User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19

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

DYK for Hair-grooming syncope[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" FAN[edit]

I believe I have fixed and/or addressed all the points you brought up at the FAN page for the source and image review. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination of Jainism[edit]

Hello, I am going to renominate the article on Jainism. Therefore, I would like to know whether the concerns that you raised in the previous nomination of this article have been addressed or not. Thanks. Rahul Jain (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charmed (Volume 2), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Binky (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) 11:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Erika Nordby[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]

The Hermit of Eyton Forest (Ellis Peters Cadfael Chronicles)[edit]

Nikkimaria, you deleted a couple of references with this remark, cryptic to me. rm non-RS Could you explain that? Thanks Prairieplant (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prairieplant, what I meant by that was that those citations did not meet our criteria for reliable sources (abbreviated RS). See also WP:USERG and WP:NOTRS. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use check[edit]

Since you appear to have an eye for and be a trusted source on fair use gray areas for text, I figured I would ask for some help on the Agaja page (one of my early contributions that I'll be trying to move up the ladder once I find better images). Under the Agaja and the slave trade heading, I included a number of text boxes to put the debate in direct dialogue with one another. Although I think all are fair use (and would use them as such off of wikipedia), please let me know any which you think cross the line and which you think getting permission is the safer way to go. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. To make helping me out a little easier, there are five sources and here are the lengths: Davidson 140 words (304 page book), Akinjogbin 98 words (234 page book), Law 65 words (30 page article), Henige and Johnson 90 words (10 page article 1.285% of total article), Bay 102 words(376 page book). Seriously, just to set my mind at ease would help tremendously. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AbstractIllusions. Based on the numbers you're giving me, you're probably okay in terms of fair use. I'm not sure whether having so many long quotes is the best stylistic choice, but that part's at your discretion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks...style's never been my forte, but we'll see. Thank you again! AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) FAC[edit]

Hi Nikki, my general request at WT:FAC hasn't elicited any response, so if you have a chance to spotcheck a few refs here that'd be great. I promise to stop by FAR/FARC soon... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, thanks for your spot check. I've addressed your concerns on he FAC page, if ou wouldn't mind having another look. Thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing through on the way to bed after a late night... Tks for that, Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

Guidance on Camouflage[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, thank you very much for taking the time to look at the Camouflage FAC. I will of course address all the issues you have named — it is quite a step change from what I'm used to in ordinary editing. Since this is my first attempt at such a thing, it would be very helpful if you could let me know what MOS issues are most evident. Also, to avoid wasting other people's time, please feel free to be frank — should I just give up now or is there a reasonable chance of success if I fix the named issues? Many thanks again for your time. --- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just preface this by saying that I did not read the article in detail, mostly just skimmed to make sure there were citations where I expected to see them - so I have no idea whether the text itself is brilliant, awful, or somewhere in between. That being said, you're easily going to need a couple of hours to get citations figured out, more if you need to look up page numbers and such. I don't know whether images have been completely fixed, but licensing on those needs to be checked for sure. The MOS issues I saw were overlinking (eg. mimicry twice in the lead, research at all), MOS:PERCENT, and WP:SEEALSO; there might be others. So in sum: this could pass, but it would require a lot of work, and quickly.
If you don't want to withdraw, do you want help? If you could decide on a consistent style for references, I could fix most of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was budgeting on a week's work (say, 40 hours) to sort this, so it sounds as if we might be able to sort it. I would very much like some help (felt a bit lost and lonely this morning) and was just wondering how to raise the matter - I am uncertain of the rules around asking about, don't want to fall foul of canvassing - but teamwork would be infinitely preferable. I think there are very few genuinely missing page numbers, and we can surely replace those with other refs if need be, this is a well-studied topic. The main difficulty is on the military side where a lot of work is either secret or only talked about on forums, though there are some general books and with care some usable manufacturers' sites.

I believe the text is generally clear, accurate, concise, and represents wide scientific agreement; I've tried to indicate areas where research is needed.

On references, I suggest we go for Bloggs, J (2013). Title. Printit Verlag. pp. 77-81. which I think I've followed now. I've used Bloggs, 2013. pp. 77-81. when many refs from same book, is it ok to mix that style with the rest?

On citations, I suggest we aim for author=, title=, publisher=, year=, pages=, url=. Obviously journals also have vol=, issue= (after the year). Happy with anything you propose however.

Not sure how to find the page no in The Times of 1971 (Norman Wilkinson's obituary).

Have sorted Darwin's page.

Will move books not cited to a new "Further reading" section (e.g. children's books), hope that's ok.

Will check PERCENT, SEEALSO immediately now, please point me at what else I should be getting on with. With huge thanks -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've started dealing with references and MOS issues; once you've sorted bib vs further reading that should go faster. Are you satisfied with the images now? I'm out for a bit now and thought to check licensing later, but there's no point doing that if there are major changes coming yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done PERCENT, SEEALSO, Bibliog. I have no plans to change images unless FAC comments mandate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'm done for now. While I was going through, I noticed there's a bit of repeated information through - you might take a look at that from an organizational viewpoint. Also missing page numbers for current FNs 78 and 96. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, really helpful. What kind of repetition? Mentions of military? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly between History and other sections - Thayer, Mare in two other sections, Wilkinson in two, Cott reappears in Military. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will sort those out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC: H. C. McNeile[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I wonder if I could please request a reference check on an article currently at FAC: H. C. McNeile. I'm reasonably confident of the refs, but there is always a possibility I have made any number of errors! Many thanks if you have the time! – SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, Many thanks for casting your eyes over McNeile: it's much appreciated and I think I've covered all your points now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dobroslav Jevđević/archive1[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. This FAC is now the oldest. Would you mind having a look at the responses to your comments on it, and indicate whether you support it or not (if you normally do that)? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker, I generally don't support articles based only on source/image reviews, sorry! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just checking with everyone who made comments. I'll put out a general request at MILHIST. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I see you are again edit-warring to force your version of an article at Russian Symphony Orchestra Society. You need to stop now. It is completely unacceptable to stalk an editor's edits removing infoboxes with misleading edit summaries such as fmt. You have now removed two versions of infoboxes by two different editors on that article - and I'm still waiting for your response from the last time you engaged in edit warring to force your version on an article. We discussed this very issue only a few weeks ago and I did my utmost to try to seek common ground between you and Andy, but it seems in vain as you have still not acknowledged that the give-and-take debate there had any effect on your behaviour at all. The same arguments remain: infoboxes provide a summary and quick overview for readers who just want that; they also emit metadata that is useful for our re-users. I understand your concerns that on some topics an infobox summary may over-simplify to the point of being misleading; nevertheless that happens in a minority of cases and the onus is on you to explain your concerns to other editors who have put the effort into providing an infobox. Completely removing an infobox with an edit summary that suggests you are performing simple formatting is quite rude and displays an unattractive lack of consideration for the good-faith contributions of others. I'm quite happy to discuss with you on the article talk page, if you are prepared to show you are willing to engage in debate on the issues, but after your failure to come to any agreement at Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler after all the effort I put in to accommodate your concerns on this very page, ought I to expect any effort to reach consensus on your part now? --RexxS (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RexxS, how lovely to talk to you again. It seems you are mistaken about some of the events that have transpired. First, it was you who began the edit-war on the symphony page: Andy had boldly added an infobox and I had removed it, so per WP:BRD those in support of the box should have sought consensus for same at talk - and yet I see that you re-added a box without attempting to do so, and indeed have now done so a second time (using a summary of "reformat", which I'm sure makes sense given your objection to "fmt"...somehow). That's rather disappointing given your previous statements about edit-warring and seeking consensus. I am aware of the arguments you have made for infoboxes, but I'm afraid that a boxed summary isn't really all that helpful when the details provided by the infobox in question are all in the very first sentence of the article. The current consensus is that infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited, so the onus is on the person who wishes to deviate from the status quo - in this case, you - to justify that. As to the Hessler article, I believe I had agreed to the compromise infobox, but Andy had rejected it out-of-hand; I'm not sure why you suggest this to be a failing on my part. I'm sure reasonable explanations from you on these issues will be forthcoming. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reasoned response, Nikki. I can see how you reached your perspective on the edits at Russian Symphony Orchestra Society, but if you remember the concerns you expressed about the Hessler article, you can see that I tried to create an infobox (218 bytes) on RSOS that hopefully would meet some of those concerns, rather than simply reinstating the "bloated" infobox (455 bytes) that Andy had added and you reverted. I had hoped that this was part of the process of looking for common ground and I must admit I felt rebuffed by your curt removal of my effort with the edit summary "fmt". I actually thought "reformat" was a witty rejoinder, but text is such a fragile medium for communication. I do accept that a very short boxed summary is almost redundant when its information is in the first sentence, but that still doesn't provide metadata. I will also cheerfully accept that a stubby little infobox is an aesthetically poor mechanism for supplying metadata, and we ought to be working on technologies to substitute for that - but they are not here yet.
The current consensus is indeed that infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited. I would, however, quibble with how you are using "staus quo". Our wiki-philosophy and BRD says that we are welcome to deviate from the status quo (and the burden to explain is on those who wish to revert to it), otherwise the crowd-sourcing model breaks down. I do understand that well-developed articles can carry some weight in their status quo, but new articles and short stubs need to be edited, and over-deference to keeping things the way they are stifles genuine innovation and development of the article. So we will have to disagree on where the onus to discuss should lie. I would point out that I am the one who initiated this discussion though.
I apologise for my mistakes on the Christopher Pinchbeck article. You are absolutely right, and as an olive branch there, I've unlinked "England" as it is a worthless link compared to Clerkenwell - would you agree?
I must admit I missed the part where you agreed to the infobox on Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler, and it was clearly wrong of me to feel disappointed with you for not reaching a consensus. I will attempt to re-engage Andy on that issue with a view to moving forward there. Thankfully, we have no deadline! Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your efforts to compromise, Rex, and I'm happy to leave the Pinchbeck box in place in light of the improvements made there. I still must disagree with you on the relative benefit vs cost of the orchestra box, though, and on your interpretation of "status quo". I appreciate that you feel metadata is important, which is why I had tried using the {{start date}} template in the revised version of the article, but it simply does not outweigh the faults of the box in this case. I had previously asked Andy whether there were means to provide metadata outside of boxes, but IIRC (not having the conversation to hand) he did not suggest any alternatives. I don't have the technical knowledge to readily tell exactly what data the box is emitting - could you tell me how to see that? As to "status quo", BRD specifically places the burden to discuss and gain consensus on the person(s) making the initial bold edit, not those reverting; I believe CON does the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with metadata (as I understand it) is that our implementation relies on particular classes to identify. It's really not a simple job for most editors so what tends to happen is that they get embedded into our templates which act as a "wrapper" that hides the syntax and allows more editors to use them by simply supplying parameters. Of course, you then get an infobox! Hope that makes sense (or at least gives you more insight).
You're quite right about what our policies say, but I was trying to express my disquiet at their stifling effect on articles that most need to be edited. I'm not sure if I expressed myself well enough to explain the point I wanted to make about BRD, but it's essentially that if somebody doesn't succinctly inform the Bold editor why they Reverted those efforts, they don't get off to a good start in trying to have a Discussion! Of course, experienced editors probably understand without so much explanation, but the more curt the edit summary, the more the impression gained that the reverter viewed that edit as vandalism. I know you do a large number of small cleanup edits, so don't want to spend forever on getting precisely the mot juste in the summary, but I'm pretty sure it rubs Andy up the wrong way when his works disappears with a very short edit summary. Have a think anyway. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox invisible}} is your friend. All the metadata present and correct, without the need for a big unsightly and inappropriate box cluttering a third of the page. 92.40.227.2 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Tried that, but encountered problems. I've posed a question at the TfD page that I feel would present the best possible solution, if technically feasible - allowing for both metadata and no visible box. The best of both worlds for cases like this one, and perhaps even for the composer pages. Rex, sorry, but I'm not seeing a possible compromise with Andy here, although if you can come up with one so much the better. I do appreciate your efforts, though, and wish you the best. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nick Dixon (Canadian journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan McLean (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) 11:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki ...[edit]

I saw what appeared to be a change in user-rights to the user Orangemarlin account. I was wondering if you had heard from him. I know the account is blocked at the moment, but he was someone I rather liked (even if I didn't always agree with him). The last I had heard was that he had some serious issues related to his health, and I was hoping that he was doing well. If it's something you can't discuss publicly, I can certainly understand though. TY and cheers. — Ched :  ?  14:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ched, sorry, I don't know anything beyond what he's posted on-wiki. The user-rights thing was a reversion - someone had missed the RfC about rights for blocked users. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh .. ok. Well thanks for the feedback anyway. Have a good one. — Ched :  ?  19:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waheed Akhtar[edit]

Sorry for my edit. I've re-checked the source. It is not what I thought it was. Thanks for the great job you do. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit noting "rm non-RS"[edit]

Hello. You just recently edited changes I made to the Chris Messina page. You noted the reason "rm non-RS" in deleting a cited source. I'm just curious as to why? Newbie here and still trying to figure out things and reasons why. It seems curious to me to delete a source. Still trying to get clear on when sources are needed and when not. I'd appreciate it if you can explain. Thank you. Miggseye (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miggseye. The source in question was not one that is considered a reliable source according to our policies, specifically WP:USERG. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template documentation[edit]

Hello. Could you please provide me with a cite to policy that says that template documentation does not have to adhere to WP:NPOV? Specifically, why is it not subject to All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a considerable stretch to apply that single sentence to template documentation when the rest of the policy – and related pages like WP:5P – specify articles almost exclusively. Do you have any cite to policy describing template documentation – which does not appear in articlespace and is not AFAICT addressed by any content policy – as "encyclopedic content" requiring adherence to all the policies that entails? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the three pillars, don't you think it's more reasonable to include template documentation within the penumbra of "encyclopedic content" unless it is specifically excluded? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean five pillars (WP:5P)? Assuming so, that page specifically limits NPOV to articles, not any other content. (If you meant three, you'll have to clarify for me). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to confuse the issue - I meant the three core content policies, along with verifiability and no original research. Regardless of whether the NPOV page refers mostly to articles (which makes sense, since that is its primary applicability), the sentence I quoted above expands its role beyond articles to "other encyclopedic content." Is it your position that template documentation is not "encyclopedic content"? If so, what, other than articles, would you deem that phrase to refer to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Then yes, my position is that documentation of any kind - templates, projectspace, whatever - does not constitute encyclopedic content. I would read that phrase as referring to content that actually appears in mainspace, like diagrams or images. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable interpretation, however I still don't see the need for POV statements in template documentation, it seems unnecessarily WP:POINTy to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we raise the issue of documentation wording if the template is kept, then? That way there will be less complaints about "disrupting the TfD", and if the thing is deleted we won't have wasted time talking about its wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

Quick question[edit]

Hi. So, I'm trying to get an image of a signature of Arthur W. Radford, which I have at FAC right now. The best image I can find is on this [1]. Now, I believe this is something I can crop off that image and license under {{PD-ineligible}} and {{PD-USGov-Navy}} since it's a document written by a U.S. military official during the course of his duties and I just want to grab the signature, but I can't find a copy of the image on LOC.gov or any other government site, so I don't know if that checks out. Is this something I can do? —Ed!(talk) 15:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could do that, yes, but wouldn't it be simpler to just use {{PD-signature}}? US sigs are PD per Com:SIG. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's awesome! I did not know about that. Thanks for your help! —Ed!(talk) 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to implement TAFI that affects OTD[edit]

Discussion is ongoing about how to implement Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page. A proposal is being worked on with general community support, where TAFI is put it on the left hand side, below the DYK content. In order to balance the Main Page, part of this proposal involves increasing the OTD content by one item per day. Since you are an editor involved in the process, I would ask if you could comment on the proposal. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Konna[edit]

Nikkimaria, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen the reply to your close paraphrasing concerns here. Can you stop by and comment on where matters stand now? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be back so soon, but there are a couple of other articles I was hoping you could take a quick look at:

  • There's a possible copyvio that has a request for a second opinion at Template:Did you know nominations/History of Bahrain (1783–1971). Do you think you could take a look? Thank you. (Note: as the article was moved to mainspace on February 10, it is eligible timewise for DYK.)
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Kelletia kelletii has 10361 prose characters, but incorporates text from four sources, and references those sources many dozens of times. It was approved, though I'm pretty sure this issue wasn't examined, and while it's very likely that at least 1500 prose characters are original, I can't be sure; I was wondering whether you thought it was worth looking into. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for taking on all three so quickly. I very much appreciate it! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help index[edit]

Question - I recently created the page Wikipedia:Help index - would it be possible to have the page indefently semi protected or just semi protected for a long time (WP:SEMI High-risk ?). Its a new page and has only me as a watcher and is linked to by way of over 300 pages now. It is the norm for the other help pages of this nature right? Help:Contents - Help:Contents/Browse - Wikipedia:FAQ. What do you think? Moxy (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moxy, as I understand it the high-risk criterion is usually applied to templates, but you'd probably be able to argue it at WP:RfPP. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 52 FAC[edit]

Hi again Nikki. This one has had a spotcheck at an earlier review but I'd appreciate one of your SRs for formatting, reliability, etc, if you could... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, sorry I didn't get back sooner to say thanks for the prompt response. If I can bother you again, another that's about ready to close and could use your usual double (image and source review) is here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Andy Mineo[edit]

Nikkimaria, there were previously close paraphrasing issues with the Andy Mineo article in this three-article hook: can you please check to see whether they've been adequately addressed?

You expressed your opinion on the Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Konna article, and the nominator (who was not one of the authors) has withdrawn it. If there are any copyvio or close paraphrasing that needs to be pulled from the article, can you please take that under your wing? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding on the Andy Mineo article. There's another one like the Battle of Konna article, only perhaps more serious: Mohamed CJ has given up on the Template:Did you know nominations/History of Bahrain (1783–1971) nomination, and put a close paraphrase template on the article, saying "I've tagged the article, as I currently don't have time to fix this issue." Is there anything else that needs to be done to clean it up? Should we transclude the nomination on the article's talk page as a partial explanation of the close paraphrasing issue? This situation with the article template is new to me. I'll be closing the nomination once I know how we go forward from here (assuming someone doesn't beat me to it). Many thanks for your help! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's tagged, that means it's been added to a backlog of articles to be fixed - we could fix it ourselves, or we could leave it for someone else to do, but either way it'll get done at some point. You could transclude the nomination, it may or may not be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I've transcluded the nomination, and also formally rejected it. Good to know that the tagging means it will get done at some point: I have to confess I have no desire to tackle the job myself. Mohamed CJ did address some of them, which may have been the ones that were specifically identified during the course of the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership[edit]

You have just removed, for the fourth time in under 24 hours, the "That was just a drive-by edit" bullet point from Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, despite knowing that to be a contested removal. I'm writing to invite you to revert that removal and discuss the changes you wish to make on the page's talk page, in order that consensus can be reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my misgivings about the entry, I've left it in in a paraphrased form, which anyone is free to remove entirely. If you really feel the original is preferable, you might consider arguing for it on the talk page - I don't think you sought consensus before adding it or when it was first removed, but if you did by all means give me a link. Of course it would be inappropriate for any individual to use a policy page as a repository for comments they feel violate it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your appreciation...[edit]

... is much appreciated. Thanks for your kind thought. Very best wishes, BencherliteTalk 09:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Metroxylon vitiense[edit]

I just noticed that this was noted in its initial DYK review as having close paraphrasing. The author says that all such instances have been fixed. Is there a chance you could check this to see whether it's now free from close paraphrasing issues? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol Laws of New Jersey[edit]

Nikkimaria, I replied to your comments at WP:featured article candidates/Alcohol laws of New Jersey/archive1. DavidinNJ (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the captions per your comments. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File review checkup[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for the image review at Omayra Sánchez. I have attempted a new FUR at File:Omayra Sanchez.jpg. Is it improved, or does it still need some work? ceranthor 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC request[edit]

Hi Nikki, wanted to let you know that I've re-submitted Sesame Street research for yet another FAC. [2] Thought you'd be interested, since you reviewed its first FAC. I thought that both FACs failed due to lack of support, and it's kind of a strange article, so I'd appreciate your assistance. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mark A. Clark (general)[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm hoping you can take a quick look at this hook, which I've just moved to Prep 3 so it'll be the last promoted. (It had been in prep 1.) Even so, it would could reach the main page

It came to my attention because it was passed and promoted with a hook just over maximum length, at 201 characters, and when I looked at the first source some of the text looked familiar. I'm not sure if the sorts of strings Duplication Detector is coming up with are those that really shouldn't be changed or not, so I was hoping you could check to see whether this is a close paraphrasing problem or not. For that matter, is it notable? The guy's rank and position may be notable, but the sourcing is all military or blogs, so far as I can tell, which seems dicey. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have extra time, the "going out on a limb" comment about close paraphrasing by the reviewer of Template:Did you know nominations/6th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam does not give much confidence... BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Clark is notable. The sourcing on that article is questionable (for example, FNs 1 and 4 appear to be the same document hosted on different sites), but the content is mostly reasonably paraphrased, and structurally there's not much else that could be done with it. So in sum, it's not a great article, but it meets the letter of the rules...
A bit busy IRL right now, but I'll try to have a look at the other shortly (and answer those poor people up the page I've been neglecting - sorry guys!) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking the Clark; it's on the main page as I type this. If you happen to be around, the Vietnam one is due to hit the main page in about three and a half hours; if not, I guess I'll have to trust that the promoter got it right... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A belated thank you for looking at the second article; under the circumstances, I'm glad you had time to catch it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion FAC[edit]

Hi again Nikki, saw your prev post re. RL commitments so I'll be patient with this one... ;-) I'm not sure if the source issues you raised at this article's previous FAC were addressed, plus Andy found probs during a spotcheck, so if you're able to revisit sourcing in its current incarnation, that'd be great -- and if you're able to do a quick spotcheck as well, even better! I'll leave a message similar to this at Andy's talk page as well, though I don't hold out much hope there as he hasn't edited for a month or so... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm new the the FAC process and I think there are some terminology that I am not familiar with. I have done all that I could. However, there are some things you mentioned that I'm not sure how to address, such as "page formatting" and "Compare FNs 38 and 40". Can you clarify? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid I can't do much about the long page range for that book source since I don't own the official guide. However, I think I addressed your other concerns. Can you check to see if there are any remaining source issues? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the wikilink issues you brought up. However, I didn't change the hypens for some of the refs because the source themselves use hypens in their titles. Does the article's sourcing now meet the FA criteria? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think so, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Here I didn't understand your edit notice, what do you mean by "compresses"? - Compare Talk:Robert Stoepel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting pushes the next image into the following sections, displacing the section headings and edit buttons. It's such a pretty image that we don't want it smaller, adding a clear would leave a lot of whitespace, putting it on the other side would cause sandwiching, and the text to which it is relevant is closer to the top of that section. Incidentally, the "influenced by" is rather nebulous for most articles of this type. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. - "Nebulous": how would you then say that Heiller was an influential teacher, whom he showed off in master classes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on which individual you mean by "he", I'd suggest explaining and sourcing this in the relevant section of the relevant article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Planyavsky made his teacher a main topic of master classes and wrote a book on him, "Anton Heiller. Alle Register eines Lebens". - Different question: what do you mean by "doesn't solve" here. - I understand that the lead image should be of the person. If it is a good image. This isn't, do we agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we do. I agree that the church image is prettier, but that doesn't make it a better image to identify the person, which is the purpose of the lead image. The picture of him satisfies the need to visually identify him, so in that sense it's a "good" image. By "doesn't solve", I meant your change didn't resolve the issue of compression I noted with the earlier version. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the cropped version of his pic! - On the talk, we have now six people in favour of an infobox, don't you think that is consensus to have one? I don't see "compression" as a problem, looking at the extra service to readers. See also - none of some 27k viewers said to remove the infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as only Andy has commented on the merits of the collapsed box, no, I wouldn't say consensus has been reached. We may disagree on "service to readers" too. As to the German article, two points: de.wiki has rather a different culture from here (as I'm sure you've noticed), and readership has little to do with the merits of a particular piece of content (as most readers never comment either for or against a box, or anything else for that matter). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting interpretation: I see four people (besides me) for an open infobox, before hidden/collapsed was ever mentioned. Do you expect them to return and comment again? - Did you see the more general discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was more wondering how they got there in the first place, but I'm sure most would be willing to work to reach a compromise. Besides, there is a box in the article at the moment, and I see you've moved it up despite my concerns about accessibility for newbies, so I'm not really sure what you're looking for. Would you like to apply the more general discussion to this article? Then surely we would need to equally apply the general discussions about infoboxes in composer articles as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I commented in the general discussion, so - as I saw later - did you. Accessibility to the handicapped is a concern raised there, which seems more important to me than that to newbies. I don't expect a newbie editing this article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ps: explore WP:QAI --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, it doesn't have to be either/or: having no infobox means the article is accessible to both those with disabilities and newbies - no buttons to click, and no intimidating templatetext at the top. Having a collapsed infobox at the bottom is meant to serve as a means of emitting metadata, which apparently can't be done in a less cludgy way (but really should be possible), without affecting either accessibility for any group or article quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the general discussion: "To many readers the Infobox is all that is important." - I am willing to serve those readers also. Something collapsed at the end of an article doesn't fulfil the purpose, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't "also", it's "instead of everyone else". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't get that, - some readers are served by the quick facts of an infobox, others by the details of the article, some may be tempted to read further by the quick facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newbies are not served by being confronted with a wall of intimidating wikitext when they hit "edit" (this is well documented in research literature, unlike the vague "to many readers" quoted above); readers are not served by an infobox that is too long, is unwieldy, is redundant and reductive, lacks the nuance of the article text, is wrong, impedes navigation, compresses images, glares, and generally degrades the article; those with disabilities are not served by a template with small text, compressed images, and many parameters; editors are not served by spending time building, maintaining, and arguing over boxes, or dealing with boxes that impede navigation and usability, or having others impose ill-formed boxes on articles they have worked to form and develop; projects are not served by certain individuals contravening best practice guidelines to impose unsuitable templates; the encyclopedia is not served by conflating summary for readers with metadata meant for re-users. It's clear where the weight of argument falls. Maybe infoboxes can be useful for highly technical articles, where they summarize "specs" in a table...but otherwise, they are far more trouble than they are worth, and the sooner we develop a good way to provide metadata without them, the better. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like building infoboxes for "my" articles, such as Planyavsky or BWV 22, but accept what you wrote as your view, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Flagg[edit]

I was thinking of nominating this for FA again and was wondering what you thought.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a full review last time, but do you feel you've addressed Laser brain's concerns? You might also consider another PR, which hopefully might garner more input than the last. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Julius Althaus[edit]

Nikkimaria, this nom turned toxic pretty quickly, and I'm frankly unwilling to go in and determine whether the amount of public domain material means that the article meets or fails to meet the minimum size required for DYK noms, even though something of an apology has been made on my talk page. I'm hoping you'll be willing to take it on. The article started as entirely PD material, and underwent significant modification by Victuallers, who added several new non-PD sources. It was still "new" when it was nominated, having been created on February 15 and nominated on February 19, so it's the 1500 prose character number that would be germane.

Thank you for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

FAC Image review for Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012[edit]

First, thank you for taking a look at the article. The pictures are all the official photos of the Congressmen. The problem is that they are out of office, so the photos are no longer hosted on a US government website (at least that I can find). I really don't know what to do in this situation. Should I just delete the pictures?Casprings (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't, unless there are no other options. Have you tried checking for archived copies, like at archive.org for example? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will now.Casprings (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all issues are resolved and the picture (or replacement picture) was added back. Would you double check to make sure everything is good? Thanks again. Casprings (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Josiah Gregg[edit]

Nikkimaria, the review on this one mentions the reviewer was alerted to possible close paraphrasing in the article (I guess from prior to its recent expansion), and asks for assistance. Can you take a look? It's been almost a couple of weeks, so presumably there isn't a huge rush... Many thanks, and thanks for your recent assistance as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I raised the issue here on Gerda's page. I rewrote what I found, the nominator rewrote more, but might need more spotchecks and I've been busy. I was hoping the reviewer could do that so you're not burdened as much, but would actually welcome your input. Thanks for looking and also thanks for the SR & IR today on the Hemingway page. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
("the reviewer") thanks for looking, I am not the right one for that job, sorry, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC: Alcohol laws of New Jersey[edit]

You commented on the FAC nomination for Alcohol laws of New Jersey. We believe that we have addressed your concerns and improved the article, can we now count on your support? --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ColonelHenry, sorry, but I generally don't support just on an image review. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two thanks and unsolicited comments[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, a couple of things:

  • First, thanks for looking at Josiah Gregg. Can't remember now why I looked at the history - maybe to look at the expansion - but as soon as I saw Billy Hathorn's name my antenna went up and I checked sources. I was busy and couldn't really follow up, but your point re insufficient expansion kind of made me laugh.
  • Two – thanks for the SR/IR for the Hemingway page. You must have been reading my mind because I stopped by yesterday with the intention of asking but snuck away without leaving a message after reading the "Edit summary" conversation above.
  • Which brings me to the third comment: I don't want to get into yet another timesink of a conversation re infoboxes but thought I'd point out to whomever is interested that the current solution on the page discussed above (Peter Planyavsky) renders on my computer with the "hidden" "collapsed" data overlaying the text and the church image. So none of it is readable and no one is served.

Finally, thanks for all you do around here. I don't think you're told that often enough. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TK, does this version have the same problem? If not, it might be some kind of javascript issue. (If so, I have no idea). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's unbelievably bad - the "Quick reference" renders in the center of the fourth line down in the career section - overlapping the line. Clicking the open gives an infobox smack dab in the middle of the article, centered, surrounded by whitespace. If I weren't so lazy would take screen prints and upload. Maybe I will tomorrow - just popped in for a moment to report the "fatal error" earlier messages trying to log in - a bit ironic that. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. Yeah, if you get a chance maybe mention that at VPT. I'm not sure what's happening. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it works. I'll take screenshots but really would rather be building content than working on this. Though I suppose it's something that needs to be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your suggestions on titles for new Wikipedia articles and revising an old title[edit]

  • Several students in my course this semester are writing new articles on "Gender equality in El Salvador," "Gender inequality in Honduras" "Women in Liberia," "Women in Sudan" (or "Gender Inequality in Sudan"). My preference is for each of these articles to have the title "Gender inequality in...." since this would be the most encompassing and I want them to discuss scholarship on women relative to men. However, a student of mine reminded me that titling them "Women.." might direct more traffic to the article and that for Africa articles that seems to have been the tradition. On the other hand, I noticed that there was a "gender inequality in India" title which redirected me to "Women in India." Can you provide guidance on how to resolve this problem?
  • In a couple of cases of revising and expanding an existing stub, I think the article title needs to be changed. e.g. from "Women's healthcare in China" to "Women's health in China". How should they go about this? float it on the article talk page first and then go ahead when they post their revised article? BerikG (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Battalion Park[edit]

The particular instance of close paraphrasing you noted has been worked on, but only that instance. When you have the time, can you please check to see whether the article is fine, or still problematic? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you checking. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Theodora Cormontan[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, at the suggestion of user:Brianboulton I have submitted the article Theodora Cormontan for peer review. From the list of volunteers it appears that you and he are the most suitable candidates to review the article. It looks like Brian has marked it for his review, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up in case you wanted to take a peek at it in the next week or two. Two reviews are better than one, and I hope to submit the article to the FAC process before the end of the month. If you know you'll be too busy during this time frame, just let me know and I'll track down someone else (suggestions welcome). Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide. Dictioneer (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dictioneer, as of right now there doesn't appear to be an open PR for that article? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently used the wrong template or somehow messed up the right template (I plead youth and inexperience!:): Brianboulton has made a note about this on the archive page but he isn't sure he can fix it. Anyhow, I'm mainly looking for improvement suggestions anywhere I can get them, so feel free to use the archive page, use my talk page, use the article's talk page (I'll add this link there too if it isn't already there...). It's a challenging topic to find sources on, so any and all help is welcome. Format and style criticism is also appreciated (do you get the feeling I've never done this before?:) Dictioneer (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Metroxylon vitiense[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm sorry to bother you again, but this was one where you'd noted close paraphrasing a couple of weeks ago, and there has been a response that it has been taken care of. Thanks as always for the great help you give to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I was wondering where Template:Did you know nominations/Carneddau stands. Have the duplicated sections been dealt with so there is no longer any overlap, and does the fact that each of the two articles pass according to DYKcheck mean that the approval can be restored? (If so, maybe you could restore it, since you were the one who canceled the approval?) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Gibraltar FAC[edit]

Hi Nikki, just letting you know that I've responded to all of your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1. Do you have any other concerns that I need to address? Prioryman (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother India: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother India/archive1[edit]

Thanks for your review. I believe that we have addressed your concerns. Please take a look and strike out addressed ones.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that coud not be figured out was the url you provided and questioned its reliability. We agree that it does not look reliable. However, I could not locate where that website has been used in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's odd, now I can't find it either. Oh well, the article looks fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please do a spotcheck of sources. Many of sources are online. It is only thing stopping the article from being a FA, it seems. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Battalion Park[edit]

Rosiestep has just done a thorough copyedit of the article, so I'm hoping that the close paraphrasing you found is a thing of the past. Nevertheless, since you did find it earlier, I'm hoping you can see whether it's been eradicated. (As you'll note, an intermediate edit did not do the trick, so I didn't bother to ping you then.) Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

Please help[edit]

Hi Nikki. I hope you are fine. Can you please recommend me an admin? Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jivesh, you might try User:Crisco 1492 or User:Mark Arsten, but it would help to know what you're looking for. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki. Please have a look here. He continues to ask for me to be blocked. He is truly impossible. [3] [4] [5] [6] I don't know what to do. Please help me if possible. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Looks like he's been warned about attacks already, but if Kww's already working on the dispute he's probably better placed to mediate than me. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had enough of all this. I don't know why most of his mistakes go by being ignored. He is still after me. The latest. Anyway, thanks for your patience and recommendations Nikki. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes collapse[edit]

Thank you!! - Denimadept (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me yet - it's already been reverted once. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just love the way that's going. "But wait, why collapse it? It's no longer visible!" hahahahahahah - Denimadept (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that struck me too. We'll see what happens, I guess...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pope John Paul II's visit to the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defender of the Faith (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) 14:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of infoboxes[edit]

For several weeks you have removed virtually every infobox I have added. Recent examples include Penns_Hall and Reginald Aspinwall. You are clearly stalking my edits. Your previous justification for doing so, when I raised this on your talk page, was "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". Neither applies. Kindly desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy! If you're going to criticize my justification, you really ought to quote it accurately. If you need to refresh your memory, the quote and subsequent clarification are here. As to your demand, my response would depend partially on your answer to the question posed here - feel free to answer either there or here, as you prefer, at your earliest convenience. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing further to add to my post above; though I do note that I am not the only editor who has observed you stalking my edits and asked you to stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's disappointing. When you're ready to have a productive conversation, my talk page is open. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Josiah Gregg[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could give this another check. The FN numbers have all changed since you last were here (FN1 is now FN2, and FN11 is now FN16, I believe), but the article is now long enough, and the question remaining is whether all the close paraphrasing issues have been addressed. (Your specific comments on old FN6 and old FN11 seem to have been.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes incorporated in Theodora Cormontan[edit]

Hi, I've incorporated your changes to the article and have given responses to your suggestions back on the peer review page. I believe that Brianboulton takes the football next, but if you see anything else, please let me know. Thanks again, Dictioneer (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled[edit]

Hi. Thought I'd send you a personal message to say that I am genuinely puzzled by your collapsing the infobox discussion (now twice). I think you might at least explain why. I've asked you about this under the discussion. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my action both when I collapsed it the second time, and now again in response to your question there. Please can we just let this go now? I assure you I am not trying to "censor" anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am more puzzled than ever. What you've done is censorship, whatever your intentions. --Kleinzach 04:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some people learned something in the discussion, including myself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And others learned nothing at all. Kleinzach, you stated that "collapsing and archiving both stop the conversation". In that case, a) why does it matter which was used, and b) why has the conversation not stopped? You might also want to have a read of censorship, as that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Scholl[edit]

The infobox of Andreas Scholl was inserted by me, open. It was collapsed. The collapsing template is debated for deletion, - the information about that fact takes more room then the link to the actual information. I reverted the collapsing and linked the former state to the discussion, so that participants can see the difference. You reverted to collapsed. I don't think it serves the readers, also not the participants in the discussion. But I will leave it in a state I didn't want to start with, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another point of learning: removing a template, like blanking an article, because it's under discussion for deletion is generally not the right choice. There's a reason info about that fact is included - to inform interested editors of the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thank you, - but are the people likely interested in that discussion worth confusing all those those who are not? - I remember when the "like"-template was under discussion and all all "likes" looked distorted ;)

FAR[edit]

Hi Nikki - Just a note that, in case you hadn't noticed, the two oldest FARs are yours to close when you feel so inclined/feel they are ready. I'm involved in both, so can't close. One of them has had some very nice work done...it's always nice to see editors engage in the FAR process! Dana boomer (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Force/archive1.
Message added 20:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Astros4477 (Talk) 20:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left another comment.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 15:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final (?) Peer Review for Theodora Cormontan plus a signature question[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I think Brian has had a pretty thorough look and is just about done except for something to do with the images. If you'd like to take a final look (? I really don't have a sense of how PR gets wrapped up) in the next day or two I don't think you or Brian will step on each other's toes. And, as long as I'm here, a question. It looks like a number of the classical composer pages have a signature on them. I imagine I can get a signature image relatively easy off the Gustavus Adolphus professor's website and I believe there aren't any copyright issues (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong of course). I'm not a particular fan of signatures but I want to conform to whatever the "current and best" standard is before I submit for the next step (either GA or FA, your advice is welcome). Anyhow thanks for your help so far, and I'm hopeful we'll have closure on this article in the near future, as I'm eager to get to work on my next one. Thanks again, Dictioneer (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dictioneer. Signatures are an optional thing - some people really like them, some really don't. I don't have a strong opinion either way, and there's no real "best practice" on the issue. If you do decide to use one, here is the info on copyrights. You can close the PR whenever you like using the steps outlined on the main PR page. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Moore[edit]

Nikki, I've responded to your comments over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Moore (Continental Army officer). Thank you for your help so far! Cdtew (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Utah Course page[edit]

hi Nikki.. I need to add the article names and peer reviews on our course page.. but I can't see the students section.. when I click on Edit..

please let me know.. how Can I do this..

thnx Diksha41 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

YGM[edit]

...from me. — Ched :  ?  01:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • and your post is beautiful. — Ched :  ?  02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK overtones hook[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm not quite sure when the overtones tuning hook you just moved to Queue 1 regained its comma after the initial "that", but I had removed the comma when I promoted the hook to Prep 2, and really think it doesn't belong. (There's almost never a good reason for a comma after "that".) Can you please take it out again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree with Kiefer's edit, but if you think he has the right of it grammatically, you can disregard the above. (I don't see how it is a parenthetical phrase, however, because if you delete it entirely, the remaining sentence makes no sense on its own.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; guess we were editing at about the same time. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Saura painting[edit]

Nikkimaria, the creator says a complete rewrite has been done. As you found significant close paraphrasing before, I thought you might want to check again. (The creator is gone for two weeks, but I doubt we want to wait that long to check.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will look. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hartebeest FAC[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hartebeest/archive1.
Message added 10:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There have been new improvements. I needed your response to an issue, so please return soon. Thanks, Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/India-Kuwait relations[edit]

Another close paraphrasing review of yours where the creator/nominator says that a rewrite has been done and all problems should be addressed. Thought I'd point it out to you, since I know you don't always see these replies. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Desmond Lim[edit]

Please look again. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow Mass[edit]

Hi, as you've clearly read my talkpage, you know that I have no strong feelings about infoboxes either way, particularly in composition articles. However, I feel that your removal in this article should be discussed further - particularly given that you've used a misleading edit summary. "Cleanup" generally refers to copy-editing or wikification, not an outright removal of a chunk of the article.

Again, I have no opinion on infoboxes in these articles either way (leaning slightly towards not having them at all) but I do believe in discussion, so I would appreciate your input on this. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to start a conversation here. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't actually read your talkpage, just the single conversation with Gerda - apologies if you thought my comment was patronizing, it wasn't intended as such, but this has been previously raised as an issue. We'll see where the conversation goes, I guess. I did not remove a chunk of an article - I reverted Gerda's addition of a template, and I stand by that reversion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - hopefully we can shake hands and let this one go - I apologise if I was excessively growly. I can assure you that I was not canvassed (I actually came to the page prepared to disagree with an infobox, but I liked the look of the mini infobox, so it's not really like I approve of wholesale addition of infoboxes to /all/ composer articles).
Fair enough if you're sticking to your guns regarding the Sparrow Mass. I'm not about to revert anything there myself as, like I said, I've got no strong opinions either way, and I've no desire to instigate an edit war over an issue I regard as fairly unimportant in the scheme of things. It would be good if you would join the discussion on the talkpage, a variety of opinions would be really great. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You ask me to explain my addition on the talk. Why? I am one of the editors of that article, I didn't see your name. I know by now that project classical music is against infoboxes for composers, but I don't know anything about compositions. An infobox for the compositions of Bach has been discussed, why not others? Did you know that an {{infobox opera}} is in the making? See the example for amusement, not by me;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has been discussed and has been criticized, Gerda. You made an addition, it was disputed, you have to justify on talk - even if you previously added an external link to the article. I've bit my tongue and not said anything as you've added infoboxes to a number of articles that you created - you had complained about not having leeway on "your" articles (despite...), so fine - but you've pushed enough. Please stop. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I will go now and sing for Easter, the Sparrow Mass among others. It would would be very kind if you restored the infobox, otherwise I will have to send my friends greetings with a link to an older version, showing an aspect of Wikipedia that I don't want to show ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show them the article as it stands - that church image is beautiful. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

Nikkia, Regardless of what you want to call it - following other editors such as Andy and Gerda around simply to revert their edits, especially when you edit war, is unkind, even unbecoming and outright unacceptable. As for the infobox instances, they are the default, not vice versa. Claiming "status quo" as you did today would mean nothing ever gets changed. Please stop doing those things. Thank you.

PumpkinSky talk 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PSky, it sounds like we have very different ideas about what "kind" and "becoming" might mean. Gerda and Andy both are welcome to develop articles they create in whatever way they please, and I'm not going to interfere with that. However, infoboxes are not the "default" by any means, and both are pushing to impose them in an inappropriate manner. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And why did you just remove Diannaa's post? PumpkinSky talk 21:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I didn't see it; must've been an edit conflict. Apologies to Diannaa. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but Diannaa made a very valid point I think it would be good to address. PumpkinSky talk 21:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What point might that be? She advised against edit-warring while edit-warring herself; not a very strong argument. Anyways, I'm not warring any more, but someone should - the box was and remains wrong. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point about going to an article you never edited before to remove an infobox (something you're known to be against) just one hour after it was posted. I'm sure Gerda and Andy would say you're trying to impose your view in an inappropriate manner. This infobox war has been simmering a long time and if those involved don't work it out it blow up badly for all concerned. PumpkinSky talk 21:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key point of that is all those involved need to work it out - this isn't just about me and Gerda. Furthermore, your point needs to apply to both "sides" - if it's inappropriate for me to remove an infobox from an article I've never edited, it's equally inappropriate for Andy to add one to an article's he's never edited. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My feeble attempt to resolve this peaceably is over. I won't bother you anymore.PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not bothering me, but you're also not going to be able to resolve this by just talking to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable trivia[edit]

I agree with this removal of non-notable trivia. Unfortunately it has been reverted again,[7] admittedly by a problematic editor who doesn't even like the idea of the section being tagged.[8][9] Most of the How I Met Your Mother episode articles contain this sort of rubbish and there is resistance to its removal, or the establisment of notability for that matter. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK close paraphrasing[edit]

Nikkimaria, the following DYK nominations, all of which you had pinged for close paraphrasing, have been updated to address the issues. Can you please check to see whether these updates have solved the problems?

Many thanks! And very glad to have you back. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jusdafax 05:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman churches on Wikia[edit]

This wiki is actually pretty good, on the pages I've seen anyway, and should normally be added to External links rather than just removed. It is mostly, or ? all, by User:Cnyborg (Chris Nyborg), who knows what he is doing, though it is a pity he diodn't just use WP. Much better than most badly translated tourist or parish websites anyway. You might have noticed that all the links you have left to Official website of the vicariate of Rome seem to be dead! I doubt they were much good anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they weren't - All in Italian & nothing specific it seems - [10] Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full Stop Warning.[edit]

Nikkimaria - Just stop! Looking at this is likely to lead to some very unpleasant conclusions. No matter how one chooses to word this, it is unacceptable - and that's exactly how it's coming across. You are a great editor, and in fact in the past I have even tried to help find ways forward when you had problems. There is a currently open thread regarding your actions on AN/I at this very moment, and you choose to edit in this manner? I really do not want to see you go down in flames, please take a break and re-think your approach here. You are a long time admin., and should DO know better. Take a break or something. With 3 blocks on your record for edit warring, the next one is likely to be much more than a 24 hour block. — Ched :  ?  16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, we are discussing the matter on the talk page - you are welcome to join in if you choose. That would be a much better way forward than your statement here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to copy the comment to wherever you think it will do the most good. I just don't want to see people getting blocked over this. — Ched :  ?  17:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I, but you misunderstand - I would prefer to see you (or any other interested parties) engaging with the issues we are currently discussing on the talk page rather than making statements like the above, which are unlikely to solve the problems being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I see some RfC at WP:CENT then perhaps I will offer my views on infoboxes in the future. — Ched :  ?  17:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC large enough to be advertised as CENT is unlikely to be addressing the issues we're currently discussing at that talk page. Might be a better venue for the larger issue than ANI, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's something you're considering, and suggesting we work together on something like that .. sure - I'm willing. Rianna might be a help in that as well. — Ched :  ?  17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but not right now. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Maria Wodzińska[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Maria Wodzińska at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref and citation tags. Should be clear now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

consistent quality control
Thank you for consistently checking the quality of articles going to the Main page, for taking your time to preview critical ones for those who are afraid, and for your comments in a delete discussion "the principle that while Wikipedia is not a social network, it also isn't a soulless machine", "useful for community-building, which is an essential aspect of collaboration", and for mentioning "ideal" in the context! Ideal! - Repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (25 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 82nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

I noticed that you removed my addition to WP:Administrators. Could you please explain why? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Obviously we don't have the space to include every essay related to adminship (there are a lot!), so we limit it to those like ANOT: extensive guidance supplementary to the main policy, with broad community support. Your petition is a nice idea, but it's not at that level (at least not yet). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I must confess I was rather irritated that you removed it, but I am satisfied with your explanation. Do you have any ideas of other places where I might be able to list that essay? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good place to start might be the "see also" sections of other essays - not sure where you've listed it so far. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have listed it in "see also" sections at Wikipedia:Arbs are people too and Wikipedia:IPs are human too. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 04:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Mail[edit]

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.

Please respond to the mail off-wiki only. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kosta Pećanac FAC[edit]

Could you take a look and see if your concerns at the Kosta Pećanac FAC review are addressed? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up...[edit]

...you are at 3RR at Planet of the Apes (franchise). Just covering the bases, but it's probably a good idea to point out that it's being discussed at WP:ELN, because just looking at the article it doesn't look like there's any discussion going on, just unexplained reverts. It's probably an even better idea to not get to that point at all, but that's up to you. - SudoGhost 03:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Maria Wodzińska[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators[edit]

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

DYK for Fantasy-Sonata (Ireland)[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAR[edit]

Hi Nikki - I know you're busy with other things, but I just wanted to note that the oldest FARC is yours to close. I'm involved as a reviewer, but personally think it's probably ready to be closed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 replacement hook?[edit]

Nikkimaria, do you think you'll be able to replace the hook you just removed from queue 3, or should I ask for assistance from an admin on WT:DYK? It's especially important that we get a new hook near the top, since the first three hooks in a row are bios, which is not good. (By contrast, queue 4 has no bios whatever, unless you could the horse in the quirky slot.) I was thinking that "Operation Fish" from prep 3 would be a likely choice; it's the right time period, and it's a good enough article to deserve decent placement. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[11]  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(You weren't directly involved, but you were asked about it, so thought you might want to comment.)  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting work[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, hope all is well! I saw your name listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers under the "general copyediting" and was wondering if you would be able to copyedit Omak, Washington in preparation for featured article status or such. I've seen your copyedits before (believe you may have done another for me before) and believe that they are good, but if you are too busy or cannot do it at this time, then I understand completely. Thanks very much. TBrandley 02:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Was this message meant for me or for User:Miniapolis? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was actually meant for you but I must got mixed up. Sorry about that. TBrandley 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Los Angeles Crusade (1949)[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to please check this article for close paraphrasing, including judging the sentence that was at the center of contention pretty much ever since the initial review? I'd like another pair of eyes to take a look. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music for a Time of War review[edit]

I encountered an error when attempting to update the FUR for the Music for a Time of War album cover for the Music for a Time of War article. Would you mind taking a look at the FA review page when you have a moment? Just trying to address these problems with the hope that the article will be promoted to FA status. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Candle Creek[edit]

Nikkimaria, it looks like there was a major paraphrasing done to the PD material in the Kiwalik River article, and some newly added material as well. Can you please check to see whether this satisfies your concerns regarding DYK qualification? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nvvchar has also stated that Template:Did you know nominations/Fish River (Alaska) has been similarly upgraded. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

Lost/missing article links from course page[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria: several of the articles created by my students this semester no longer have functioning links. They were functioning earlier, now broken. The trouble is that students are supposed to write peer reviews by this evening and are unable to access the articles. I will alert them and ask them to go via the user contributions pages, but I hope you fix the links. I will post this same message on Jami's talk page. I hope one of you can fix the broken links. Thank you! 23:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerikG (talk • contribs)

Hey Berik, I hope Jami can help, because I'm not sure what's going on. You could also ask the students to copy the titles into the search field if that would be easier. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on Berik's talk page.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lundy page[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I have been watching some of the issues regarding the Mark Lundy page, which appears to have major NPOV issues. I have tried to add a bit more balance to the article, for example changing the introduction of Lundy as a prison inmate, to Lundy being a convicted double murderer. Lundy isn't notable for being a prison inmate, but for the double murders for which he was convicted, for example. Kind regards VNTrav (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hartebeest[edit]

Nikki, would you mind doing a source review for hartebeest, which is at FAC? The nominator has worked hard on it, but I have doubts about a couple of the sources, and he has made a couple of mistakes in things like moving citations around and placing information in the wrong place that make me suspect he's an interested amateur rather than someone with good background knowledge. That sort of situation sometimes leads to an editor using less than ideal sources, so since you're the best source reviewer I know I thought I would ask for a favour. If you don't have time, no problem, though. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, it looks like SO has already done a source review - did you want another? On a quick look there are some formatting issues but only one query for reliability - this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Fish River (Alaska)[edit]

As the original reviwer of abovementioned DYK nomination, could you please respond on the nomination page? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 08:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Los Angeles Crusade (1949)[edit]

Nikkimaria, Amberrock has done some edits that seem to take care of Leszek's close paraphrasing, at least the sections you pointed to. Can you please check to see whether that is the case? If there's still more, I think it's time to close it entirely; if the problem has been basically eradicated, then I imagine it's finally ready to go. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. As it turns out, your review was the straw that broke this camel's back, and I've closed and rejected the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent call. I was on the verge of doing that myself yesterday. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 07:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Fish River (Alaska)[edit]

Can you please take a look and see whether the recent edits have taken care of the 5x expansion issue? You had noted that previously, due to the PD material and lack of paraphrasing, this did not qualify for DYK. I'd like to have a definitive check on whether it does now. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content from How I Met Your Mother episode articles[edit]

I noticed that you recently deleted large amounts of content from several How I Met Your Mother episode articles (just a few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Some of these were tagged {{Unreferenced}} but many were not. The only comment you left for the removal was a not very explanatory "rm". I'm sure you have a good reason for each of your deletions and I don't mean to question that. Could you please post your reasoning for the deletions to the talk pages of the articles you modified? Otherwise, could you post a link to the talk pages about why the information you deleted is not appropriate for wikipedia articles (copyright protected, not notable, unreferenced content, etc.). I'm concerned that if you don't do this, your changed will be reverted by an uninformed editor, as has happened before (examples: here and here). Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 23:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tucoxn, WP:MOSTV advises against such content, and most of it is excessive unsourced or poorly sourced original research. If you or others would like to make a case for some of the content specifically, go ahead, but for the most part it's not appropriate for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EliRykellm[edit]

EliRykellm (talk · contribs) has been doing wholesale reversion of your removal of OR from How I Met Your Mother articles. After warning them to stop first and discuss, they continued with no response. I blocked them for 12 hours to get their attention and to force discussion. Can you look in and see whether they'll respond to you? I see there's been some discussion with another user above. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I'm not sure that's the approach I would have taken, but I've posted on their talk page. I'm kind of confused by their contribs history - they came back from a four-year break to revert? Beginning with an article that was created well after they stopped editing? Something seems weird there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it's not as weird as you might think. I've seen this far too often in TV series related articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was sufficiently strange that I believed blocking was warranted (as essentially disruptive editing), and I'd have been happy to unblock if they'd shown any willingness to pause and/or discuss, but they did neither. Acroterion (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How I Met Your Mother fans (one especially) can be pretty rabid about "their" episode articles. There's a lot of resistance to building encyclopaedic episode articles; instead they prefer to fill them with issues like continuity (which affects every TV series), "cultural references" and other non-notable (and usually unsourced) trivia and OR, thinking that a single reference from somebody who watched the episode is enough to establish notability.[12] It's not at all uncommon for episode articles to be created with little or no content in them. Editors have already decided there will be an article, regardless of whether or not the episode meets notability guidelines. I tried cleaning up P.S. I Love You (How I Met Your Mother), the edit history shows the opposition. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually reverted because as a new comer to the show How I Met Your Mother I found the continuity sections rather interesting. Then all of a sudden they were deleted and I wanted to finish reading them. I then came to find out that the "administrators" of this website take it way to seriously. I hope "policing" Wikipedia is a great lifestyle choice for yall. Have your episode pages however you want them. I'm done with this website; I enjoy spending my time with real life human beings. Later! EliRykellm (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Bradbourne Priory[edit]

A user asked you a question about your decline of his DYK article. Can you please respond to him? I'm not quite sure what to say myself.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orchestra Kingston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Palmer (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) 13:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve before a review[edit]

I agree with your expression better improve before a review. Look at the edit that I reverted and you reverted back. Instead of internationally known abbreviations of instruments, that are explained and linked to a table of instruments which supplies links for most of them (only few a red links), instead of a wealth of information that is, you now get a list of instruments in Italian, without links, without specifying the language as Italian, without arranging them as a Plainlist or Flatlist as the instructions request. The reader is left alone with a term like "tromba". I fail to see the improvement. I don't even see quality. (I discussed this with the changing editor on his talk and at the template talk, I don't want to repeat the details here.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerda - would you prefer omitting that listing entirely? After all, the discussion found a fairly strong consensus not to use those abbreviations. Or perhaps you could link the instrument names if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I cant agree with your edit summary for this revert because you didn't leave one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you undid the contribution of another editor without an edit summary. You are experienced enough to know that such action is reserved for indisputable vandalism only. This was not vandalism and your action was extraordinarily rude, not least when you consider that the editor you insulted is one of the kindest, gentlest Wikipedians editing today. You really owe her an apology. --RexxS (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't agree with most of your statement. Certainly it wasn't vandalism, but the default edit summary was in this case an accurate expression of my edit and didn't (IMO) make any judgement of her edit - it wasn't rollback or Twinkle, both of which do so. After all, you had previously objected to "rm", which would also be an accurate description of the edit. (Your somewhat one-sided language policing does rather limit options). I'd be happy to discuss the edit with Gerda if she wishes, although I'm not sure we can come to much agreement given her comment above and previous complaints about the topic in general. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Nikki, but that's really unacceptable. You've been editing for over seven years now and you cannot simply claim that you've never read the injunction at the top of the page whenever you use the undo function:
If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.

You know as well as any experienced editor that undoing with the default edit message is for vandalism only and implicitly casting Gerda's good-faith efforts to improve an article as vandalism is beyond the pale. Whether or not anyone agrees that a good-faith edit is actually an improvement, it can never be vandalism. If you cast your mind back, I have complained in the past when you have reverted other editors' work with an edit summary of "cleanup". It was not my intention that you should switch to leaving no edit summary at all. When an editor has spent time and effort in making a contribution, it is appallingly uncollegiate to throw it out without even taking a few moments to explain why. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I will use a different edit summary on the next occasion, and we will agree to disagree on exactly what behaviour counts as "appallingly uncollegiate". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikki, I have no problem with that. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to react, because you combined two independent entries. For the Bach cantata edit, I need more time to explain than I have right now. For the infobox on the church, which my edit summary when I entered it had marked as "start infobox" (stress on "start"), I would like to discuss, yes please. I don't know what in my statement above could be interpreted as "complaint". It's simply fact that the edit to BWV 103 is not properly formatted (details above), and misses the number of violin parts. Please see the talk of the template for now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching. So since consensus regarding abbreviations is against you, which of the following would you prefer: removing the instrumentation entirely; simplifying (to something like "instrumental ensemble" or similar); linking and flatlisting the list of instrument names. I'd prefer option 2, but I'd be happy to accommodate whichever of those you might like (keeping in mind that there have been objections to #3 from others in the discussion). (By the way, while you're here - are you aware of WP:CITEVAR?). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Repeating: I have no time to discuss the cantatas now, it's too complex and has no easy solution, none of the three you suggest. - I am interested in a "late" explanation of your revert of a start of the church infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me know when you have time - in the interim, though, you shouldn't be reverting if you don't have time to discuss. Your infobox has already been edit-warred in without any discussion, as usual, so I guess you'll be happy with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Define happy. Hearing "edit-warred", I am not happy. To avoid a next time, I would like to know why you reverted, and why you reverted without leaving a hint of explanation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This still being open, I see you changing Bach cantatas. Please keep in mind, that for all of them, the English translation is only a translation, not a title, no italics please. The individual instruments are of prime importance for Bach, who assigned a specific character to recorder, trumpet, oboe d'amore, you name it, - they should not be reduced to "instruments" (under the edit summary "cleanup"). Please use the Flatlist template for multiple entries on one parameter in the infobox, as the documentation requests. The term "four-voice choir" is not necessarily SATB (could be TTBB, for example), I would not use it, especially as there is an article to the more precise SATB that can be linked without a pipe. Happy cleanup, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you will go through and fix the italics on the other articles, as there are several that already used that formatting before I edited them. As to individual instruments, they are listed in the body of the article, as appropriate; as has been pointed out in several discussions now, the infobox is meant to be a quick summary, and long lists do not contribute to that goal. I did ask you to clarify your wishes earlier, but you declined to do so. Unfortunately, my ESP skills are poor ;-) so I rely on my own judgement. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you had to read my mind, because I had work other than wiki for most of the day. If you say nothing more about the scoring than soloists - choir - instruments, you can drop it altogether because that is what makes a cantata a cantata. The specific thing about Bach's cantatas is which individual instruments he uses for what text and occasion, as in said in the DYK hook for BWV 76. Why not say that precisely? - Yes, some cantatas are more advanced than others, I go over one a week, no more. - Thanks for cleanup, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit summary "per gerda" for a complete removal of the scoring is amusing ;) What "gerda" would like:

  • list the scoring, that's the music, it has a paragraph that should appear in the infobox
  • list voices in one line, I thought about it, will propose, please wait
  • list all instruments in all Bach cantatas (and the Passion and the Mass in B minor) because that's where the cantatas differ, I tried to find a short way, - if that is not acceptable, I need to think and then discuss a better way (that will be longer), please wait

Looking at the history of BWV 22, at the moment, the reader gets "instruments", before, he got "instruments: abbreviations", forgive me that I believe that was more informative. Please wait, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: call it ownership: I am passionately attached to BWV 76 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did say above I should "drop it altogether". I'm not sure I understand - you want a "paragraph" to appear in the infobox? As per MOS:INFOBOX, shorter is better. I know you would prefer to have all your articles your way, but that might not be able to happen. I've reacted to several of your concerns, but this is about compromise not capitulation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I better stop sarcasm, - I added to the template docu and discussion now. Peace music: all the best for your FAC, and nice to share the present DYK set with yours, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at the template talk. - I didn't mention there that the present scoring in the infobox ignores the request in the documentation (second line) that the list should be a template list (as any list in any infobox), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikki--if that's not a supreme case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Also, ou're the one following her around, not vice versa.PumpkinSky talk 12:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove categories under discussion[edit]

The heading on a category under discussion has this statement "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Removing Stephen Crane from Category:American men novelists was clearly an act of emptying a category under discussion. Crane is clearly a man, a novelist and an American. There was no reason to remove him from the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason to add him to the category. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Social history of viruses/archive1[edit]

Hi Nikki, I know it's a lot to ask, but do you have the time to review the references? Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove my comments[edit]

RE dont' remove my comments again. PumpkinSky talk 13:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PSky, it was an edit conflict, I didn't see your comment. Could you please tone it down and stop being so hostile? We're all trying to improve the article here, and your personal comments really aren't constructive. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is your crusade on infoboxes and continued edit warring and following people around. But you two do what you want on FK. I've taken it off my watchlist. And don't you see the notice that pops up on the screen?PumpkinSky talk 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. I'd love to debate the issue with you, but we can't talk when you're going to be personalizing everything and hurling rhetoric around. It's about the article and the readers, and you flouncing isn't going to help those. Could you please just calm down and discuss the issues constructively? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. You've once again removed part of someone's post, which I have now restored. These edit conflict problems can be avoided by using the "show changes" button; it makes it obvious when you have removed someone's edit. -- Dianna (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I sometimes use preview, but not usually that button. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta be honest, I always use that button, and sometimes forget to preview. Just try to be more cautious here please. Talk about pushing buttons, poor Pumpkin Sky is getting a little stressed :/ -- Dianna (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use either of those button; I just hit save. But if I get an edit conflict I can swipe back through several screens and then hit save. So was probably my fault for doing that - I suspect it wiped out the interim comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Martha Bratton[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_19&oldid=1144729718"