an unsourced addition with percentages wrong. However, that's not a good call to call some other editor a "rude rag". I greatly appreciate helpful additions to articles... but oversimplification is a big problem with the whole subject area of the middle ages. It doesn't help when diagrams give the wrong impression. The tripartite division of society is actually not quite accurate - there were always merchants and others who did not work. Also, certain areas didn't quite divide that neatly - there was a significant section of German society that wasn't "free" but was of high status because it served the king. Nor did i weigh in on the deletion discussion. Just because a file is up for deletion is not a cause to stuff it into articles to stave off its deletion either. I have no care whether or not it gets deleted or not, but I would greatly appreciate an apology for the disparaging remarks about myself that were made here. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You left a rude, obnoxious and arrogant comment in the edit summary, "utterly useless and entirely too simplistic division ... not to mention not accurate percentages" The intent is plain and not appreciated hence the "rude rag" comment. On my part I was wrong for cramming it in there. 7mike5000 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the intent was to make plain why I was removing the picture. The fact that you thought it was rude is unfortunate, but that was not my intention. What would have worked best was to have perhaps approached me on my talk page and said that you found my comment rude and I would have apologized and told you such was not my intent. Words on the internet are impersonal and it costs nothing to ask someone if they really intended to be rude. You now have my apology if you thought I was rude, it was not my intent. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh boy. I translated the image from a French version upon request and have absolutely no idea whether the percentages are right or not; if Ealdgyth says they're not, I'd defer to her judgement on that, because she knows what she's talking about in that area. 7mike, I get where you're coming from over at FFD, but the "rude rag" comment (and some that followed) was out of line, and I'd ask that you please not continue that line of commentary. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New DYK hook to replace the one removed from queue 2?[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could check to see whether the Abdallah al-Battal article, currently in Prep 3, was safe for you to move into Queue 2 to replace the hook you just removed from the second-to-bottom position. It's one that I would probably suggest moving because it's a bio, and prep 3 can't be promoted soon, while prep 2 could, and at just the wrong moment. However, since I know you'd check it for close paraphrasing first, it would be best if you did it so we're definitely safe. We want eight hooks in every set; we don't want to add to our current backlog. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Orlady's already promoted a different article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yup, I was just about to say that. ;-) Hope it doesn't have any paraphrasing issues... Thanks anyway! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In honor of your service as a Milhist coordinator[edit]

The WikiProject Barnstar
In honor of your service as coordinator for the Military History Project from September 2011 to September 2012, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

I just fully protected Melville Island (Nova Scotia) for three days because of the back and forth reverting about the infobox. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've reprotected it since revert warring resumed once protection expired. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large removals, small talk[edit]

Don't you think you should explain just a bit more? As someone expressed at least once recently, you seem to do removals perhaps too readily. Shenme (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question was tagged as being problematic, which is why that edit was made. If you believe you can address the issue satisfactorily in another way, feel free to try. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page reviewed[edit]

"18:01, 9 September 2012 Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) marked User:Darwinbish/Stockfish as reviewed"

What what? New pages must be reviewed? How "marked" (does it show on page?) Already used scary new template here, hehe. Nikki and others feel free use them all, teach everybody a lesson! darwinbish BITE 18:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

As part of strange new page curation tool-thingy, a sidebar shows up on many new pages. Reviewed page shows as marked on the list, but I think not on the page itself. Tool also makes it easier to use templates to complain give feedback to editors - maybe Darwinbish should request that scary new template be added to default list! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this okay?[edit]

Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you, but I was taking a look at Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club, which has just been approved as a DYK nominee, though it isn't yet promoted. My question: is the History section structurally too close to the source (including the paraphrasing, which might or might not be close), which is an article from the Friends of Gilbraltar newsletter (pages 10 and 11, starting with the bottom of the first column on page 10, and continuing through the first two paragraphs on page 11). Or is this acceptable usage? Thanks for your thoughts on this. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think several of the sources in the article are copied a bit too closely, with the one you point out being perhaps the most egregious. Compare for example "Membership in the Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club continues to be a status symbol" to "To be a member of the RGYC...continues to be perceived as a status symbol" in FN2. But to answer your question: yes, structurally I would say FN1 is inadequately paraphrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't want to cancel out the approval if I was offbase. I have now done so, and taken the liberty of referring to this exchange in my writeup at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club‎. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to please take another look at this now that it's been updated? (I'm asking you to take over the review at this stage, and respond to it with the appropriate icon and commentary.) You did say "several of the sources are copied a bit too closely" in your original reply to me, and I'm not sure, looking at the diff showing the changes (or by the comment in the nomination template), this has been addressed sufficiently. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN[edit]

Please discuss your recent changes to WP:OWN on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made over a month ago are not exactly recent. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jawahar Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lal Qila (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) 11:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hanged, drawn and quartered[edit]

I've reversed your edit because your edit illustrates the misperception my edit is attempting to avoid. The "drawn" in the article refers to disembowelling, not dragging. By using the same term for two completely different acts in the article (1. to disembowel and 2. to drag) creates confusion. I have changed drawn (behind a horse) to dragged, so that people don't mistake that action with the "drawn", i.e. disembowelling in the article's title. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that anyone could be confused by "Convicts were fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where they were hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded and quartered (chopped into four pieces)" is ridiculous. Nobody is going to read that and presume it means "and disembowelled by horse". And the use of "drawn" in the name of the sentence is ambiguous, as you would know if you'd read the article. Parrot of Doom 15:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast of champions[edit]

Thank you for saving other Wikipedia editors from those brownies. I will heroic ly eat them for breakfast, all of them. (olive (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the help with the GEL[edit]

Hi Nikki Just came to update the GEL Course Page and found it already done. Thank you. I appreciate your help. TomHaffie (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jschnur (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ivica Dačić[edit]

Nikkimaria, I originally found some glaring close paraphrasing from a single source (the BBC article), and after quite some time and various revisions, the article has gotten to the point where that source is no longer a problem. The issue: I don't trust the original review to have done any other checking, it needs to be done, and I'm frankly not up to it. Can I ask you to do your standard paraphrase check, and either approve the article if it seems okay, or list there any new problems you find? Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diva question[edit]

You said to me:

As to the diva issue, consider the comments that immediately preceded my remark: "I see that I'm not welcomed here...I don't feel free to make anymore comments on this page. I'm not one of those allowed to have an opinion here...I'm not allowed to have an opinion". You might not have intended it that way, but this reads as a search for validation, and the exact kind of "storming off in a huff" that DIVA warns against. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So your saying that if I don't post on the Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles page, then I'm a diva? That saying I don't feel welcome on a page where I've been personally attacked is equivalent to the "common response by an editor confronted with ownership behavior is to threaten to leave the project." Really?

I seems then that the only way I can avoid being a diva, in your opinion, is to continue to post on that page.

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. There is a difference between simply silently choosing not to respond, and going on a rant about why you feel unable to respond and how everyone hates you and how your opinion isn't valued. If you had done the former, you would have earned some respect for knowing when you need to step away from a conversation that isn't productive. You did the latter, which is what prompted my comment.
I could have been much blunter in how I phrased my comments to you in that discussion. To some extent, that was the approach Malleus took, and I understand why he did so. What would be really, really helpful in making future discussions of this nature more productive would be if you could understand why this went down the way it did. You don't have to agree with the positions that others take, but you do need to try to see where they're coming from and respect that, like you, they are humans and have feelings and opinions. If you can do that, you are more likely to get respect in return. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would be really helpful would be if you and Malleus Fatuorum treated other editors with some respect. So you will defend Malleus Fatuorum whatever - even as he calls people "assholes" as he has just done?[4] Wow! That speaks volumes. You've been quite blunt enough. Ownership in action! All over a little star that readers aren't even aware of. I'm embarrassed for you both. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps what Nikkimaria is trying to say, but is being too subtle, is that your passive-aggressive schtick is pretty transparent. If you want it to succeed, you're going to need to work on your technique to make it more effective. No one with a brain is going to look at that thread and think "poor innocent Matthew is being picked on". They're going to look at that thread and think you started that thread because you thought it was a way to attack editors you didn't like, hoping to rely on plausible deniability if someone accused you of it. But your deniability isn't plausible, you weren't subtle enough, so your hurt feelings make it look like you can dish it out but can't take it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Perhaps I might interject here? I think one thing that got Nikki and Malleus' backs up was the fact that your initial post didn't say "some" FA editors had those behaviors you described. I know I read it as an indictment of ALL FA editors - and was a bit offended. I see later where you state that at least one FA editor doesn't fit your description, but you didn't make it clear in the beginning that you only saw that description as applying to just some editors. Also, I was a bit offended by "Since FAs usually have low number of page views..." since some of the FAs I've worked on have quite large page views - William the Conqueror or Thoroughbred come to mind. I generally try to be forgiving of folks tweaking my prose, but I am not going to allow folks to distort the sources of articles I've worked on. However, not all folks are as easy going about prose tweaks, and even I can get tired of the "I-just-have-to-prove-I-can-change-this" type of editor we often see on FAs - that change words seemingly just because they can... Too many editors on Wikipedia seem to think that their personal preferences on wording choices are the only right choices. Nothing is more discouraging to an editor of an article than to have some editor swoop in, seize on some tiny little bit of a huge article, and act like a wording choice they don't agree with makes the entire article total crap. After months of this sort of thing, it gets really hard to deal with being told in effect that YOUR hard work isn't as valued as some newb editor. I am sure you didn't mean to imply that in your intitial post, but there was an undertone of "newbs matter more than folks who have proven their commitment to providing content over the years" to your post ... and that's very discouraging. Why should someone who hasn't proven their abilities to provide content be valued more than someone who HAS proven that ability? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth - I think you make good points and frankly I felt the same as you did when I read the original post. Given that FA stewardship is being challenged at WP:OWN, I think what you've written above, or some form of it, should be added to the discussion there. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Succeed at what? Nikkimaria is hardly "subtle". You're saying she should really be nastier? All I want to do is edit collaboratively which is what I thought wp was about. Saying "your passive-aggressive schtick is pretty transparent." etc. "poor innocent Matthew is being picked on". "They're going to look at that thread and think you started that thread because you thought it was a way to attack editors you didn't like, hoping to rely on plausible deniability if someone accused you of it. But your deniability isn't plausible, you weren't subtle enough, so your hurt feelings make it look like you can dish it out but can't take it." This is disgusting. I get the message. wp is not a collaborative endevour. ok, you, Malleus Fatuorum, and Nikkimaria all prefer to comment on the editor rather than follow the rule of commenting on the content not the editor.

All the stuff that Worm taught me in his mentoring class are meaningless. Ought to tell him that he's misleading new editors and sending them down the garden path. I get it. Why should I bother: "Why should someone who hasn't proven their abilities to provide content be valued more than someone who HAS proven that ability?" By writing non collaborative articles? What's the point when the atmosphere is so nasty? Everything is about how many "stars" someone has collected, something readers are unaware of. ok, I acknowledge that you are all superior to me, a newcomer. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Truthkeeper88. Why should you take a general comment personally? I'm not allowed to take personal attacks personally. I don't get it. Everything I say is about you? Who are you? MathewTownsend (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew we all get upset and everyone reacts differently. I don't believe I've ever interacted with you, and apologize if you took my comment wrong. It's time for me to log out now because I have a long day at work ahead of me. Who am I? A fellow Wikipedian. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who the Hell do you think you are? Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you speaking to me? I thought I was a new and enthusiastic editor who was trying to do his best by the encyclopeida. But now I see that's not what it's about. It's about calling people "assholes" and other personal attacks which are ok because you're allowed to violate the civility policies. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you ought to be looking in the mirror Mathew. And in the future don't start what you can't finish. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be looking in the mirror too, Malleus Fatuorum. And in the future, stop personally attacking editors such as calling them "asshole". Recommend being minimally civil, if you aren't able to be truly civil. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't know when to stop. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are proud of Tickle Cock Bridge and Gropecunt Lane and your more than 500 GAs. I apologize for accidentally removing Tickle Cock Bridge. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew: Seriously, you are not achieving anything useful here, but just getting yourself and others more upset. Drop it. Everyone else: I appreciate that all of you are trying to help Mathew get the point, but if he is not able to understand why this has become such a problem for him, I don't know that anything we can do here is likely to be beneficial. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to move forward[edit]

Never mind after seeing hundreds of edits I have movd this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#CBS Records.Moxy (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Not sure what should be done about a problem I am having. Over at Talk:CBS Records you will see an ongoing talk about were links should go and if the page should be a dab page or not. ..talks are not going well. but that's not why I am here. The reason I am here is I am wondering what happens when an editor simply keeps redirecting links - making the page a dab page during the talks on the links and what should be done about the page. Basically during the talk we have an editors still doing what they believe is best despite concerns raised about there actions because of an ongoing talk about the topics. I there somewhere to go that will look this over.Moxy (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inre don't stop believin' tv series[edit]

Hi, this is regarding your edit at Don't Stop Believin' (TV series), in which you removed a large chunk of words. Not sure about the policies on dramas, is it appropriate to remove plots for drama serial pages? Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you reply on your talk, do leave a talkback on my talk Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2012[edit]

Just as a friendly reminder, you are one of five people who are listed as serving on the current coordinator tranche of the Military history Project that have not yet indicated whether you will be standing for reelection in the upcoming election. The deadline to clarify is 23:59 today, and having an answer from you will help us determine with a greater degree of certainty who will be returning and who won't, so if you can spare a moment please drop by and amend your status in the table accordingly. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for Microsoft Security Essentials[edit]

I'm relieved to see your comments there; I was beginning to feel like some kind of pariah among all the fan supports. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange which topics seem to attract those – I wouldn't have guessed anti-virus software would have so many fans. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm out of touch. Maybe FAs aren't supposed to be our best work any more, just our most popular work. Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Harris[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. Could I bother you for a source review of Sadie Harris at its FAC? No rush, of course. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I replied to your comments at the FAC. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Ray Farquharson[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Ray Farquharson know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 15, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 15, 2012. 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:

Ray Farquharson

Ray Farquharson (1897–1965) was a Canadian doctor, university professor, and medical researcher. Born in Claude, Ontario, he attended and taught at the University of Toronto for most of his life, and was trained and employed at Toronto General Hospital. With co-researcher Arthur Squires, Farquharson was responsible for the discovery of the "Farquharson phenomenon", an important principle of endocrinology. He served in the First and Second World Wars, earning appointment as a Member of the Order of the British Empire for his medical work during the latter. He chaired the Penicillin Committee of Canada and served as a medical consultant for the Royal Canadian Air Force. He was awarded the Queen's Coronation Medal in 1953 as a result of his work for the Defence Review Board. As a member of the National Research Council of Canada, his "Farquharson Report" led to the establishment of the Medical Research Council of Canada, of which he was the first president. Farquharson was posthumously inducted into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame in 1998. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_16&oldid=1142479300"