User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 22

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

Sea at FAC[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

I wonder if you could find time to do a source check on the Sea FAC. Various people have made comments on the article but the discussion has got rather bogged down and is turning on what the article should be called, should it be merged with Ocean, which article should redirect to which and so on. I'm hoping to find one or two uninvolved others who will review the article on its failings and merits rather than its name. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once more Yves Gaucher[edit]

Nikkimaria, I took at look at this now that a week has passed, and apparently 069952497a edited the article later that day after you posted what was left to do, but didn't say so on the nomination page. At any rate, there look to be a fair number of changes to the first paragraph, and three words in the third. If you are willing to make one more round of comment, I'd appreciate it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A major rewrite has been done to the third paragraph. With any luck, this will finish off the nomination. One final look? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. It's such a relief to have this one finally approved; it's the fourth-oldest DYK left. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C-SPAN FAC[edit]

Hi there, Nikkimaria. Thanks for your review of the images on the C-SPAN article, and I've responded to your comment on the FAC page. If you were willing to go in and make the change you suggested I would really appreciate it; in case you didn't see my disclosure on the FAC page, I am a consultant to C-SPAN, and I refrain from all direct edits to the mainspace when I have a financial COI. This is in keeping with Jimbo's advisory to COI editors, as explained in his Paid Advocacy FAQ, to stick with Talk pages and find consensus for changes. Even though this change would be very simple, and non-controversial, I still would like to follow his wishes. If you're unable to make this improvement, I can reach out to another editor about this. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, but...I'm a little confused about how you're going to get the article through FAC without editing it at all. This particular issue is minor and fairly easy to fix, even for someone unfamiliar with the topic; what if a reviewer raises something a bit more challenging? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way I've handled more substantial updates so far is to edit a version of the article in my userspace and keep it current to the existing article, with changes. Then, I've found volunteer editors to review, approve and move over the latest version from my userspace, once there is consensus. I admit, it's a clunky process, but I'm not sure how to stay on the right side of Jimbo's advice otherwise. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI/archive1[edit]

Hi Nikki, I've addressed your comments. Would it be possible for you to revisit and strike out any and all issues which have been dealt with to your satisfaction? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When God Writes Your Love Story[edit]

Hi Nikki,

Because you participated in the FAC for the When God Writes Your Love Story article, I thought that you should be notified of the article's current featured article review. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding behaviour around the use of Infoboxes in several articles has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
  2. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
  3. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
  4. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
  5. Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
  6. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
  7. The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 00:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion

Out of process close[edit]

I have reverted your close of my FAR as out-of-process since there were still discussions going on and you do not have authority to shut down discussions. jps (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do, and you've been reverted (though not by me). FARs are not typically initiated until 3 to 6 months after article promotion. If at that time you still have concerns, an FAR may be appropriate. At this time, though, it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is nuts. What kind of crazy bureaucracy are you guys running over there? There were active discussions that you cut off before they could even get started. I see you've been admonished by arbcom for poor behavior. Consider this another complaint. jps (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. You might find the FA/FAC/FAR process more helpful if you attempted to assume good faith of other contributors. There are still active discussions on the talk page that you are free to participate in - those should not have been cut off by a premature FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One time someone penned WP:AAGF. It's really awful when someone tells someone else to assume good faith at this website. It's just the worst. I don't know how having a conversation on a separate page is going to "cut off" discussion at another page. I do know how CLOSING a discussion cuts off discussion, though. Thanks for your attempt at a response, but I give it a failing grade. jps (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jps, you are being incredibly rude. For the record, I don't think the article should be featured either, but we have processes for a reason and I don't think there are any circumstances that would compel us to remove its featured status out of process. Those circumstances would include things like serious copyright violations or WP:BLP issues. Please tone down your rhetoric and express your concerns in a professional way at the article talk page. As Nikkimaria said, if the concerns are not addressed within the normal time frame, we can consider FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a "process for a reason". We have the process because you guys are trying to protect your clique from outside critique. Here's my concern: this article should not be featured. Now what do you do about this problem? You tell me. I've been on the talkpage. You have not. jps (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sea FAC[edit]

I have now addressed your comments at the Sea FAC. In fact I have been carefully through the references beyond the point where you stopped in disgust at their poor quality! Please could you take another look.

With regard to sources, there may be some in the Leisure section that you do not like, but these are mostly to establish what, for example, windsurfing or waterskiing is rather than any disputable facts about the sports. I have replaced the one (#112) about kitesurfing to a journal article as you specifically mentioned it. Your views on the need for reliable sources in this context would be helpful. Another point, with regards to book sources, - If I used a book called "Windsurfing" to establish that the sport exists, would a page number be required when the whole book is on the topic? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Those access dates are generated by [1]. I tried asking the author to make it more MoS friendly (such as by adding book location, and being smart whether to use page or pages), but he never replied (User_talk:Apoc2400#Default_behavior_changes, perhaps you could ping him to see if this time he will look into this?). PS. I see you already did... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the GEL again![edit]

Hi Nikki

I'm delighted to have you back with us in the GEL at Western. Please remind me where you are now. I'll be doing an intro to WP class in the GEL today and assigning the 5 Edits exercise. I'm pretty rusty myself and getting back up to speed. Looks like about 30 students again. TomHaffie (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

send cookies to the GEL[edit]

maybe just do your usual welcome and introduction once students get signed onto the Course page . . . Looking forward. TomHaffie (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcomes[edit]

Hi, I do appreciate you welcoming the users, but with this particular one I would advise you to be careful. Do read every userpage before a welcome. I will explain why: [2]--Mishae (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your link doesn't go anywhere, but I think you're referring to the discussion you just opened at WT:SPI? If so, you're going to need to provide a much better explanation than you have so far. You tagged the user's page (and several other users' pages) for speedying under G11, which definitely does not apply to those pages. You've accused several new users who self-identify as members of the same Education Program course as being socks, without presenting evidence of same. Can you explain what your thought process is here, Mishae? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I explained the user is using multiple account (at least that was my thought) because, really, if 5 users mention that they are a part of one group (University of Ontario) they need to have only one account. That says in our policies and guidelines, that a user can not use a multiple account. Plus, this Here is the Fall 2013 Course page on every students userpage reminded me of advertising. Now, since I looked over I saw that you have organized that group diff I have no complains. Another question, what is the criteria for speedy deletion for userpages?--Mishae (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are all individual students in a course at that university; they don't work for or represent the university (and even if they did work for the university, they should still have separate accounts; what you describe is forbidden by WP:ROLE). The blurb about the course page is something the prof instructs them to add to their user pages, for easy reference. As for userpages: see WP:UP#DELETE and the rest of WP:UP for guidance. In short, "unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted", but a link to a course page by a student in said course does not qualify as unambiguous promotional text. It actually provides information about their Wikipedia activities, which is the main purpose of a user page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently what I ment by above was that since they have different accounts their IP is the same. So, how do we know that they are not socks if they are using the same IP address?--Mishae (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, since there is no reply, do except my apologies... I guess the whole situation was confusing :)--Mishae (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUsers could look at other technical details, but we don't even know that they are using the same IP (well, I do, but I know that not because of anything we can see on-wiki). Furthermore, people can share the same IP address or range without being socks. In such cases, we look for behavioural similarities, areas of concern, timing, etc...but where they've already provided a logical explanation for why the accounts appear similar despite being different people, we should assume good faith unless there is evidence of problematic behaviour. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I have just gone over the Charles R. Chickering (artist) article again and believe I have resolved the wording (near paraphrasing) issues, and was hoping you could take another peek at it if you have the time.
Also, are QPQ reviews cumulative? IOW, if I reviewed ten nominations, am I good to go for ten of my own nominations? In any case, thanks for your time and effort. -- Gwillhickers 00:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they are cumulative. I'll take a look at this review tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]


DYK nomination: Dora Dougherty Strother[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I think I've addressed paraphrasing issues you raised on Dora Dougherty Strother and wondered if you could give the article another pass? I'm new to DYK process and I'm working on reviewing other nominations. Thanks for your help and in advance for your time and suggestions.--Meghaninmotion (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a coincidence--I was going to ask you the same thing. Thanks for looking over my shoulder; such help is always appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia links[edit]

Hi, why are you removing links to Wikia sites en masse? Vashti (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only removing those on the list that are either used inappropriately as citations (see WP:USERG) or which fall afoul of WP:ELNO. If there are any you feel fall under neither of those categories, feel free to point them out. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. I just wanted to know for when someone inevitably reverts back the link to the Worst Wiki In The Universe. Vashti (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that while most you are probably removing are appropriate to remove, that doing this wholesale without providing a rationale will likely see people upset at your changes. You may want to be a bit more descriptive in your change line to point to ELNO (for the wikia removals, at least). --MASEM (t) 05:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Your deletion of citation in Lost Girl.You say that you're adhering to WP:USERG -- yet the article is about "Identifying reliable sources". So according to you, Wikia is not a reliable source. How so? Because it's your opinion about it? You say it fell "afoul" of WP:ELNO -- yet it didn't, because the Wikia link directed to a legitimate website that offers more categories, minutiae, and images about Lost Girl than Wikipedia. I think your edit was based on a bias against Wikia. However, unlike Wikia, this Wikipedia article has an admin Editor who does stay on top of changes to the page. He will do what is best for it, regardless of what a user (be it you or me) who has made an edit may feel. I suggest that instead of jumping in and altering an article you haven't contributed to in long time, that you run the change by AussieLegend first. Sometimes in your absence, an edit has been discussed and resolved. And always, always, include a summary to explain why you made a change. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References to open wikis aren't acceptable, per WP:USERG. This is because they aren't fixed - they're subject to frequent change at any time. If the Lost Girl wiki has reliable sources, then those are what Wikipedia should link to. The wiki itself is not a reliable source. Vashti (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my French, but that's b.s. If the rationale is that open wiki's aren't reliable sources because they aren't fixed ... then we can say the exact same about Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are subjected to constant changes. Wikipedia is cited in Wikia pages and it has been acceptable. I'm not singing Wikia's praises as I have a fixed raised eyebrow about it, but I think the problem in here is snobbery. Plain and simple. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The standards on Wikia pages are matters for that particular wiki's team. Wikipedia itself discourages citing Wikipedia, and for very good reasons. Vashti (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If the rationale is that open wiki's aren't reliable sources because they aren't fixed ... then we can say the exact same about Wikipedia." - That's quite correct. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia articles can't be used as citations in other articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Just saw you already welcoming students in your classes! Thanks for always being such a rockstar!

JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, thanks Jami! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RoboCop (franchise)[edit]

Hi there,

I notice you removed an external link from the above article in this edit. Could you please explain why? There may be a good reason, but you didn't indicate it in your edit summary.

Cheers, Ubcule (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ubcule, check out WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, what does "non-RS" mean?[edit]

16 September 2013

(diff | hist) . . Uplift Universe‎; 16:24 . . (-114)‎ . . ‎Nikkimaria (talk | contribs)‎ (rm non-RS) DavidHobby (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"RS" stands for reliable source. So, it's shorthand for "not a reliable source". Dana boomer (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, so I am not the only one who has difficulties deciphering your abbreviations? How about a list of the most frequent ones on top of your talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have said that "RS" is a particularly unknown term or hard to find. When in doubt, search for the abbreviation in Wikipedia-space e.g. type in "WP:RS" into the search box and you will get Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It's also listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations, shortcut WP:ABC. BencherliteTalk 14:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't particularly mean RS (I knew that one), but for example "compresses badly" (see the table you collapsed) or some in this example were not immediately clear, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Compresses badly" is not an abbreviation or something I use frequently, so even if I had such a list that wouldn't be included. Most of my other summaries can be found either at WP:ABC or WP:ESL (which is a funny shortcut, now that I notice it...); what would you want included in a list other than "tr"? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of refrigerants[edit]

I am leaving this message with you as you had previously edited List of refrigerants. I noticed that an edit 'scrambled' the column position of a significant amount of data. The scrambling would be tedious to remedy by hand. I reverted to this version by 5 July 2012 EmausBot which is previous to the problem edits. This may have undid one of your edits. Please consider reapplying your edit, if necessary. You may want to discuss changes on talk:List of refrigerants#Reverted to 5 July 2012 EmausBot edit. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Ferreira's page[edit]

Hello, Could you please explain to me why you keep taking out the character page for Declan on the Louis Ferreira web page? It's the accepted info page for the Series BREAKING BAD which is based directly on the Official Braking Bad website. The link works fine and includes much useful information about the character. There is no "unverifiable" information on that page - it is all taken from the Official Web Site and merely condensed to pull together all the information about one character. Please advise. Thanks Bea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bczogalla (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bea, user-generated sources like wikis are not considered to be reliable for the purposes of verifiability. This is especially important for biographies of living people, which are held to a higher standard of sourcing. Furthermore, that fact is already sourced to the official website. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm sorry - I don't understand your argument. Declan is a FICTIONAL character - as in, he doesn't really exist. Louis Ferreira is NOT the same as Declan. He merely PLAYED the character in a TV show, which is also completely fictional. So why would anybody worry about "Living People" here? Declan is not a "living person". The page in question contains only a summary, there is no interpretation or opinion expressed, merely a retelling of the character's actions and facts. All of it is verifiable in the TV show - people going to this page may not want to watch 60+ episodes to get the few facts about this one character. What exactly WOULD count in your opinion? A transcript of the entire show? Please advise - it is important to me that this situation gets rectified ASAP. Bczogalla (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)BCzogalla[reply]

The article from which I removed the link is about Louis Ferreira, who is a living person. The link was being used as a reference to support the fact that Louis Ferreira played that character, but the link is not a reliable source. The article does include a reference to the official web site of the show, which is a reliable source. I've also added a wikilink to the list of characters. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not understand the argument, because the link was NOT about Louis Ferreira but about a CHARACTER he played and therefore does not in ANY way, shape or form give information about Louis Ferreira himself. The Wiki link you substituted is a very poorly written and incomplete character summary that in no way matches the Declan character page I had added. How come one Wiki is more trustworthy than another? How exactly is what your Wiki Link says better than what the real character page says? It's clearly nowhere near as thorough as the character page. I'm disappointed and frustrated with this issue. Please advise. Bczogalla (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Bczogalla[reply]

(talk page stalker) Bczogalla, material from wikias such as the Breaking Bad wikia may not be used on Wikipedia, and you cannot use them as sources or references because they are, by definition, not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Ever. As Nikkimaria has been trying to tell you, Wikipedia does not accept user-generated websites as reliable sources, since anyone can edit them at any time—Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles. That is the way things work here. Some people indeed find it frustrating and disappointing, and others learn to work within the restrictions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has rules from sourcing to grammar to formatting. I hope you can come to accept the limitations as you continue editing here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course welcome to add more information to the Wikipedia character summary, so long as you use reliable sources to do so. Neither Wikia nor Wikipedia would be considered a reliable source; the difference in how they're treated is because Wikia is an external link, which falls under a different policy than internal links within Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read over the Wikipedia character description of Declan many times and it does not contain a single (as in zip/ zero/ nothing) verifiable link. ALL links are internal Wikipedia links. So forgive me for being confused about how this article can even exist in the first place. And for that matter, neither should the other thousands of "character descriptions" on Wikipedia, since the vast majority of them contain only internal links. Basically, the way I understand it from that, once something is in Wikipedia, it becomes a FACT, even if it is never referenced anywhere with a verifiable source or link. I find that pretty scary. Anyway, I don't think you will be able to convince me that the Wikipedia character blurb is better or more reliable than the external link I provided. So may I at least list the site as an external link at the very bottom of the page without having it removed again immediately? Please advise. Bczogalla (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Bczogalla[reply]

I'm not trying to convince you that the Wikipedia page is reliable, but as I mentioned earlier, internal links are governed by different policies than external links. So no, you can't list the Wikia site as an external link in the Ferreira article. See WP:ELBLP and WP:ELNO for reasons why. If you have reliable sources for unreferenced material, great! Feel free to add those to make Wikipedia's content better. But Wikia is not a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

Ebionites 3 arbitration[edit]

Nikkimaria, the arbitration case involving the Gospel of the Ebionites featured article was accepted as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3. It's too late to make an opening statement, but you may still want to weigh in on the Evidence page or later during the Workshop. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre in musical compositions[edit]

Please explain what you think is missing in the per template documentation? Compare opera, L'Arianna, the genre is desired on top, request by Ruhrfisch on Brianboulton's talk. Please consider. If something is missing in the documentation, that should be changed, not the articles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the articles to add "genre" when "type" was already specified, contrary to the template documentation, and it's quite clear that the documentation is correct: to include both adds yet another layer of redundancy and bloat. (It's bad enough to try to summarize the key facts in a box without trying to do so in the heading of a box.) The example you cite includes unnecessary redundancy, linking the same article both above and below the image; pick one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the request to have the genre on top came up only now, I think it's a good idea, and it should be followed with some consistency. "Cantata" is a genre, "church cantata" is not. The documentation will follow, - it was meant for having the two lines one after the other. - In opera, the redundancy will go away once the project members make up their mind if (and then how) to keep the number of acts, - that is not up to me. A little bit of patience for stages of transition, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a poor idea and that the previous iteration was at least less bad. "Church cantata" clearly represents a type of the genre "cantata". And it would be better to make up minds before attempting to transition. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I copy this to the template talk, but will leave out that you think Ruhrfisch's idea is bad, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the context: the latest and - I think well developed - infobox template is {{infobox opera}}, used for example in L'Arianna, saying clearly above the picture, that the female name is not a dancer or a poem but an opera, the genre. I would like to emulate that for {{infobox musical composition}}, and even for cases where it not a genre. How is that confusing? Do you have a good suggestion? Do you have it soon? Verdi's birthday is today or tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to discuss converting existing iterations of the template to the model used for L'Arianna, great! We can remove all the parameters below the image and just have the headers and image with caption. That would be much cleaner and more succinct. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about a solution for showing the reader who doesn't read Italian that Quattro pezzi sacri means Four Sacred Pieces, to clarify that it's not an opera. You are free to use the "succinct" version for "your" articles. Please read what Brianboulton said about compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem is actually that title_English doesn't display - why doesn't it? That would be what you want to answer instead of simply kludging the template to get around the problem, as you're trying to do now. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because "title_English" should not be on top for all occurrences, as "genre" should not be on top for all, - no need to have genre symphony under article title Symphony. The problem is known and under discussion, but will take time. To be flexible, I would like "subheader" now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be on top, but surely it should appear when the title is non-English? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you like it, but what will then prevent readers from thinking it's an opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have a higher opinion of the reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am myself one of those readers who don't know things. Serving them doesn't mean a "low opinion", quite the contrary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand: it is not wrong to assume that a reader may have limited knowledge; however, you would need a low opinion of the reader indeed to believe that he or she would prefer to stay that way. We serve such readers best by avoiding both oversimplification and detail bloat, both confusion and misrepresentation – in short, the things at which infoboxes excel. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 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) 23:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qadim[edit]

Hello! I would like to ask about your removal of the link to Forgotten Realms Wiki at Al-Qadim: I know that links to other wikis are the excpetion at Wikipedia, but I would advocate for the inculsion of that link into the Al-Qadim article because a) Forgotten Realms Wiki is a very stable and active one and b) it is helpful for readers interested in Al-Qadim, as details that are beyond the scope of Wikipedia for notability reasons will be available at Forgotten Realms Wiki. Do you have any objections against the inclusion of the link for any reasons I might not be aware of? Thanks for letting me know! Daranios (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you want to re-add it that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! I will. Daranios (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Url accessdates[edit]

I see that with Lake Uniamési, as with Joseph Favre, you have again removed accessdates from most source definitions. I have restored them. You also removed publication month and day. Exact publication dates are best when available since there may be multiple editions in one year, with different pagination. Urls are more precise with accessdates. The Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books adds accessdate automatically and, I believe, correctly. There is no negative impact on readers or editors from including this information, and potential negative impact from removing it. Can you point out any standard or guideline that recommends removing accessdates? Aymatth2 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation tool is incorrect - multiple people have asked that that behaviour be removed from the tool, but the creator hasn't responded. GBooks links are convenience links to online copies of a source, rather than being an independent source in and of themselves. With very few exceptions, none of which apply in these cases, the actual source is a static book for which only a publication date is needed. This has been discussed extensively at WT:CITE. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many links are convenience links to online copies of a printed source such as a book, journal or news article. They are not required, but are useful to editors checking articles and are useful to students and other researchers. If a url is given, the accessdate should also be given. I do not see the relevance of unresolved discussions on WT:CITE. Can you point out any standard or guideline that recommends removing accessdates? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Online news articles (and even journals, to a certain extent) are much more mutable in their exact content than books. The purpose of providing access dates for articles is to identify the version consulted where a source changes or may change, or replace a publication date where one is not included, or occasionally to facilitate locating an appropriate archived link. None of these apply to GBooks: the print source being cited does not change (or does so only when indicated by new edition and publication date), there is a publication date included, and even when a GBooks link goes dead it is not findable in web archives. WP:CITE does not recommend inclusion of access dates for GBooks links, and citation manuals like APA and Chicago recommend against their use. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing to do with the printed source, just the convenience link. Google Books is a web site like any other. What displays for a given url will vary from time to time. Use of accessdate is supported by the {{cite book}} template for the good reason that it makes eminent sense. Can you point out any standard or guideline that recommends removing accessdates? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Err..no. Google Books will not change (other than what is available to people) over time because Google Books is just a front end for scanned content of printed books. The scans won't change nor will the actual books that were scanned. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if Google were faultless, but there are bugs. I have seen pages from a scan of one book attached to the description of a completely different book. What happens to the urls when the correction is made? I have also seen Google Books urls that once worked no longer working - not just the preview being blocked, but Google saying "oops, that's a bug". And there is a trend towards Google accepting digital copies of books, which may be corrected from time to time. Again, Google Books is just another web site, and there is no reason for any special treatment.
Storage is getting cheaper all the time. We are moving towards a stage where a complete copy of at least the non-video content of all web pages everywhere, including prior versions, can be maintained at reasonable cost by commercial firms independent of the website owners. If Snowden is to be believed, we are there already. There are legal issues, but I am optimistic that they can be solved. Then url+accessdate starts to be really useful - as long as the information has not been destroyed for some unexplained reason. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books isn't really a website like any other, because it's not the publisher of the content it's hosting - the original book publisher is, and GBooks is a convenience link only. You can't say this is nothing to do with the printed source, because that is what you're actually citing (except in the case of ebooks, which I already noted above). Including access dates does not address any of your concerns regarding the occasional Google bug. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many websites host content they did not originally publish, but can be used for convenience links. Google Books is one. Any convenience link should provide both url and date. With the date it may be possible to recover what the editor saw. Without it there can be no certainty. I cannot understand the motive for taking the effort to destroy potentially valuable information. Why? Can you point out any standard or guideline that recommends removing accessdates? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply no need to state the date someone read a book for a source as seen at WP:BOOKLINKS and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books -- Moxy (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course no need to provide a convenience link, but if one is provided, it may as well be useful. Given that the targets of urls change or disappear over time, providing both url and accessdate makes the convenience link more likely to be useful. What is the motive for deliberately removing the accessdate? Can you point out any standard or guideline that recommends removing accessdates? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:CITE does not recommend inclusion of access dates for GBooks links, and citation manuals like APA and Chicago recommend against their use." And how does it make the link more likely to be useful? If the URL has disappeared, the convenience link is gone - WebCite won't archive GBooks links, and on the rare occasions that Internet Archive does, it doesn't show actual content - and the citation still correctly points to an actual book source that does not change regardless of when it was accessed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:CITE guideline does not mention accessdate, language, edition or other common information provided in a book citation, and also does not say any of this information should be avoided or removed. It points to the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books, which adds accessdate automatically, and to Template:Cite book, which includes the parameter. It recommends including accessdate for web pages, which would include Google Books. Wikipedia:Link rot explains some of the obvious benefits. I am not interested in wiki-lawyer stuff. I am interested in the motives for taking the effort to remove the dates. Am I missing something unrelated to this discussion? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"For web-only sources with no publication date, the "Retrieved" date (or the date you accessed the webpage) should be included" (my emphasis). WP:LINKROT notes that access dates can be helpful in finding archived copies, which as I've mentioned is not applicable here as the content of GBooks links is not archived. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the contents of Google Books are not archived? Have you asked Google? Will they never be archived? What other websites will never be archived? What is the motive for removing this potentially valuable information? What is the benefit from taking the effort to remove it? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly sure, yes. Are you aware of another archiving service that does archive GBooks? As to removing, given that the information is not in fact potentially valuable, why would it matter? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdates are not useful at the best of times, and they are utterly meaningless when referring to GB. Whether GB links are archived or no is utterly irrelevant, and same goes for when the GB link was accessed. GB links will display differently depending on where the reader is located, so two people clicking on the link from different countries will not see the same content. The "work" (i.e. the book itself) remains unchanged from the date of publication so it would be meaningful to put the publication date. As there is no requirement for us as editors to provide a url to any book or article, and only the underlying work needs to be cited (for verifiability), there is zero benefit to having access date, quite the contrary – for the amount of clutter these would potentially generate. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed no requirement to provide a link+accessdate for a printed work. Many printed works, including old books, magazines and newspapers, are not available online anyway. The websites that support online versions may not let all users access them. Governments may block access. However, convenience links are still useful. When they work, they help editors check articles and help readers who want to see what the source had to say. A url on its own is a fragile identifier, since what it points to may change from time to time. This is true for any website, including Google Books. An accessdate makes it more likely that some current or future archive service may be able to recreate what was there when the editor made the link. Removing accessdate makes it considerably less likely. A second and related question is why in some cases publication date was replaced by year. Two editions with different pagination may have been published that year. Why go to the effort of removing details from the source definitions at the end of the article? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If GB content goes "dead", and it could be for the simple reason the content cannot be viewed in the country you're in. Archiving web crawlers avoid sites/links or content where they are told not to go (some metadata detection), and GB seems to be one of them. You state that keeping the accessdate may be useful, but what's the big deal? A book's ISBN is unique and will never change, so you ever need to verify something against the hard copy (or electronically one day), you can always eke out a copy of the publication at your local library. Don't know the answer your second question... -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Google Books blocks crawlers, but it does provide a public API. It would not be difficult to run through new Wikipedia links to Google books with full-view pages, pull out and store the pages somewhere, recording the date of retrieval. They may be legal issues - don't know. That is not the point. I am trying the understand the reason for taking the effort to remove information that may be useful. In the absence of an explanation, I find this behavior slightly disturbing. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The information will not ever be useful, because even if at some point the links are archived, the actual content being cited – the book source, as represented by author/title/year/publisher/page(s) – will not change. These are not web sources, they are scans of static book sources with known publication date. As to publication date, the specific date provided by Google is often incorrect (as documented by multiple reliable sources, see for example doi:10.1080/19386389.2012.652566) and shouldn't be relied upon - look instead at what's in the actual book or what is provided by the publisher, which is in almost every case a year alone. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct as per Template:Cite book "Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly of use for web pages that change frequently or have no publication date. Bold text by me. Note how our bibliographies dont have this info because it is not useful in any way to help find the books in question. -- Moxy (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four books in the Lake Uniamési article where the publication date was replaced by year as well as the accessdate being dropped, Koivunen (2008), Mbogoni (2012) and Griffiths (2013) are shown by WorldCat as having eBook versions. The Google displays certainly look like eBook format. I would assume that with these the content may change from time to time, with the same url, and also that the full publication dates given by the Google Books API are taken from the electronic files, are accurate and will be updated with fresh versions. The fourth, Briggs (2013), does not show in WorldCat as an eBook, although the scan quality is excellent if it is indeed a scan. The publication information inside the front cover is "Third edition June 2013 First published February 2006". The date retrieved by the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books, which presumably uses the API, is more precise: 5 June 2013. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are clutching at straws with this line of argumentation. Whether there are ebooks or not is not relevant. Electronic publishing has not changed the publishing time-line or done away with editioning in the old sense, and I certainly don't see them going about changing editions willy-nilly because it's an important QC tool. I believe Google for the most part used to scan its books up until a certain date, and only some of the newer titles will rely on ebook versions from publishers, but that is another aside. For info: Out of Koivunen (2008), Mbogoni (2012) and Griffiths (2013), google lists two as having no ebook. Accessdates are not "potentially useful". The only date that matters is the publishing date, and that's not exact in many cases of older publications, which in turn justifies taking only the publishing year in the citation. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdates are potentially useful in convenience links for finding archived copies of content that has been changed or dropped. It is misleading to see Google Books as a collection of scanned pages from out-of-copyright printed books, although it started that way. The action today is with new books, which will often exist only in electronic format. Reference books try to stay current with shorter publication cycles, and new electronic editions may not be clearly distinguished in the front matter. For the purpose of convenience links it is simpler to treat Google Books as just another website with dynamic content.
Briggs & McIntyre 2013 says inside the front cover "Third edition June 2013". It is quite possible that a repaginated fourth edition will be issued later this year with travel advisories for Kenya, and that Google will replace the third edition with the fourth. In fact, the publisher may demand that Google only display the current edition. But the third edition is being cited, not the fourth. For this reason, the publication date should not have been removed. Ditto with the other recent books that had publication dates. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we need to know the edition not the accessdate for people to find a fiscal copy. Use the |edition= parameter. The ISBN is what is best to find the book..but is confusing to many not in higher education environment. In this case specifically the edition is part of the title Philip Briggs; Chris McIntyre (2013). Northern Tanzania, 3rd: Serengeti, Kilamanjaro, Zanzibar. Bradt Travel Guides. ISBN 978-1-84162-457-0. -- Moxy (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN is good, but see this Economist article for a comment on where it is going. I suspect that with minor changes the publisher may not use a fresh ISBN. It is basically the same product. Edition or publication date would do, assuming either is available, to distinguish two versions in the same year. In this case, Nikkimaria deleted publication date but did not replace it by edition. Accessdate is more for the convenience link. There could be an archived copy of edition 3 around somewhere, even after Google has replaced it by edition 4. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google books does not delete content they have spent time uploading ...they would add the new edition on its own as seen here. - Moxy (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your example shows a list of editions with no previews. It depends on the publisher agreement. Some publishers refuse to allow preview, some see Google Books as an opportunity to show viewers a selective preview in the hope they will click on one of the "buy" links. They may give Google an electronic copy, better and cheaper than a scan, but insist that only the current edition is shown. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side interest - That's very puzzling as I do see previews.. Do you see the 2 copies below? Now I am begging to think it may not be possible to archive the pages because of the fact different places see different things? I see there was an effort to form an achiever for Gbooks but noting seems to have happened. The Internet Archive says it mirrors books from Google Books and other sources.... Are mirrors archives in a case like this ..I have no clue ?-- Moxy (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, people in different places, or even the same person at different times, will not have the same viewing capabilities - that's one of the reasons why some argue against including GBooks links, period. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats some very bad logic...why would we not facilitate those that can see over choosing all not to see. Thank god we have polices geared towards the fact the some may get benefit from there ability to see the linked pages even if not all can. -- Moxy (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list you gave here shows me four results: 2009-No preview available, 2005-NOP, 2002-NOP, 1996-Snippet view. When I click on the 2009 link I get the definition page, no preview. But I see five "other editions": Jan 1, 2009 Limited preview, Jul 15, 2012 Limited preview, 1996 Snippet, 2005 NOP, 2002 NOP. The two links you just added both work for me: I see the book cover. Certainly, as Nikkimaria says, what Google decides to show viewers differs from time to time and place to place. Convenience links may not work, but if they do they are convenient. I obviously agree they should be provided. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If ISBN ends up being deprecated, we will need to adapt our practices, but it is currently sufficient to distinguish versions. And the convenience link, while helpful, is extraneous to the actual source being cited, even if you could find an archived copy (and I'd be very surprised if you could - feel free to point one out). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN does not always work - and is not always present with electronic books or books sold only online. In this hypothetical example, the publisher of the Briggs & McIntyre 2013 travel book may put out a new version next month with the same ISBN. The only real difference is the new version has the travel advisory, which has affected the pagination. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They couldn't: changes in pagination (or really anything more substantial content-wise than a typo fix or two) requires a new ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they shouldn't, but there is no law to stop them and the booksellers are not going to sue. It saves the effort of updating inventory item definitions. With books sold only online there may be no ISBN. Paper bookstores demand ISBNs, but Google does not insist on one. Granted, eBooks usually rely on the device to do the pagination, so the cite can at best identify the chapter. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're now going into even more hypotheticals to defend your insistence on keeping access dates that has been more than plainly demonstrated to be next to useless. It may be an opportune moment to step back and look just at the current situation and deal with any changes as and when they arise. Then, knickers will not get in a twist. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hey Arnold! characters[edit]

Good culling! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declan's character page link - please respond[edit]

Hello, Why do you keep deleting the link for Declan's character page (http://breakingbad.wikia.com/wiki/Declan) on the Louis Ferreira (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Ferreira) bio page? The link works perfectly well, is highly relevant and the website is associated with the show itself. I would really appreciate a response before I seek official conflict resolution on the issue. I have tried to contact you before but received no response. Thank you for your time. Bczogalla (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Bczogalla 09-25-2013[reply]

As explained further up, where I responded to the previous query, the site is not a reliable source for purposes of verifiability, because it is user-generated. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Talk:Josephine_MacLeod#Fansite.
Message added 04:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 04:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Talk:Josephine_MacLeod#Fansite.
Message added 04:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 04:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxen and cheers[edit]

Never looked at your main user page before. Must say that I love the cRap infobox as well as several others. Also, did not know you hail from Manitoba; I was just in Brandon, Manitoba about a month ago to see the Canadian National Championships for Arabian horses, first time I've been to that province (Regina being the previous easternmost part of Canada I had visited, though I've been to the east coast in the USA). Drove through Regina the night Paul McCartney was playing there, we just kicked ourselves that we hadn't realized he was touring there and thus didn't get tickets ahead of time and stop over there for the night! (damndamndamn) Amused that the Brandon hockey team was the Wheat Kings. (Montana being major wheat country itself, weird to drive 700 miles, mostly east, to a place that still thinks of itself as the "west") Had forgotten how flat Saskatechewan is when traveling west to east on Hwy 1, I think the only curve in the road between Swift Current and Regina occurred as we got to Regina (!). Mentioned the flatness of the province, and someone else I know on-wiki tipped me off to Corner Gas and I think I've just become a fan! (Much of the humor reminds me of the subculture in the prairie country of Montana) Anyway, wanted to stop by and chat for no particular reason and the "infoboxen" inspired me to write this rambling travelogue. Interesting that you are from Manitoba, where I just visited. Six degrees of separation ... Montanabw(talk) 05:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, MBW. I haven't been to Saskatchewan myself in many years, though I often recommend the tunnels to visitors (and those need an article of their own...), and I've family in and near Brandon. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That Riverbank discovery center and nature trail area is quite charming; the hubby frequently had to bail from all the horse stuff (which I would do 24/7 if permitted) and did some hiking around there. I should upload some of the photos I took at the show, most were lousy due to the inadequacies of my camera, but that whole Keystone Centre is really rather amazing; somewhere I read it's 9 acres under one roof? =:-O They must get some serious snow there! As for Moose Jaw, the most notable thing was that we hit the stretch of road between Moose Jaw and Regina at rush hour, and I swear I have never seen so many oversized pickup trucks sporting truck balls in my life! (EEK!) (and I am from Montana, so I've seen a few large, obnoxious pickups driven by testosterone-overloaded young men in my day... ) Same person who put me onto Corner Gas suggested that it might be all the mining in the area, the guys getting off work. I wanted to snark something about what insecurity they must have...  ;-P Other than that, I was reminded of how very nice Canadians are ... I mean, we have "Minnesota nice," but Canadian nice tops it. Montanabw(talk) 22:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it tells you something that Brandon's "winter" fair is held in late March...any earlier and they'd have trouble getting animals/farm equipment to the centre. Too bad you missed seeing some melonheads in SK, they're even more entertaining than truckballers. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose!) LOL! Montanabw(talk) 23:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Talk:Josephine_MacLeod#Fansite.
Message added 05:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 05:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • PLEASE reply at Talk:Josephine_MacLeod#Fansite. It'll go at the main page in next 4½ hours. Attempts have been taken to fix the issues. More details at Crisco 1492's talk page --Tito☸Dutta 08:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sense and Sensibility (film)/archive1[edit]

Hi Nikki, earlier this month you reviewed an image for the Sense and Sensibility FAC. I was just wondering if you had a further response concerning File:Sense_and_Sensibility_Thompson_dress.jpg and whether there were issues with any of the other images? The article has three supports so far and I don't want image issues to get in the way of its promotion. Thanks very much! Ruby 2010/2013 18:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

Lots done to Prometheus wikipage, is it moving forward[edit]

Hi NikkiMaria: there have been alot of edits at the titan Prometheus wikipage over the last month. I was wondering if you could do a quick look-and-see to comment on whether the page has moved at all on the A through C scale. If you could make a quick assessment, possibly you could mention what level you might think it is at (maybe its even better)? 209.3.238.61 (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 209, I've updated all ratings to C-class. It's almost at B-class, but falls short mainly in terms of referencing. More references in general are needed to support the article content. In particular, there are some instances of material that without references qualify as original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering[edit]

Nikkimaria, David Eppstein thinks this article needs a thorough check for close paraphrasing. Do you think you might be able to take this on?

Also, Template:Did you know nominations/Charles R. Chickering (artist) has been edited since your last comments on close paraphrasing, including a couple of new paragraphs. Can you please take another look? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nominator has just requested the Chickering below, I'll risk adding a new one of my own: Template:Did you know nominations/Picasso's Regjeringskvartalet murals. There had been issues; I was wondering whether the article is now free from close paraphrasing. Whenever you get the chance would be great. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I resolved the near paraphrasing issues you've pointed out on Sept. 13. When you get a chance could you give the Charles R. Chickering (artist) nomination and the article another look? There is still a common phrase in place that's almost the same as the source. i.e. "graduated from this school..." I'm hoping this will be okay. Thanks again for your time and effort. -- Gwillhickers 05:05, 28 September 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. --MorrowStravis (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois[edit]

Hey, I saw you were listed as a volunteer and was wondering whether you could please take a look at my peer review. It would be greatly appreciated. Kudu ~I/O~ 22:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golfer infoboxes[edit]

Please stop removing the flags from golfer infoboxes. You may feel that this violates WP:INFOBOXFLAG but it doesn't and has been discussed several times (see Template talk:Infobox golfer) with no consensus to change from current practice. This guideline suggested avoiding the use of flags but does not ban them. Tewapack (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does, and a pointer to you telling someone else it doesn't two years ago doesn't inspire confidence. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from WP:INFOBOXFLAG, "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes ...". That is not a ban. See also this discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 11#RfC on MOS:FLAG. Tewapack (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it. You're still not making a convincing argument why something that's discouraged should be used anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And these discussions Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 3#All the little tiny flag icons on win/losses need to go and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 3#Flags in the infobox - there is no consensus to change the status quo even if some think it is a WP:INFOBOXFLAG violation. Tewapack (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on those discussions, it's clear that the practice didn't have consensus to begin with. Your arguments remain unconvincing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my summary from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 3#Flags in the infobox (part of a larger discussion about nationality) with links updated and a few additions (rankings sites) and subtractions (the PGA Tour took over the Canadian Tour and Tour de las Américas so I eliminated them from the table).

For the benefit of editors unfamiliar with golf and golf coverage, I've compiled the following table. It summarizes how "golfing nationality" is used by the top professional golf tours world-wide. I've included, from the official tour websites, players lists, player profiles, and leaderboards, and noted how each tour uses country/nationality, flags, and both to describe players. The links are to the player lists, sample profiles, and recent leaderboards.

Tour Player list Profile Leaderboard
PGA Tour both both flag
European Tour both1 both country
Asian Tour both country country
Japan Golf Tour neither neither neither
Sunshine Tour both2 both2 country
PGA Tour of Australasia (country)3 n/a flag
Korean Tour both both flag
OneAsia Tour (country)3 n/a flag4
LPGA Tour flag flag flag
Ladies European Tour country country flag

Notes

  1. click on a letter, or use the "Players by Country" drop down menu
  2. Animated flags
  3. Order of Merit list, no player list
  4. Choose "Select a report" from the SK Telecom Open and select "Final Result"

Also the main world rankings: Official World Golf Ranking - country, Women's World Golf Rankings - both, World Amateur Golf Ranking - flag.

I hope from this information editors can see that 1) yes there is such a thing as "golfing nationality" 2) flags are used widely by the tours to represent nationality, with and without the country name associated with it, and 3) England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are used not Great Britain or United Kingdom. I hope that this makes clear why 1) it is appropriate for the infobox golfer template to have a "Nationality" field, 2) flags and country name are appropriate for such field, and 3) sub-national flags are the standard for UK golfers. Tewapack (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read your summary there; why would repeating it make it more convincing? We are not governed by what other sites with other mandates, areas of focus, or style guides choose to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I repeated it because I discovered lots of the links were broken. I know that we are not governed by what other sites do but it is also wise not to ignore what is done outside Wikipedia. Tewapack (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation - why would you just put a flag over the actual country link if people believe its that important to link back to a generic article that is not about the topic at hand? I hope people are not assuming that our reader's know ever country flag in the world? Something like  Sri Lanka would not be helpful in identifying the country to most. Are we sure making our readers click on a small incomprehensible image to find out what country someone may be from is a good idea? As for having both a flag and a link I think is simply over kill like at Official World Golf Ranking#Breakdown by nationality let alone making the table miss-sized.- Just my opinion!!-- Moxy (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites 3 Workshop[edit]

Nikki, you may want to comment at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop#Proposals by User:Ignocrates. My main concern with respect to FAR is that this doesn't become a broken windows problem with the ruffians coming out of the woodwork when they don't see guidelines being enforced. Ignocrates (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/IQ classification‎[edit]

Nikkimaria, I have a question, not about the article, but about the footnotes: is quoting the passage used for a citation okay, or is this against Wikipedia standards? I haven't reviewed the nomination or article myself, but I happened to notice this—it's pretty much the rule, and it's a well-cited article—and I'm wondering about fair use issues. Can you please take a look? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main schools of thought regarding quotations in citation. The first argues that it's helpful for verification, particularly where the source is offline/obscure/otherwise difficult to access (which can be true if the quotation can be assumed to be accurate), or that it can be used to locate the particular passage in an unpaginated/variably-paginated or electronic-only book, or that it should be used where a source is non-English (neither of which seem to apply here). The second argues that this practice is generally unhelpful, bloats citations excessively, can take material out of its intended context, and can, as you wonder, be a copyright issue. The most relevant issues related to non-free textual quotations are length (a max of 10% of the work or of 400 words are both limits I've heard), purpose/significance, and minimal usage. As regards this particular example: although I haven't examined each source in detail, based on size estimation most of the quotes included are okay. But:
  • FN5 is not so long as to exceed length limits, but would probably exceed minimal usage and so should be reduced
  • Same with FN12
  • FN13 looks long mostly because it includes a lot of references; some of the specific studies and examples could be elided
  • FN40 is fine with regards to fair use, but as the source is freely available online anyways it's a rather pointless inclusion (as none of the pro-quote arguments apply)
  • FN55 would be adequately served by the final sentence of the given quotation
  • FNs 77 and 82 could and should be shortened
  • Several of the other quotations could be shortened or omitted because of minimal usage (for example, the quotes in FNs 73 and 74 say pretty much the same thing) or simply for stylistic reasons
Does that long-winded analysis help? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And since it's up for today, I'll go ahead and make a start on quote culling now. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It does help to know going forward. I hadn't realized it would be promoted so quickly, but it had been nominated since July, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised it had been. I'm very glad I brought it to your attention under the circumstance. Thanks so much for taking it on. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three months of edits on the "Hans Kelsen" page[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria;

There have been about three months worth of edits on the Hans Kelsen page over the entire summer by User:Wikian and an anon. It looks like it may have moved out of start class, maybe somewhere between and B and C. Your eye is much better than mine on this and maybe you could take a look. User:Wikian is a law professor in Australia and seems to be making progress. Could you visit the page at some time about the start class status. AutoJellinek (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AutoJellinek, I've moved it up to C-class. The most pressing problem at the moment is undercitation. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiruchirappalli[edit]

Hi, since you commented on the previous FAC, can you post your thoughts on the article's talk page to improve the article. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street discussion[edit]

Nikki, I've started a discussion about a suggestion made during the FAC of Format of Sesame Street (User talk:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street Sandbox 2), something I thought you might be interested in since you participated in the above-mentioned review. There hasn't been any discussion about it, probably because no one is aware of it, so I thought that I'd try and elicit involvement. If you have an opinion, please go and express it. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Emil Reich may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • an Hungarian-born historian of a Jewish family who lived and worked in the United States and France] before spending his final years in England.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edgar Perez may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , "Dallas News", "October 3, 2011"</ref> ''International Finance News'', ''Valor Economico]'',<ref>[http://www.valor.com.br/impresso/financas/alta-frequencia-deve-girar-20-da-bolsa-ate-o-fim-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shrimad Rajchandra may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | death_place = [[Rajkot]], Gujarat]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Francis Pott may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in May 2006 at London Festival of Contemporary Church Music (James Gilchrist, tenor, Jeremy Filsel], organ, and the [http://www.vasarisingers.org Vasari Singers] under their conductor, Jeremy

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to António Reis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | birth_place = [[Valadares (Vila Nova de Gaia)|Valadares]], Portugal]]
  • *[http://www.seances.org/html/cycle.asp?id=162&mode=2 '''Cine season'''] in [[Paris]] ([[Cinémathèque Française]], 2002 - see '''press release''': [http://d1113048.dotsterhost.com/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Playmobil may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * ''Playmobil: Top Agents'' - for [[Nintendo DS]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible nomination of a GA status article for FA status[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria; There is an article at GA status which i have been thinking of nominating for FA status. It may need for someone to have read one book first. The book is the theological best-seller "Evil and the God of Love" and i was wondering if you might have a name or two in mind whom i could contact. This is probably a short list of possibilities and i don't know if an advanced theology/religion degree would be needed. Maybe you have some thoughts on possible names. AutoJellinek (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AutoJellinek, most of the theology/religion reviewers I would think of are inactive or semi-active; you could try H1nkles or possibly Carcharoth, but beyond that I don't know. It's definitely not my area. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria; There are now three reviewers for doing this FA peer review for the currently GA article "Irenaean theodicy". User:J Milburn and User:Shii are both ready after exchanging book reviews, etc, with them on their Talk pages (J Milburn will be part time). Does this start as a formal procedure at this point or does each one of us fill out a peer eval form for the FA review process to start? Can you join in? AutoJellinek (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Hey AutoJellinek, if you think you're ready to nominate it for FA status, put {{subst:FAC}} on the top of the article's talk page, fill out the "initiate this review" form, then put {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (with the appropriate name and number filled in) at the top of the list on WP:FAC. You can then get your reviewers and others to comment there. If you'd prefer to do a "formal" peer review first, WP:PR is the place to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query.[edit]

Hi, do we have any limitation not to edit an FA cleared article? I'm trying to edit an article and other users are reverting any positive changes so i wish to clarify before proceeding to make the necessary additions to the article. Thanks. Pearll's SunTALK 16:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAs can be edited, but if you're making substantial changes you should discuss them first, particularly if you're being reverted. You should also be sure you have strong reliable sources to support your edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, I've been editing article for quite some time and got confused and had to pause as users were pointing strongly to FA, now i'm clear. :) . I'm discussing via the article Talkpage. Yes, my source is a reliable one and from a Reputed English Daily. Pearll's SunTALK 17:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hyde[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Rather than engaging in a revert war, could you please talk on the Talk:Lewis Hyde page about why you are deleting parts of the infobox? You said "formatting" and "unreferenced" in your original edit summary. --Lquilter (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

dare I disturb...[edit]

Hi Nick. Can you please review and fix "Fluorine". In particular, please help us perfect the ref formatting.-TCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you working. Thank you. 98.117.75.177 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Picasso's Regjeringskvartalet murals[edit]

Nikkimaria, the article has been edited following the close paraphrasing you found (which followed what I'd found); can you please take a look and see whether the article is finally free of same? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of it so quickly! So glad it's ready to go, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine[edit]

Thanks so much for jumping in. Hopefully I'll contribute a bit too. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm done for the moment, so you have at it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone understand why TCO can't/doesn't just log in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a password loss or scramble? Don't know. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just stay away from me Sandy. I still remember you (1) hooting with joy when you thought I plagiarized and (2) not having the grace to say sorry when you were wrong. You might assume I am up to no good, but (a) you're wrong and (b) it's none of your damned business. (Go create some actual content [write a stub, upload a picture] instead of worrying about your cliques and imagined enemies.) And just because I don't reply to stuff you say behind my back, doesn't mean what you say is accepted. I might just be dismissing you.71.127.137.171 (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's sounds like either you (or your imagination) are having a bad day; I hope it gets better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Camille Levin[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm putting together one of my periodic lists of old DYK noms needing reviewing, and came across this one. The primary issue previously appears to have been close paraphrasing, so I was hoping you could take a look at it, as it brought in Orlady and Mentoz86 in previous iterations. It's been over two weeks since the author made corrections based on those reviews. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey#Close paraphrasing[edit]

Nikkimaria, this article was passed as a Good Article four weeks ago, after a very brief review that didn't find any issues with copyvio or close paraphrasing. Ten days later, Abstract Illusions started the above section on the talk page, noting some very significant close paraphrasing issues. I found this rather alarming, since GAs are supposed to be free from all close paraphrasing, much less be laden with major amounts of it—with a few rounds of adding and deleting the "close paraphrasing" template—but Proudbolsahye, once the issues were explained and why certain changes didn't work, started making progress and matters seemed to be improving significantly.

Abstract Illusions has had to be away for over a week now, and after many further edits, the close paraphrasing tag has been removed by Proudbolsahye. This makes me nervous: I would like someone versed in this to take a look, especially at the later sections that AI has not given the green light to, to see whether the work has been done to fully remove close paraphrasing from the article. And, if it hasn't, whether a WP:GAR is in order at this time (or if it should wait so long as progress continues). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon this talk page section when looking for something unrelated, but I thought I'd add a reminder of the attrition that was Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Jacobsen czar ♔ 14:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki[edit]

Thank you for the work at Fluorine. I really appreciated how you did all that work, not just the crits (although even those show huge attention to detail). I cut the Happy Pan too and nommed it for deletion. The Universe is less disturbed.

71.127.137.171 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fluorine barnstar
For your detailed sourcing, copy, and image review.
Thanks, TCO. Needs a bit more work yet, but getting there. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent image size change to the article Ann Bannon[edit]

I noticed you slightly reduced the size of the image of Ann Bannon. This is sort of a minor question in the scheme of all things, but you reply may help me. I thought the previous size was, if anything, a bit too small. I haven't edited on Wikipedia very much, so I would like to know your reasons for reducing the size. Perhaps the 16:19 ratio of my monitor leads to my preference for an image width that extends to about the peak of the A in Ann. Or perhaps you are one of those layout people who like more White space? - Neonorange (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Neonorange, you can adjust the default image size in your preferences to be bigger if you want. "Forcing" an image size (ie. setting a specific size) removes peoples' ability to personally adjust it in that manner, which is why WP:IMGSIZE says we should generally avoid that, and why I removed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a quick answer. How wonderful - let the user choose! (The last time I did layout was using razor knife and paste at The Great Speckled Bird where there was a constant struggle between the 'white space' faction and the 'more content' faction.) Thanks Nikkimaria.-Neonorange (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God of War: Ghost of Sparta FAC[edit]

Hi, if you have some time, would you care to do a source review for the aforementioned article? I've also messaged another editor, so if they get to it before you, then no worries. --JDC808 ♫ 05:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Scottish gentleman has a question regarding a Scottish lady[edit]

I am baffled by your edit and thought I'd ask for an explanation. Ben MacDui 07:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben. Nikkimaria has carried out an illogical unexplained mass destruction of nationality notes. Just revert her. Apuldram (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous, Apuldram. Ben, the template documentation specifies that the parameter "should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace" - since she was born in Scotland, we assume that she's Scottish. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed my assumption (although in theory by the time she was in her twenties she was a citizen of the Kingdom of Great Britain). Thank-you for the explanation - I am afraid I was unable to deduce this from the rather cryptic edit summary. May the true north remain strong and free. Ben MacDui 16:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting from Word[edit]

One my students set up their assignment in their sandbox, by copying & pasting from Word. The formatting looks strange and the text runs off the page. I can't figure out how to fix, can you help? This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gretel30/sandbox Thanks Helena Libringreen (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Helena (and Gretel30), I've fixed it. The main problems you need to watch out for when importing from Word are spaces or indents at the beginning of the line (which is what caused the text to run off the page) and a loss of other formatting like bold and italics. Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

I reviewed the Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey article over and over and I can't seem to find anymore problems. I have also provided the edits AbstractIllusions has made that fixed some of the issues. Can you please take a look and see if you're running into any problems so we can move forward? I greatly appreciate working with you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, please tell me if you're going to continue with the review. If not, I'll have to find someone else. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary issues: "rc", "tr", etc.[edit]

I've asked you previously to please use coherent edit summaries instead of your private 2-letter shorthands and I can see from the record of previous requests (1, 2, 3, 4, etc., etc.) that others have also found these terse notes to be impenetrable. I had to go back as far as an edit-summary complaint from 2011 (5) to finally find an explanation for "rc" along with your claim that "I'll try to be clearer in future." I am hoping that you can please use actual words instead of privately used acronyms to summarize your edits. I'm aware that you're an admin and I don't want to "template" you, but I do think a review of Wikipedia:Edit summary#How to summarize is in order. It's not a policy or guideline, but it does provide good guidance on how to summarize your edits. Particularly I'd like to draw your attention to the section on "Abbreviations." If an editor with over 6 years of experience can make no sense of an edit summary like "rc" or "tr" then you can imagine how frustrating it would be for a new editor to deal with. Just consider how you would react to someone who reverted one of your "tr" edits and left you the equally unhelpful summary: "ni" (standing for "necessary information" of course). Just because your abbreviations are obvious to you doesn't mean that anyone else understands them. The "How to summarize" section headed by "Explain" is also pertinent.

Anyway I don't think I need to flog this dead horse further. I hope you can understand that it would be helpful to the community if you could give up using these cryptic shorthand expressions and stick to either commonly used shorthands (like those found at WP:GLOSSARY or WP:ESL) or even use full English words to summarize and explain your edits from now on. Please consider making an effort to improve in this area because several people have now complained about the problem and I don't think it sets a good/professional example. Thanks for your consideration. -Thibbs (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC) NB: Further translations can be found here. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is likely to be a suboptimal move, but I suppose we can give it a shot. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know old habits can die hard so I'm not expecting an overnight change, but I really appreciate your willingness to give it a shot. In the short term it may slow you down a tiny bit, but I think the long-term benefits of transparency/intelligibility/clarity and the reduction of peer frustration at having to track down your meaning will outweigh whatever benefits you gain from using the unusual 2-letter phrases and will actually lead to a more nearly optimal solution. In the end it's basically just a matter of self-discipline. Thanks again and happy editing. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your dedication in reviewing 40 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Well done and thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peacemaker! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Camille Levin redux[edit]

Nikkimaria, the nominator has posted that the issues you raised have been addressed. Can you please check when you get the chance to see if the edits have satisfied your concerns? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this. Can I point you at another one? Template:Did you know nominations/International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering has been updated. I have to admit I'm not impressed, but perhaps Orlady's initial change after your last comment combined with this is enough, though the retention of the world "pattern" really makes me wonder.
Might you also be willing to take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Manby by the same author? I haven't been able to go back to it: in addition to rechecking for further close paraphrasing—which has been an issue with this author—there's the knotty issue of the Telford source, which is where earlier material from the article comes from, and the current author can't check it. I can't judge the likelihood of close paraphrasing because it's behind a pay wall for me; you might have a way to get at it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can check the other sources; I might be able to get the Telford through inter-library loan, but it would take at least a week and probably longer. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure whether it's worth it. It looks like Sprocketonline created three articles this past summer as part of the WP:GLAM/ICE project, two of which depended exclusively on Telford (this one and James Forrest); the Forrest stub still relies entirely on Telford, while Paul W has taken Charles Manby to the point we've seen it, where the Telford cites are used on info that was added by Sprocketonline, which has been only slightly edited by subsequent authors—nothing to affect the substance of it. The third article, Alastair Craig Paterson, uses a different offline source altogether, but again it's relied on by the entire stub. I had to search back to 2011 to find an edit by Sprocketonline that used online sources; for this article he added FN2 and FN3, and there isn't any close paraphrasing of them that I could see. Whether this is an adequate indication, I couldn't say.
The two Paul W articles have been hanging fire for almost three months now. I'm beginning to think that if they haven't been satisfactorily fixed with Paul W's new edits (or maybe next time), that it's probably time to close them out. He says he's done the needed fixes on both; can you please check them? Thanks.
And, while I'm at it, Template:Did you know nominations/Wild Cub/Thunder Clatter has had some minor edits made to it, the latest few by me, which make the quote you blockquoted shorter and less of a problem, while adding a bit more info. (Obviously, cutting the quote to 39 words wasn't the point.) Is it able to pass now? (The hooks were approved prior to the original promotion.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Carthy[edit]

You might want to comment. —rybec 18:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Talk:Æthelwold of Wessex/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you mind having a look at the image under discussion for me, please? Your advice would be appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Law school of Beirut FAC[edit]

Hello there, your comments in the last review were very helpful, I hope you have the time to see how it fairs this time. -Elias Z 16:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help/advice[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I wonder if you could help, please? I was reviewing the Erema DYK nomination and noticed the 'Plot' section is pretty much a copy of The Academy source. I can only see it in google books snippet view but asked BlueMoonset's advice and he pointed me in your direction. Would you manage to have a look at it when you get the chance, please? It would be very much appreciated as it's way beyond my basic skills. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's also meant I've learnt something new and handy to remember. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for H.M.S. Parliament[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Niels Bohr[edit]

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Niels Bohr/archive1 for me? It looks like the review is progressing well. I would consider it a great personal favour. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Witcher wikia links[edit]

I disagree with their removal ([3] and others). Per WP:ELNO #12: wikis with "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" are acceptable; the Witcher wiki seems stable, and has an active group of editors, which I think is substantial for a wikia project. I'd ask you to restore them; if you really feel they should go, please start a discussion where we can gauge's community consensus on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "substantial number" criterion is meant to apply to wikis like Memory Alpha, which have thousands of active editors; this one is quite small in comparison, and arguably also violates ELNEVER. If you'd like to start a discussion, feel free, but per WP:ELBURDEN the link defaults to being omitted pending an active consensus in favour of its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where should I start a discussion? Oh, and if you reply here without pinging me on my talk page, please do me a courtesy and WP:ECHO me next time. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template guideline[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. I appreciate that you used a high degree of WP knowledge when you deleted the "Influenced" line item in the Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy article infobox. I didn't succeed in finding the template in question. Perhaps you could point me to it. I find it helpful when editors are able to point to the Wikilink that justifies their action in the edit comment. I'll look for your reply here. Respectfully, User:HopsonRoad 12:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) To find a template (any template), you add the prefix "template:" before the template's name (in this case "infobox person"): [[template:infobox person]] resulting in template:infobox person. You can also get there by {{tl|infobox person}}, resulting in {{infobox person}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, Gerda Arendt. I see that the "Influenced" item is no longer supported. User:HopsonRoad 18:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were long discussions on the template talk. If you don't like something about a template, or miss something, go there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem in this case. I just thought that I was using a supported feature. That must have changed since my first use and the edit comment, removing it, was cryptic. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 02:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in general. I was recently told that people don't find templates, their documentation and their discussion, which causes confusion, naturally. (I was blind for that problem, because I found them all myself.) Please go to the template (any template) and then click "talk" to read the discussions, and participate. I see many complaints about template quality which could be solved. For example, we recently got the feature of adding source in a language other than English to {{infobox book}}. You can see, it takes patience ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind-blindness[edit]

Hi, Nikki ... per the discussion at the bottom of my talk, I was investigating the mind-blindness article and found this, but no discussion on talk. The issues are evident, but perhaps a talk section explaining the tag would be helpful? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI[edit]

Just so you know that I mentioned your addition of an infobox to the Horst Janssen article over on one of the drama boards. I'm not slapping at you, I just used it as an example to prove a point I was making. Given the totality of the circumstances, it was an irony that I could not help but notice. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irony? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little too ironic in my view. Montanabw(talk) 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Influences/influenced deletion "per template documentation"[edit]

Please visit Template talk:Infobox person#Influences/influenced and participate there before continuing this automated deletion.

There is a similar section at Template talk:Infobox writer but the discussion is at {infobox person}, the parent template if i understand correctly. --P64 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your understanding of "automation" is incorrect - the edits you cite were performed manually, using no special tools whatsoever (other than the normal editing interface). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering[edit]

about what seems like a sort of pointless edit you recently made at Carleton W. Angell. Or did I miss something? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTUSA and Template:Infobox person. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

I don't see that the parameter "nationality" has been removed from the Template:Infobox person yet you have removed some, such as in the Charles Boycott‎ article. Why? ww2censor (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your edit summaries, blanking a valid nationality from repeated articles [4] [5] [6] is not a minor "fmt". Particularly for Boycott, this is a particularly significant and sensitive piece of information. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you refer to the template documentation, you will note that nationality should not be included when it can be inferred from the birthplace. If there is a strong rationale to include it anyway, that might be considered on a case-by-case basis - Boycott is probably such a case, so feel free to restore it there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template documentation itself is subject to change. I would point out that there are so many exceptions to an "inference from birthplace" that this is going to create a mess. Better to leave itin. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And exceptions can be discussed (as with Boycott), but in non-exceptional cases it's superfluous. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for all the image reviews and source reviews you do over at WP:FAC! Your diligent and reliable work is highly appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Quadell! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia links[edit]

Why are you mass-removing Wikia links from articles? Is there any specific rule you are citing? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just nominated Template:Wikia for deletion. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...you should be aware, though, that not all Wikia sites are excluded by that guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Spring[edit]

You removed his activity as unsourced. What source would you expect beyond the year of his first listed composition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he began teaching in 1987 and lists a first composition from 1979. How would either of those facts support activity beginning 1986? For that matter, if we argue that the activity is as a composer, there is no composition listed since 2005. How does that support activity until now, in 2013? And how do we know that the composition list we have is comprehensive in either direction, when it is titled selected works? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Artistic composition is not static, Nikki. Let's take Thomas Pynchon or J.D. Salinger, one of whom went nearly a decade between books at times, the other authoring very few works in their entire lifetime and nothing for the last 30 or 40 years of their life, yet both are "writers." Be careful not to engage in a reducto ad absurdum argument. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't argue that they're not writers, or that Spring is not a composer. But activity as set out by the template is fairly static - the person was active beginning on this date - and in this case didn't make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point being that content discussions are one thing, looking for bogus reasons to make teeny-tiny infoboxes with no actual info is another. You could just say, "hmmm. Appears to be a discrepancy between infobox and text." True statement, fixable problem, less drama, no experienced content editors pissed off. I know that's not your style, but it would be a good style to think about adopting. Particularly for those of us like myself who can not only remember when TV programming was entirely in black and white but we also can speak (and write) in complete sentences. Particularly in edit summaries... Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC) (although vision is another thing entirely...)[reply]
Very few edit summaries by anyone are complete sentences, just as very few infoboxes in this topic area are well done. As to style, well, sources are important, in more ways than one. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox person? Generic? It's a question of design + experience. As for others, I rather liked Einstein's, and I most certainly hope you leave the Presidents of the United States alone. However, edit summaries of three letters are usually going to be greeted with "wtf?" Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The presidents don't use person, few persons are well designed, and I don't think anyone said anything about generic. Three letters: ESL ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But person is the foundation for all the others, getting back to the nationality issue. I think that it does no harm being there, saying someone is American, Canadian, etc., isn't bloating anything beyond reason, and random removals are just generating unneeded heat. Also, your edit summary abbreviations often are misleading when they imply a minor issue but are actualy a major one. As for nationality, I just think this is a stick you should drop because it's not really helping anything. JMO, IMHO, etc... Montanabw(talk) 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But including information that is one of (redundant, misleading, unsourced) is actually a problem. And edit summaries...well, again, trying to summarize something in a little box doesn't work well once you get beyond the barest facts. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "redundant" is not an infobox issue, after all, the same could be said about WP:LEAD. "Misleading" is a content discussion, and inherently, any summary will undoubtably annoy those who insist on excessive nuance and forget that wp is also accessed by beginners new to any field. Unsourced is also a content diccussion, but usually the salient facts are also in the body, and nothing stops anyone from adding a cn tag. I look at things like {{infobox mineral}} which has lots of parameters people can add that mean little to me, not being a geologist or gemologist, but I see their value; then I look at the presidents infoboxes, take, for example, John Quincy Adams, where the infobox is long, but truly needed, as at a glance you can see that he was one of the most qualified individuals to ever hold the presidency. As for edit summaries, the point is that "fmt" is misleading when one is stirring up a major shitstorm and one has to know they are doing so. Montanabw(talk) 00:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in this context redundancy not in terms of infobox to article, but infobox with itself - saying three times the same thing, for example. "Misleading" and "unsourced" can be content discussions, but certain parameters/templates, whether because they are poorly designed or because people don't read the documentation/guidelines, contribute to or even create such problems. Minerals can support longer infoboxes because they lend themselves well to a table of numbers, and in many cases that's the best way to present technical details. (As to presidents: care to take a guess as to which is the only one to include a nationality parameter? I'll give you a hint: it's not one where the issue has ever been (AFAIK) or is likely to be questioned). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, like geographic locations and such, SOFIXIT applies (particularly older articles when the "error" was actually a correct link, or a correct policy or preferred syntax somewhere back in time). For nationality (or if preferred, citizenship), to say someone was born in New York City (for example) and is an American might technically be redundant, but given the geographic illiteracy of most Americans (I say this as an American who used to teach geography, by the way, and even had a student once argue to me that the world was flat) someone was born in, say, Alberta or Montana might just benefit from that parameter. (Seriously, we have so many Alberta plates on the roads here that some Montana kids DO think Alberta is part of the United States). Montanabw(talk) 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOFIXIT is exactly the point, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Manby[edit]

Nikkimaria, Victuallers has just done a major "recut" of the article. When you get the chance, can you please check it one last time to see whether any close paraphrasing remains, or if it has successfully been eradicated? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven, EL:NO and Project Television[edit]

You removed a couple external links I added to individual episode articles for Haven (TV series), citing WP:ELNO. diff 1 diff 2 While wikis are generally a link to be avoided, their inclusion is quite normal for television episode pages. I'd normally add the appropriate page at imdb but it's pages for Haven episodes are atrocious, they don't even have complete cast lists. And while tv.com does slightly better, it doesn't have any information that the articles wouldn't have if they were written up to GA. Whereas the Haven wiki includes a lot of stuff that we don't, include long episode summaries and extensive continuity notes. They have a lot of stuff that we should include on our episode pages, like sourced quotes from the writers about the episodes, and I plan to work these pages and add this kind of material, but we still can't include all the stuff they do. HavenWikiWiki (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HavenWikiWiki, their inclusion is normal only for television wikis that meet the "substantial number of editors" requirement of WP:ELNO, such as Lostpedia. For smaller wikis, even if they provide more content than we do or should, we don't consider them to be appropriate links. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Television pages seem to regularly link to wikis, even smaller ones. I don't know if there's a specific guideline for this at the wikiproject, but I can check. Do you have a suggestion for a better EL? None of the main places (IMDb, TV.com, etc) have good links for Haven episodes, something that I'm guessing is why so many TV pages are willing to link to smaller wikis-a lack of alternatives. I'm aware that the Haven wiki is a smaller wiki, so I've only been adding links for the episodes where they have a substantial page that's footnoted and referenced to kingdom come. I figured if the article had some 40-odd references, it was probably considered an acceptable EL. Also, when you reply to me, could you give me a heads up on my talk page? I'd been watching yours but still missed it. Thanks! HavenWikiWiki (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey HavenWikiWiki (do you use Echo?), I see very few links to smaller wikis on TV pages; do you have specific examples I can look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't (don't really know anything about it), and, no I don't though I should. I just noticed this earlier today, and it's driving me crazy trying to recall it. It's one of those things I notice as a reader all the time, generally because I get sucked into a wiki I've never been to. The problem with Haven is that the show is only a few years old. So while the wiki is as old as the show, it's still only been around for a few years. There is another wiki for Haven, the havenpubliclibrary, but it's not as old and I think it's actually even smaller. There are a few big fansites, but not with consistent pages for individual episodes, and the same with the official website, no specific pages for each episode. IMDb, Tv.com and all of those places do a really poor or highly inconsistent job. That's not a whole lot to choose from. I do see the dilemma. That's one of the reasons I only added ELs when the Haven wiki had a good quality, highly sourced and referenced page. I can try and see if the people over at wikiproject TV have a better set of recommendations or other ideas. HavenWikiWiki (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pietroni's page[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I am one contributor of this page cause I was assistant of the producer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Guido_Pietroni

You did a wonderful job made a "sintesi" of the page but I think that you can considerate to leave those two paragraphs:

Among them we count Enrico Ruggeri, Massimo Di Cataldo, Gianluca Grignani, Marco Masini, Massimo Riva, Federico Salvatore, Biagio Antonacci and Eros Ramazzotti.

Today, David Guido Pietroni is a member of the prestigious Tribeca Film Center (since 2006), the production center wanted by Robert De Niro and Jane Rosenthal. The Center established to support the new promises of American movie industry and the New York Film Community.

The first because the singers are very popular and few of them also mention Pietroni in wiki Italia. About the second, Tribeca, I think can be nice to explain in couple of words what the center promote. The fact that the owner is De Niro in a great reference for wikipedia. Thanks and I wish you great day. Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.80.165 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barbara. I've restored the first paragraph. The second I'm going to leave out for now: the fact of membership is included, and details about the centre can be found at the linked article. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wnderful.mthanks and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.80.165 (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you funny[edit]

[7] Last Lone Wolf (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

For everything and nothing in particular, thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shower (Juggling)[edit]

Thanks for responding in the talk page re Shower juggling but the point I am making is that there are some records that stand on video evidence alone. They will never be authenticated by GBR because they cannot verify every record (although they do take video evidence now). So if we are to exclude video (youtube) evidence provided via a wiki the logical thing to do is remove all evidence that is youtube video evidence. This will essentially remove the whole article on juggling records as most records are authenticated by JISCON (an 'organisation' set up by jugglers for jugglers to make sure video evidence is supplied for juggling records and those records are not based on hearsay or claims in books, articles or newspapers) It would seem JISCON has a higher burden of proof than Wikipedia because sources for juggling records prior to video were often books, articles etc that could be used as references. To be clear I am not suggesting that the juggling records article should be removed but that there is consistency about using video evidence. Video evidence is by and large far better as a reference than a book, even a book by a respected author who may base 'fact' on previous books or other references. Let's not be pedantic about wikis or other sources as long as the original material (i.e the video) is available publicly (verifiable) and is as far as is known genuine. Robynthehode (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying at the talk page to keep this in one place. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 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) 22:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playmobil[edit]

Why did you delete the whole cultural references section? - Metalello talk 00:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the material was mostly unsourced and did not indicate the significance of these references to our understanding of the topic. See WP:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ThinkGeek one was widely reported and was sourced. - Metalello talk 00:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that entry had a primary source and did not indicate the significance of the reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider replacing it and tagging it and I'll source it later tonight. - Metalello talk 00:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you'll need to add some additional material anyways, I'll let you take care of writing and sourcing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

We may agree on something here: The Livestock Conservancy See Talk:Equus Survival Trust. I don't know where Dana boomer is right now, but she got the Livestock Conservancy article to FA and doesn't appear to be around to review this. Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watching. Given the number of links to endangered that are clearly meant to go to endangered species, moving the dab page around wouldn't be feasible, although it does need to be expanded (and not only for this reason). Do you think there's enough material for an endangered breeds article? I don't see it, but you know the topic better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dana boomer is the person to talk to about this. User:Steven Walling may also be of help. The links to "endangered" are no doubt problematic, but OTOH, there are folks who specialize in wikignoming dabs. A short article or redirect on endangered breeds might be useful, though we do already have Rare breed (agriculture) which is all but a stub and could perhaps be expanded to encompass more information (maybe with a section on what "endangered" means in that context). In addition to the two articles linked above, there is also Category:Rare breed conservation, from which I notice other articles like Rare Breeds Canada and the UK's Rare Breeds Survival Trust. (All of which, by the way, use "endangered" as one of their classifications). Montanabw(talk) 04:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Night[edit]

So let me get this straight - you've decided to add an extra space after every sentence and you've decided to make to link to a disambiguation page. Why would you do that? StAnselm (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see PoD's original reversion of your "repair" to the disambiguation link? Do you know that it's a residence that is referred to rather than a church building or something else? The spaces being removed is just plain insane to be worrying about - if someone reverts you on something like that ... it just makes YOU look bad to be that picky - reverting the primary author of an FA who chose some way to format the editing window. Common courtesy would say let the person who does most of the editing and maintaining on an article retain their perferred minor formatting quirks. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sounds very much like WP:OWN. The very fact that the extra spaces do not appear on the page means that they are extraneous and can be removed. As for the presbytery thing, I have started a talk page discussion. StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's always amazing to me how trying to maintain an article in a good state is almost always equated to "OWN!". What does it bother YOU that there are extra spaces? Why did they need removal if they don't appear on the page??? Rather than flinging around ownership - maybe step back and say "why did I do something that has no effect on the page and is annoying to the person that has brought the article up to a high standard and is trying to keep it there? Why should I make it annoying for him just to impose my own ideas of what might be good - especially on an article I don't normally edit?" ... seems to me you're showing just as much "OWN" by insisting that the spacing in the edit window conform to YOUR standards... hm? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if it's merely a matter of being annoying to the article creator, then we are certainly in WP:OWN territory. It wasn't a matter of conforming the spacing in the edit window to my standards, I was merely following the wikipedia standard. StAnselm (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the spaces are a formatting choice that was consistent throughout the article, that you removed and then edit-warred to keep out, that you claimed was vandalism (and templated an experienced editor for) when it is quite clear it was not, and that benefit the particular editor who works on that article without any negative impact on anyone else? It's great to see that you've started a talk page discussion about the link, but that should have been your first step after being reverted, rather than calling someone a vandal just because they disagreed with your edit, per WP:BRD. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The spaces were added back in without any reason given. Do you really think they benefit User:Parrot of Doom? How would they do that? StAnselm (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do; see for example explanation here. They might not help you, but as they don't harm you either that's no reason to remove them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Sara Chapman Bull[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just ran across this nomination, and a question to you as to whether the edits have satisfied the issues you raised. Can you please stop by and let Nvvchar know? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gerda Munsinger[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ;) - featured on Portal:Germany and going towards the stats, I guess, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revich[edit]

Thank you for finding the copyvio for Revich that I suspected. Can the management's text appear as external link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, don't see why not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taken. You reverted what I wanted as an example of an identibox, so I just used the older version in the discussion requested on my talk. We are in a process of transition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to transition, you should go all the way. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time for it, spending it on arbcom clarification of the absurd ;) - First we need to talk about steps, then proceed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would have time, if you spent your time differently. But that's up to you. I will say only that this does not seem to be true. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of it do you think seems not to be true? I would not have suggested an infobox to SchroCat (while ColonelHenry asked me for one), and the quote is from this situation which seemed hopeless. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I liked this comment to how I spent my time --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed good to hear. However, he still had it right the first time, and I wonder how many saying so it will take before you believe it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SR requested[edit]

... on this FAC, pretty please with mushrooms on top? Sasata (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Grand Prix of Baltimore[edit]

Nikkimaria, I don't know if you want to look at this one, but it's had several go rounds with me due to close paraphrasing and other issues, and after the last one the creator was ready to leave DYK. So I've let it sit, but that isn't really responsible of me; by the same token, it would probably be a good idea to get a fresh pair of eyes on it, and since there was the close paraphrasing involved, I hit on you. If you'd rather not, I can always ask Crisco. Please let me know! (If you are willing, I'll see the evidence on my Watchlist.) Thanks for considering it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Menéndez Márquez[edit]

FWIW, the hook that was approved at DYK was "... that Tomás Menéndez Márquez was abducted from his ranch by pirates and rescued by Indians?" The hook was changed without any notice to or consultation with me when the article was promoted. I deliberately choose to use "Indians" as a play on the stereotype-bending of "Indians" rescuing a rancher. I feel that the change made the kook less interesting. -- Donald Albury 12:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying at Wt:DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Enrique Murciano may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | birth_place = [[Miami]], [[Florida]], U.S.]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jay Chattaway may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Jay Chattaway''' (born July 8, 1946) is an [[Emmy Award]] winning [[United American [[composer]] of [[film score|film and television scores]]. He is mainly known for

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett & Nikkimaria[edit]

I have asked you before and you did not respond. Are you or are you not a friend of Eric Corbett (talk · contribs)?

Responding on your talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kay Smith (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Snows of Kilimanjaro (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) 20:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation[edit]

"you are a warring combative person with 3 different usernames" sounds very much like they know what they are accusing editors of, but I will step back and let you try to assist the editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also "I am not a "HE." Your assumption that I am is possibly why your articles have been biased and why you do not want me contributing to pages on sexuality" sounds very much like I was just accused of hating women editors and pushing them away from articles...which really pisses me off considering how much I try to keep our female editors and work with them. But in one swoop I am labeled a gay male chauvinist.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oh, she probably does think that all three of you are the same person, but I don't think she understands the implications of that in the Wikipedia context; that combined with the fact that no one else is likely to take the accusation seriously is why I'm inclined to leave it be. She's behaving badly because she's upset, so either she'll calm down by the time the block expires or she'll do the same thing again and get reblocked. This whole thing will probably end up being a WP:ROPE situation anyways, and if that happens the page may end up getting blanked entirely...Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sad part is...I really did want to assist them. But now I am sure they would not have cooperated. I hope only the best outcome if it is possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem likely, but we can hope. So you're aware, I'll likely be offline when the block expires; depending what zone she's in, if she becomes disruptive while I'm not about, feel free to raise it at ANI or elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your attempts to explain the situation to this relatively new user, Nikkimaria. I think she is frustrated to see all of her edits reverted. Looking over a lot of Editor accounts, I find many users who became productive Editors edit-warred or reverted when they first started editing because there is a sense that whoever outlasts the other Editors, wins the debate. And, to be honest, I think most casual Editors are completely unaware of the 3 revert rule (I know I edited for years without knowing about it). I think if she can get over this sense of being persecuted and be a little more patient, she could go on to contribute to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I note that you removed part of a comment I left on Beauvy's talk page. You were probably quite right to remove that part of my comment, and I won't be restoring it. I stand by the accuracy of what I said, however: Beauvy may have a point that the refs in The Dialectic of Sex could be formatted differently, but everything else she has said about the article recently is wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing its accuracy, simply its usefulness at this time. Liz, that's the hope, but I don't know how likely it is. I suppose now that the block's expired, we'll find out. And you know there's no point linking someone's username on their own talk, right? They'll get notified anyways... Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, it's just a force of habit. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, it's my duty to tell you that Beauvy has been edit warring at Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why again. She has been edit warring against multiple other editors, in fact. (I haven't been involved in the latest round of reverts at the article). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Looks like someone's already reblocked, but thanks for letting me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

DYK, primary sources and WP:MEDRS[edit]

@BlueMoonset:. Oh, dear. Well, the good news is that this came to my attention because after creating 100 new articles, the editor just discovered DYK with Paul Ashwood and Max Wiznitzer. It took me a few days to get around to checking these, but per this summary to WT:MED, is there any chance you all can raise awareness at DYK of a) not sourcing medical statements (or any statements) to press releases from the physician's employer, and b) not using synth/OR to draw connections between one Dr. and another infamous fraudulent doctor on the mainpage of Wikipedia? I'm hoping both of you can watch for medical DYKs and ping me if you see any coming through. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can try...I usually try to check through the day's queues shortly after 0000 UTC, but lately there haven't been three full sets to check, and as of right now there is only a single hook. I'll keep an eye out, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! In this case, although the editor has already created 100 articles with similar problems, at least we can perhaps nip these issues in the bud, before any more mainpage appearances. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My note to the admin who passed it is here; a bit steamed that he knew the Wakefield issue, but didn't see the BLP issue-- and he's a newly-minted admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_22&oldid=1168305662"