User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 25

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

Rosalind Ellicott[edit]

Hi, thank you for editing this article. The unsourced part you took out was a bit left over from before I started working on it. I couldn't find a reference, and wasn't brave enough to remove it, being new to wiki. I appreciate your markup corrections and style changes. Diana Bassplayer (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diana, you're doing a great job so far, keep it up! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stadio della Roma 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:
  • | image = [File:Stadio della Roma design.jpg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phil Zimmermann 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 2001, Zimmermann was inducted into the CRN Industry Hall of Fame.<ref>[http://www.crn.com/sections/special/hof/hof01.asp?ArticleID=31279 CRN Industry Hall of Fame</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hissa Hilal 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:
  • ''Hissa Hilal''' ({{lang-ar|حصة هلال}}) is a [audi Arabian [[poet]]. Previously published under the [[pseudonym]] '''Remia''' ({{lang-ar|ريميه}}),

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deliberately misleading section heading[edit]

Good morning Nikkimaria. Please do not describe your edits as "mos" (WP:MOS), as you did here, when the edit clearly contains potentially controversial changes that are entirely unrelated to WP:MOS. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Demiurge. Please do not restore inaccuracies and formatting problems because you misunderstand the application of a portion of that edit. See MOS:IDENTITY, not to mention the various content policies that mandate neutral and accurate information. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't misunderstand anything about your edit. Please discuss it on the talk page of the article concerned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe[edit]

You say (not to me): "infoboxes improve ALL articles" - surely you don't believe that?" - I surely believe that, as much as I believe that ALL books profit from a title page. I would like topic, time and location pointed out for all articles at a glance. - I was pointed to an article which consists practically only of an infobox, and find it helpful, ready to be easily translated to whatever language. When I log in, I get an Africa-related question. One thing Wikipedia can do for Africa is have information structured in a way that makes it accessible for readers with limited English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All (published) books have title, date, publisher, location; not all article topics have that type of structured information. What infobox would you put on toilet paper orientation, for example? Or pigs in popular culture and other IPC articles? Or most lists? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking from a reader's point of view, not the general maker of such info. Looking at the toilet paper, I am oriented enough by the images as the only box content, the creators might think about something to add, and if won't be the first article in need to be translated to an African language. The Rite of Spring looks like an article about a painting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words: no, you don't believe that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would reply if I hadn't exhausted my two comments per discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a morally proper way to orient toilet paper, the other direction is only promoted by people who don't have cats or small children in their homes! (LOL!) My more substantive comment at the article discussion. Montanabw(talk) 23:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

Mary of Waltham[edit]

Hello. I've done a lot of work on this article. I would welcome your input if you have time. Is it good enough to remove the copy-editing banner? Thanks Diana Bassplayer (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diana, I've removed the tag, but there are two spots (marked with hidden comments) that need to be looked at yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the editing, it's very appreciated. Please can you tell me how to find the hidden comments so I can work on those bits? Thank you Diana Bassplayer (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diana, hidden comments are those enclosed in <!-- --> HTML markup - they show up in the editing window but not while reading the article itself. If you look at the sentences "It was a gift from the king..." and "However, within a few months..." in edit mode, you should see the comments; let me know if you have trouble. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria, thank you. I hope I've fixed those bits. Just one other thing if you have the time – the Brittany Portal was there before I started. Is it an appropriate link? Diana (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems fine, Diana - thanks again for your work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAC spotchecks?[edit]

Nikki, not sure if you do all the spotchecks for all FACs but the Mucho Macho Man FAC is sort of sitting in limbo (Colonel Henry started a review but got sidetracked by real life) and given that you peeked at if for the peer review and have already checked the images, if there is any further magic you routinely do to sign off on these (or not), I'd be most appreciative. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the delegates don't ask for spotchecks where the nominator's had them at a recent FAC - your work was spotchecked on Oxbow. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Also appreciate your nitpicks, though it helps my eyes if you can be as specific as possible so I can find stuff with a word search (as when you noted specific footnotes) and clarify the result you are seeking, not just pointing out a problem (Sometimes solution is obvious, but not always) Now if I can just get one or two more reviewers -- What does Ian need to see to promote? Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more supports, most likely. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for the contributions. Relly Komaruzaman Talk 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rushka Bergman[edit]

I am well aware of Rushka Bergman's history and works. Everything listed in her wikipedia page is true and accurate. It is extremely frustrating that you keep taking out valid elements in her page. Please refrain from editing the material. There is no need for you to continuously vandalize this page.

AMF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artmusicfashion, no one is vandalizing the page, and you can't ask people to refrain from editing - this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and when you disagree with someone you should discuss the matter. If you look at what my changes were, I reorganized the page, but the only content removed was the long list of cover models - this is too much detail for that article. However, you were the one to remove her filmography - can you explain why you did that? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to remove that. It must have happened while we were going back and forth reposting and un-posting material. All of those cover stars are meant to be seen on the page and it would be much appreciated that you should leave it that way. Thank you. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, actually, they aren't "meant to be seen" - they might be appropriate for her webpage, but Wikipedia uses a summary style to maintain balance and avoid excessive detail (like a list of 50+ people). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Nikkimaria, I agree that some of the names are excessive, but I do think that the people she continues to work with should be mentioned on her wikipedia. These are the facts regarding her career at this time. She continues to work with film directors Steven Speilberg, David Cronenberg, David Lynch, Tim Burton, Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino. She continues to work with Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Shia Lebeouf, Robert Pattinson, and Michael Fassbender. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.136.12 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, do you have any reliable secondary sources to support your proposed content? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. I will move forward with editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.136.12 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

René Guénon[edit]

Hello,

Well, "backlog is 8 years" does not seem to be very serious: I could for instance add these tags on all wikipedia articles and wait for more than 8 years if someone change them… and putting them back as you do if anyone remove them. You've put those tags which do not seem to trigger much reaction, so I thought I was correct to remove them after 3 months. But OK, if you want to keep them, let's do it. I will change the article soon to make it shorter, if I find the time.

Best,

- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could, if you wanted to be pointy...but the idea is that the tags should be removed when someone fixes the problem, not just because they've been there for a few months - editing, not time, is the solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(tps)NM is correct, removing tags where there remains a problem helps nothing, better to just fix the problem. Montanabw(talk) 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please leave the G.V. Loewen page as is[edit]

Hello,

I am an editor of a Canadian literary review and a friend of the social philosopher Loewen. I spent a good deal of time assembling the texts used on this page and neither he nor I wish it to be altered. The idea that there are too many quotes or material from reviews is purely subjective and you have no right to impose your opinions - based on what? - on someone else's work in this way. Find something else to do with your time.Ypress20 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ypress20, I'm afraid that "neither he nor I wish it to be altered" isn't how this site works - this is not his personal webpage, and you and he "have no right" to dictate the content of the page. Wikipedia prefers a summary style that avoids excessive use of non-free content; these are site policies and guidelines rather than my opinions alone. I see someone has provided a welcome message on your talk page to help you learn about how Wikipedia works, so I suggest you read through the links there (and add the conflict of interest guideline as well). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2014[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping MMM[edit]

Hi Nikki, picked up another support on MMM. Maybe take a peek at the stuff you were concerned about and see if I addressed it all, or at least narrowed down the problem to something you can perhaps tweak directly. I think (I think!) that the "press release" question is the only thing I still need your input on. With ColonelHenry and Tigerboy both having RL stuff to deal with, I'm hoping everyone else can offer support soon. I'm going to ping Ian that we are getting close, just in case he has something happening. My current project is California Chrome, and that's an article I am going to have to monitor closely in real time, as he is a current Kentucky Derby contender. Kind of fun to be ahead of the curve on one of these for a change. Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, me again. Have four supports on this FAC and if you can sign off, there will be five. Would love to get this one done. I think there were a couple little hiccups you spotted that I may or may not have addressed. I'd be glad to get on them if you can clarify what still may be a problem. Montanabw(talk) 23:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AN#User:Robsinden_actions[edit]

Since you are involved, you should be aware of Wikipedia:AN#User:Robsinden_actions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

Problems moving out of the sandbox[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria: my students are moving their articles to the main namespace this weekend. So far, I notice problems with two of them: Negev Bedouin Women and Commodification of the womb. Why are these articles not showing? Thanks. BerikG (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BerikG, Negev Bedouin Women was moved twice - it's now at Negev Bedouin women. Commodification of the womb does appear under that title. What do you mean by "not showing"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the course page there is no live link (the article title does not show in blue). When I search Wikipedia by the article title, yes, the article is there. BerikG (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there is a problem with the system not being able to follow page moves. I could get around this by removing and re-adding the article, so commodification of the womb is now correctly linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. Several course articles have this problem, BTW. Now I am writing about two students' articles: 1) Gender inequality in India: This article is currently called Sexism in India. My student expanded the article substantially in her sandbox and is changing the title to Gender inequality in India. But when it comes to moving the article to the main namespace, the system is not moving it. 2) Missing women of China. My student created this article and revised it. But when she moved it to the main namespace yesterday, it was immediately taken down. She has had trouble with a Wikipedia user who argued against the title (Missing women is an established term and there is already a Missing women of Asia article!) The latest reason given is that it is not ready to move (I think it is ready) and this person does not know anything about the Wikipedia Education Program. I hope you can help move these articles from the sandboxes. Thanks. BerikG (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first one required that a redirect be deleted, so I have done that and moved the article. The second, though, is currently protected from being moved. The primary objection seems to be that the article reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria for taking care of a couple of my requests. I do, however, have a hard time understanding how the "wifeless men" section of Missing women of China article reads like an essay. (I agree with your point about combining the "marginalized men" section with this section and avoiding general conclusions). Please provide one example (sentence) in the Wifeless men section that has an essay-like tone. Secondly, the insistence on Gender imbalance in China does not make sense from the point of view of the scholarship. There is an established scholarship on "Missing women." (Just do a Google Scholar search.) People will not search Wikipedia for the more accurate-sounding "Gender imbalance" article, they will look up "Missing women."BerikG (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My objection was primarily to the phrasing of the marginalized men section, not the wifeless men section. There is a simple solution to the issue of searching, though: create a redirect from whichever title is used to the other, that way no matter which term a searcher uses they will find the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing and original research[edit]

At this discussion on AnI, I am asking about what I consider to be a misinterpretation by another editor of what constitutes original research and close paraphrasing. As an expert on copyright issues, it would be very helpful to have your input on the matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I agree with Cas: the thread would be better off closed than further argued. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point has come up again at my editor review in the section from Faendalimas. It is quite critical to the criticisms being levied against me and I would very much appreciate your intervention in the discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, just a side comment as someone who has been lurking on this case and also as someone who has helped on a couple of big CCIs, I think that the folks who patrol copyvio tend to be "scarier" than the folks who argue for technical expertise - people get banned for major and repeated copyvio problems. So I think it appropriate for someone who regularly works in that area to help sort out the threads of that issue; close paraphrasing is something that is very easy to do and especially in an area where the technical language and necessary nuances are often rather subtle, and a paraphrase can change meaning entirely, as in science and law. Montanabw(talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reviewers from a course page[edit]

I would like to delete two users TINGLED1 and Rsl89 as reviewers from my course page, to allow others to sign up. (I already deleted them as members of the course --they have dropped out!) Please tell me how. BerikG (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you would have been able to, so I've done this. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About taken down article from namespace to draft[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I am a student of Professor Berik. I notice from the above message that she has already told you about my problem. The topic of my article is "Missing women of China". I moved it to namespace last night and it was taken down this morning.

I was told that, “you moved the article to mainspace when it clearly had problems you decided to disregard their advice." But the problem is the two comments I've got was on March 29th and 31th. I made a lot of changes after that. According to the viewers, the first problem of my article is that the article looks like original research. I think maybe because I'm an international student, so some of my English expressions make the article looks like an essay. While after several revisions, I think it looks much better now than before. The second problem they said is the title. The viewer thinks the title should be "Gender imbalance in China" instead of "Missing women of China". But they are totally two different concepts. There is a "Missing women of Asia" in the Wikipedia already, so actually I am not quite understand why the title is a problem. I explained to the viewer, but it seems that we still have different ideas on this problem.

My previous taken down article is here now: Draft:Missing women of China.(I'm also confused that I cannot find the draft in my sandbox or my page.) Could you help me to look at what are the problems that do not match Wikipedia requirements? (This is what the viewer pointed out, but he didn't told me what are the specific problems. He just told me there was sufficient cause for it to be declined.) Thank you so much!! I'm really appreciate! Yangtana Li (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yangtana Li. I see a difference between Gender inequality in China and Gender imbalance in China; I'm not so sure I see one between the latter and Missing women in China. Can you explain?
In terms of the article content, there are a couple of issues I see on a quick look. The "marginalized men" section seems quite essay-like as written; I would suggest rewriting it as part of the "Wifeless men" section. Second, in the final section, avoid broad generalizations like "China’s society is changing" - instead, frame the content as reactions to the problematic gender ratio rather than as a conclusion to an essay. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Nikkimaria: Missing women is a term to describe a distorted sex ratio that males population is far more than females population due to some discriminations against women. It is a more academic phrase than gender imbalance. There are many journal articles on google scholar talking about missing women. While gender imbalance includes two sides: males are far more than females, or males are much less than females. The former is what missing women described. In China, females are less than males due to traditional discriminations against women. I'm not sure if I explain it clearly. (I'm sorry for what I said, "they are totally two different concepts" above, because I'm ashamed that I was confused about gender imbalance and gender inequality at that time. In Chinese, imbalance and inequality sometimes have similar meaning.)

Thank you for your helpful advices and revisions! I'll keep revising the draft, especially the sections you mentioned above. Thank you so much!! Yangtana Li (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria: Could you help me to move the article "Missing women of China" to the namespace please? My article is protected now, so I cannot move it by myself. The article is still in the Draft:Missing women of China. Or if you think the article need to be revised on some points before the move, let me know please. Thank you so much! Best,Yangtana Li (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with moving my sandbox to wiki article[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I seem to have made a mistake with my sandbox. I am a student in Dr. Berik's course. I have developed major edits to the Sexism in India article and have proposed a name change to Gender inequality in India. In doing so, I overwrote the title of my sandbox with Gender inequality in Utah. I am unable to move my sandbox to the Sexism in India article. I wonder if I should create a new account and start over. I can still access my article text/code. Any advice? Weetie2 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weetie2, your sandbox is now at User:Weetie2sandbox, but the content is now in the newly moved Gender inequality in India article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greed[edit]

Hi, I am attempting to get Greed (film) promoted to FA status again and thought that you may be interested in giving it another look.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I out of line...[edit]

With the discussion at Talk:Robert of Chichester? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images[edit]

The lead image is always bigger than the other imagers, and should be displayed such according to it, given the place and opportunity.

Size[edit]

See also: Image use policy on displayed image size
  • "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than "upright=1.8" (defaults to 400 pixels) wide; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. e.g.

[[File:Example.png|thumb|upright=1.2|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

  • Alternatively, a fixed size can be specified in the form |XXXpx, where XXX is replaced by a number of pixels, although this should be avoided where possible, since it overrides the user's default. For example:

    [[File:Example.png|thumb|120px|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

    • As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding.
    • Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px").
    • In addition to the width restrictions, with the default value, larger images should generally be a maximum of 500 pixels tall, so that they can comfortably be displayed on the smallest displays in common use. This can be done by proportionately reducing the width.

Hafspajen (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

I have rectified the issue that you pointed out. Please have a look, and mention if there are other issues. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging again. Please let me know if there any more issues. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rsrikanth05, have you checked for other issues yourself? That's often quite a helpful step before re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. I have done as much as I can on that article. It's difficult to come up with totally unrelated phrases when you rely on few sources. I've done all that I can. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 5[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[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) 14:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Shammi (actress)[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether this DYK nom should simply be closed? Looking at the extent of the edits subsequent to Montanabw's comments, it seems unlikely that the pervasive close paraphrasing has been dealt with, but I wanted to be sure before doing so. Also, given the circumstances, you may want to readd the close paraphrasing template in the article, which was removed when the specific infringement you mentioned in your DYK comment was simply dropped from the article (except for the final sentence). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem persists, so probably closing would be best. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've just closed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, one can only lead the horse to water... Montanabw(talk) 06:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sanjhi roti (community meal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabzi (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) 09:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Holloway[edit]

Hi NM, It is with a heavy heart that I have to inform you of this discussion which has just been started. You may or may not wish to comment, I'll leave that to you, but I felt you ought to know seeing as you kindly keep a watch on it from time to time. Cassiantotalk 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

René Guénon[edit]

Please see talk page. Thanks, - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 14:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry. Then I'm going to apply the method of splitting to this article more systematically. Thanks. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 04:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Rezan Zuğurlu[edit]

Nikkimaria, I noticed there was a call for a new review on this one, and you had been the one to point out close paraphrasing in a previous review. Can you please take another look—it's so much better when you do it, rather than have someone else who's less adept, just in case there are remaining instances. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia for Strings (Henze)[edit]

Hi. Could you please tell me why you deleted the In popular culture section in Fantasia for Strings (Henze)? Please note that the information it contained got to DYK, so I don't see the point in deleting it. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't meet the standards outlined at WP:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping in China[edit]

"It is common for hong kong men to be temporarily kidnapped and robbed by mainland gangsters."[1] OccultZone (Talk) 19:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not what you're saying in the article. The article says "Due to such incidents, it has became common thing in Hong Kong to be kidnapped" - what this means is that it is common for everyone to be kidnapped because of the "incidents" previously mentioned, which refer only to the kidnapping of women and children - not the kidnapping of men. The source says it is common for men to be kidnapped; it does not connect this fact to any of the incidents discussed, nor does it generalize this to the entire population. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On DYK of "Kidnapping in China"[edit]

You cannot read Please do not modify this page? Don't edit for adding your own opinion about the article. You even know what is stub? Read WP:STUB, it is clearly far bigger to be a stub. OccultZone (Talk) 19:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can read, and yes, I know what a stub is. Specifically, I know that "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub...there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a couple of paragraphs long", per WP:STUB. Please see Template_talk:Did_you_know#How_to_remove_a_hook_from_the_prep_areas_or_queue, which requires that the review be re-opened; if it were left closed, the article would never be featured on the main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry. I may expand it as quickly as possible. OccultZone (Talk) 19:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough[edit]

Ok Nikki. I just wanted you to know that you've now reverted four times. That's three different versions of an infobox by three different editors, which doesn't look like any attempt to seek consensus. I won't revert further and you know that I have no history of edit-warring, so pot/kettle is hardly appropriate is it?. But I will seek sanctions if you try to impose your preferred version of an article against multiple other editors after you have been served with a warning. You know that I'd much rather not have to do that, because I value your contributions in general. Please take it to talk and let's find a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pot/kettle is correct: neither of us has broken 3RR, but both of us (and yes, that includes you, despite your protestations) have edit-warred. By all means, let's discuss the issue, but please do so honestly. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't correct. If you don't believe me here's the relevant history up to 21:50 on 24 April 2014:
The Vintage Feminist added an {{Infobox person}} (1144 bytes) then an {{Infobox musical artist}} (552 bytes) in response to Jerome's complaint. Jerome reverted both. MontanaBW reverted Jerome and you reverted her. MontanaBW reverted you and you reverted her again. MontanaBW tried the {{Infobox person}} (604 bytes) and you reverted that as well. In response to Jerome's argument about excess blank parameters (which I agreed with on talk), I tried a minimal {{Infobox person}} (356 bytes), but you reverted even that. Now I have reverted your revert, which is actually my first revert. You know I keep a strict 1RR so I'm finished. But you, Nikki, have reverted that article back to the same state four times since yesterday. I have been looking for a variation that meets objections and everyone could live with - the definition of consensus. Now if we're going to be honest, aren't you simply reverting to keep any infobox out of the article? - that's not seeking consensus; that's "no compromise". If you feel that no infobox could possibly be appropriate for the article under any circumstances, then let's debate that at talk, but please don't tell me I'm equal to you in edit-warring, because we both know I'm not. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We were debating that at talk before your first revert. It appears that what "we both know" is shrinking daily, which is a shame. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not wishing to stoke the fire, but as far as I can see, there was no discussion when a box was added. Why should we then have to discuss an infobox removal when we didn't discuss the implementation? This makes an infobox the default position when it's not. Why should the default position be with a box when it should be without as that's when the discussion should have taken place in the first instance as per BRD? Cassiantotalk 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - you're not stoking fires - Nikki and I don't seem to quite manage to fall over our differences. I would say though that WP:BRD (an essay) actually encourages making the edit first - it's not DBR. It points us to WP:Be bold (a guideline which is absolutely fundamental to wiki-editing) and WP:Revert only when necessary (another useful essay). My view is that expecting an editor to go and seek consensus on a talk page first - and then using a failure to do so as a reason to revert - to be one of the practices that is killing Wikipedia. Wikipedia grew because editors could make edits and did. Of course some were reverted, but it was usually accompanied by an understandable reason. But now, I see completely fresh editors adding infoboxes and being reverted for all sorts of spurious reasons. What must The Vintage Feminist have thought of the reasoning that ("Person infobox") is inappropriate to composers of classical music? - as if composers were not people! Why wouldn't somebody suggest {{infobox classical composer}} in any case, instead of just reverting? I think articles have to move forward, not look back; stagnation is the nemesis of wiki-editing, so I don't find the concept of a 'default position' to be useful; rather, it stifles progress and possible improvement. Not every article benefits from an infobox, of course - we can agree on that - but I really don't believe that anyone can predict that a whole class of articles will or won't benefit; there are far too many variables for that. I just wish the process of finding out which ones do and which ones don't wasn't so difficult that uninvolved editors get treated badly just for raising the issue. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of my post on John McCabe's talk page (for the benefit of anyone happening upon this discussion):
Just for information purposes ....The Daily Telegraph print a "Birthday's Today" feature. I was going through the list of birthdays (21st April 2011) and adding them to Births on 21 April, the list, from the newspaper, for the 21st April reads as follows:
Maj Gen Sir John Swinton, Lord–Lieutenant for Berwickshire, 1989–2000, is 86; Sir Robin Ibbs, Chairman, Lloyds TSB Group, 1995–97, 85; Mrs Angela Barrett, Wimbledon Ladies' Singles Champion, 1961, 79; Sir Michael Oswald, National Hunt Adviser to the Queen, 77; Lord Glentoran 76; Mr John McCabe, composer and concert pianist, 72; Mr Robin Gourlay, Chairman, AWG plc (formerly Anglian Water Group), 1994–2003, 72; Prof Sir Alan Fersht, organic chemist, 68; Viscount De L'Isle 66; Prof Ian Bruce, Vice–President, RNIB, 66; Mr Srinivas Venkataraghavan, former India cricketer, 66; Adml Lord West of Spithead, Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State, Home Office, 2007–10; First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, 2002–06, 63; Ms Cheryl Gillan, MP, Secretary of State for Wales, 59; and Mr Mike Clasper, Chairman, HM Revenue and Customs, 58.
I worked my way through the list and - where they already had an article on wikipedia - just added the wikilink to the list for the 21st. Some names had articles for the people involved but the date of birth was missing (which I then added), and in some cases I created new stub articles. My reason for adding infoboxes, if there is none, is so the age of the person can be shown.
To be honest I found the opening line of the section on biographical infoboxes for composers to less than decisive, The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article ...so if this is where the consensus is being determined then put me down as a pro-infoboxer on the grounds of DOB/age combination that is otherwise missing from the article - no matter where you cast your eyes. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, with regards to Cassianto comment (in this thread), ...."there was no discussion when a box was added. Why should we then have to discuss an infobox removal when we didn't discuss the implementation?" If every edit is to be regarded as an "implementation" for which a discussion is required then editing wikipedia will be like trying to run through treacle with with clown shoes on for everybody. I had no reason to suspect that infobox + composer = extremely touchy subject which requires discussion. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not every edit no, only major ones. I personally consider the addition of an infobox to be a major edit, not to mention contentious. Major edits should be discussed if those edits are likely to be controversial. Fair enough, you didn't know so I really wouldn't take it personally. My point was that if we are to require a discussion around the removal of an infobox, then we should equally expect to discuss the addition of an infobox. It's really not rocket science! Cassiantotalk 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the box that was added was non-informative and repetitive when compared to the lede section. Is that what you want to see in an encyclopaedia, repetitive information? That to me looks infantile. Cassiantotalk 17:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/The Flick[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you please stop by and comment on whether the fair use issue has been addressed? TonyTheTiger has made some edits that reduced his use of long quotes, but you'll be a much better judge than I whether this is sufficient. I've temporarily reversed the reapproval by the original reviewer. The last thing we want is for this to be promoted again and then have to be pulled back again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I have a question that I can't seem to find an answer to. Is it ok to combine the lead sentence from 3 paragraphs of a 6 paragraph review in one blockquote? This is done a few times in Template:Did you know nominations/The Flick. Maybe it's ok but it doesn't feel that way to me. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Parabolooidal, which review(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

England is not allowed to be linked to?[edit]

I'm referring to my 'edit' of the Stephen_Merchant article. Every other country can be linked to, but not England. I've noticed this a lot on Wikipedia. It's a pity you can't 'nuke' England, eh?

/ -:

Whatever, you 'win'... 70.238.216.14 (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned my name[edit]

I appreciate your effort to expand edit summaries beyond a cryptic abbreviation, but request that you don't mention my name for something I don't stand for, as here. Without context, it seems that per me, you "restore" to a status quo by removing an infobox. Whoever knows me (which I thought includes yourself) will see that there's the danger of misunderstanding. The idea that a status quo remains frozen, without hope for improvement, is not what I stand for. The removal of content that is helpful, even if only for some readers, is not what I stand for. - If you tried to express that I had suggested on the talk page to better use infobox person, you didn't succeed to make that clear. The best solution would be to avoid my name in places where I have no chance to explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said that "I add [infoboxes] to "my" articles, but agree that others are free not to do the same" - if that is not what you stand for, then why would you say it? I thought, knowing you and what you have previously agreed, that you supported the author choosing; I would be disappointed to hear that this is untrue. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is an editor who sees only one edit supposed to know that? Not even I made that connection, and how could I? - We know that diffs are looked at without context. (Remember that famous example when an arbitrator probably thought "Andy adding an infobox to a classical composer's article", - while all he did was uncollapse one and move it to the normal positionP) I am not concerned about that composer's article - as you may have noticed. I am concerned that some day someone will look at your edit and conclude: per gerda, an infobox is removed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if your position is as described then that is an edit that you support. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My position is as described. I don't support your edit summary, and that is the only reason I came here, hoping that you will not again present my name in an edit summary connected to the removal of an infobox or other content that might help some readers. I don't comment your edit itself: neutral, leaning toward oppose. You said it well above: "the author choosing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also-[edit]

You removed it from Rape in Germany, it was not really undue, and Under-reporting includes the data about unreported rapes. It is relevant with the subject. OccultZone (Talk) 04:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If under-reporting is a topic of relevance, it would be better to explain this in the article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, you have to go back to the DYK's of Kidnapping China, your concern had been accepted, and I had expanded the page. OccultZone (Talk) 12:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google books links[edit]

Please don't remove the page number from google books links; typically this is very unhelpful for the reader. Removing the search term is of course fine, & I now do it myself when posting. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I don't do that for citations, but in References lists it's the work as a whole that is of interest rather than a specific page - the page number is not part of the reference itself, so why include it in the URL? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dug into this a bit on some past articles. If you use the book more than once, you probably need to do a format (sfn is one, but not the only one) so that you can use the reference multiple times. If the work is only used once in a footnote (and probably is likely to only be used once in subsequent editing, at least in the near future) then having the page number in the citation under the "page=" parameter is acceptable. Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the article in question (St Cuthbert Gospel) already uses short citations for the various uses/pages - what's at issue here is the general entry, under References, which includes no specific page at all. Since the citation doesn't include a page, why should the URL? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that point. One reason may be the MOS, which for some (stupid) reason insists on page cites if Google Books is used. Montanabw(talk) 01:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I haven't checked them individually just now, but several (most in fact) of the reference books only have a few relevant pages in a long book. The page references are in the individual citations, and the google link in the refs section takes you to one of those pages. It is not true to say "in References lists it's the work as a whole that is of interest rather than a specific page". It might be, but it usually isn't. For example (having now checked), there are several citations to "Farmer", but all to pages 52-60, which the link takes you to the middle of. Likewise "Skemer", where citations are only to pp. 50-58, with a nod to the wider subject he covers. Same again with Avrin, where all 3 citations are to a range of 3 pages. As it happens neither of the books I use the most in this article are on google books at all. The MOS is generally right to insist on page refs for Google books. It's a huge nuisance to scroll to page 310 in a google book, so why impose this on the reader against the MOS? The only point of a google books link is to make it easy for people who actually want to see the reference, so why make it difficult? Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not then include the direct page references in the short cites themselves, where they would be of most use? The MOS doesn't actually insist on page refs; it only insists that GBooks links should only be provided where a preview is actually available. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I provide the page references, but not links every time. In the examples given above there is little need - to find the right page in a range of say 8 pages is trivial, to find page 310 from scratch is not. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Beam[edit]

I used to have an account for High Beam, but somehow I cannot enter. I always end up on the site, where I am asked to pay. What can I do? --Nicola54 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nicola54, check your email. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Nicola54 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Speyer wine bottle[edit]

Please take a look. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Wordpress source appears unreliable, FWIW. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The content looks well researched and thought out. Doesn't look flimsy. Think about it. I value your opinion, and will let this cook overnight. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same with some Wikipedia articles ;-). Have any other sources cited or reviewed that blog? What is the author's background in this area? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions and lines of inquiry. I don't know, but I will try to find out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HighBeam[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

This is my first time applying for journal access and I was just wondering when you start approving/declining users?

Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dom497, I'll be taking a look at the list within the next day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have the same question. From what I understand, applications take place in different rounds, with the latest one being "Round 8". Assuming that I'm part of "Round 9" (which is still open), when will approvals begin for us? Thanks in advance. OscarL 16:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about commenting on a FAR[edit]

Hi there,

I noticed on the Jenna Jameson talk page that the article was currently undergoing FAR, and the header there had a link to a page where I could leave a comment. However, after I saved my comments, I noticed that the link supplied on the Jameson talk page had sent me to an archive rather than the main FAR page. Do I need to move my comments from the archive to the main page for them to count toward the FAR? Sorry to bother you with this, but I've never commented on a FAR before.

Thanks, --chrisFjordson (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey chrisFjordson, you're in the right place - FARs (and some other reviews, like [[WP:FAC|FACs]) are held in an archive from the beginning. That discussion is still active and your post will be considered in the closing decision, when that is made. Thanks for participating! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ain Shams University 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:
  • * Faculty of Computer and Information Science].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timewyrm: Genesys 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:
  • [[Mad Norwegian Press]] |location=Des Moines, Iowa |isbn=978-0-9759446-6-0}}</ref><ref>"Shelf Life"], Gary Russell, Doctor Who Monthly No. 177</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jerry Nelson 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:
  • | children = 1)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Max Johnston 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:
  • a level I haven't before."<ref>http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A78666]</ref> By the time of his second recording with the band, ''[[Bolsa de Agua]]'', Johnston had found

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paul de Man 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:
  • </ref><ref>Tom Bartlett, 2-13, "Paul de Man's Many Secrets," ''Chronicle of Higher Education''], Oct. 21, 2013. See [http://chronicle.com/article/The-Many-Betrayals-of-Paul-de/142505/], date of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theodora Cowan 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:
  • //nla.gov.au/nla.news-article18183572 |title=Advertising. |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald)]] |location=NSW |date=4 August 1950 |accessdate=15 May 2014 |page=11 }}</ref> The probate value on

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hilda Rix Nicholas 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:
  • //nla.gov.au/nla.news-article15383323 |title=General cable news |newspaper=[[Sydney Morning Herald)]] |location=NSW |date=16 December 1912 |accessdate=10 February 2014 |page=10 |publisher=National
  • gov.au/projects/venice-biennale/past-representation|title=Past Representation|work=Projects -> Venice Biennale|publisher=Australia Council for the Arts|accessdate=17 March 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arnold Schoenberg 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:
  • During the summer of 1910, Schoenberg wrote his [https://archive.org/search.php?query=%28creator%3A%22Arnold%20Sch%C3%B6nberg%22%20OR%20creator%3A%

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Your Mortimer J. Adler edit[edit]

I am adding brief definitions of Adler’s three kinds of freedom. They are too important to merely file by title. If you delete what I add, OK. I am too old to fight. Vejlefjord (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rm ib[edit]

You explained that you like short edit summaries, I recommend you start using "rm ib" for "remove infobox". That would be clearer than "see talk", "wrong ...", "rewrite", and other variations on the theme. Better even: think about stopping the removal of infoboxes from articles where you are no major contributor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. "ib" is not a standard abbreviation, and things like "see talk" and the explanation you omitted are considered better practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry: "wrong: simplified double to single frame": I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, - what I see is removal of content that may be helpful to some users - even if not for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you don't understand something, it's usually helpful to look for context. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Context, I heard that before, see above, when you expected a reader of one edit summary to find the context on a different contributor's talk page. I politely disagree. Please do as much as you can to make a single edit understandable for a reader who does not know the context. If "ib" is no standard abbreviation, please spell out "remove infobox", - rewrite" is a euphemism, not to speak about "wrong" without context. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where I expected one individual to recall what had already been explained to him, you mean? It seems that is asking too much, but it really shouldn't be. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. I meant that you used my name in the edit summary of the removal of an infobox, which made no sense without context, and not much sense with the context which was not in the article history, but a different editor's talk. - The easy approach to avoid such misunderstandings was mentioned above: you could simply stay away from the infoboxes of articles where you are no major contributor. as I have to ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't, nor do your associates. If everyone did, as already discussed, that would be a different matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by associates. Project members? People trying to improve accessibility, by simple things like presenting a date in granular form, ready to be interpreted in different cultures, used for calculations and comparisons? Which you reverted, edit summary "simplify". I give up trying to understand for now. I believe that an edit summary is meant to be understood by a random reader without context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was Voltaire wrong about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians?[edit]

There is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. Could you please take a look at it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, but I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an outstanding 25 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers AR. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about your non-RS edit[edit]

Hi there. The link you removed was to the song itself. I'm curious to know why you thought it was unreliable. (I assure you that that's the version on the album.) JTBurman (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JTBurman, do you mean the YouTube link, or the other? Assuming the YouTube: the interpretation of the lyrics should have a secondary source if included - don't really think it merits inclusion anyways, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now: the interpretation was mine. Thanks for explaining. JTBurman (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OPENPARA[edit]

There is no consensus on the talk page, if you remove it again I will raise the matter at ANI. GiantSnowman 14:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd get hit by a boomerang if you did - five people for removal versus one (you) for retention is a pretty strong consensus, particularly given that you had no consensus for the addition in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5 vs 1? Pull the other one. You and In ictu oculi, with minor support from Herostratus, against me with minor support from  SMcCandlish. So it's actually 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 2 - either way it's irrelevant, consensus comes from strength of argument not sheer numbers. Furthermore I didn't require consensus for my initial addition seeing as it was an addition which merely clarified the existing MOS. You really must try harder. GiantSnowman 14:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying you were "merely clarifying", and it keeps not being true. You seem to have missed Michael and Gerda in your calculations. Not to mention the fact that your arguments have been refuted, and you have not been able to provide any convincing evidence to support your assertion that it is "not good practice" to do what several well-respected encyclopedias do. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael's point was so throwaway it doesn't add anything, while Gerda does not really express an opinion either way, though they did 'thank' me when I reverted you so that implies they are more towards my side of thinking. I don't really care what other encyclopedias do - I care what Wikipedia does - although I did show you that the DNB does not include places of birth/death in the opening brackets. That, combined with current wording and current practice on Wikipedia re:FA/GAs means you are wrong. Just accept it. GiantSnowman 14:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To call anybody's comment "throwaway": better no comment. As to the interpretation of my opinion: yes, GS, I thanked you for reverting, but only because I felt that no change should be put there without a discussion. In the discussion, I hoped to have made clear that I would like to have both options (!) to have locations in the opening paragraph, the "German" (locations in the bracket) and the "French" (locations after the bracket). I don't like the current standard, having to find those locations somewhere in the article (unless a decent infobox supplies them), but it's to be tolerated as a third option. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MOS doesn't really work if you give options. In what context would you use each style? GiantSnowman 15:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, options don't work? - I don't think about me alone. - Translating from German, It's just awkward, having to put the locations somewhere else than where you find them. I like them in the brackets when the whole thing is short, for example a place of birth is a well-known city that doesn't have to be explained as today's so-and-so in such different country. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned, since FAs are required to follow MOS, the fact that they do doesn't mean MOS is right; many other articles do in fact include places in the brackets, even with the number of removals you've done. The previous wording did not disallow that practice, which is considered "good practice" elsewhere (not everywhere, but elsewhere), and you've yet to provide any good reason why it shouldn't be considered an acceptable practice here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you finally admit that the MOS currently doesn't allow places of birth/death in brackets? I mean if FAs have to follow MOS (as you have just said), and FAs don't have places of birth/death in brackets (as you acknowledge), then that means the MOS doesn't allow places of birth/death in brackets (by your very own logic!) If you admit that the MOS doesn't allow it, why do you keep on removing a sentence which states that? Other than your own personal preference. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition to the MOS doesn't allow places of birth/death in brackets, given that you've edit-warred it back in; MOS without your addition did and would allow them. That's why your change was a change, not a simple clarification, and that's why it should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're contradicting yourself... GiantSnowman 14:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MOS currently includes an addition by you that disallows POB/POD in brackets (therefore MOS currently disallows that practice). Prior to your addition (and if your addition were removed), MOS did (and would) allow that practice. What contradiction do you see? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, FAs were excluding places from the brackets long before my clarification. Try again. GiantSnowman 15:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So no contradiction then, just an anecdotal assertion on your part. You've still yet to provide any good reason why it shouldn't be considered an acceptable practice here, and consensus is still against you. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to justify something that is current MOS; and no, the consensus is not against me. If you are so confident of that then why not start a RFC? GiantSnowman 15:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since, as you pointed out, consensus is based on strength of argument, if you want to claim consensus is not against you you would need support for your view - if not numerical, then evidential. If you can't provide that, then we don't need an RFC to revert your unsupported addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My edit merely clarified the existing MOS, namely that "birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" i.e. not in the opening brackets! You want change the MOS - that does require a RFC. GiantSnowman 15:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your addition did not change the MOS, removing it wouldn't change the MOS either. Unless you'd like to admit that your addition did change the MOS? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing does nothing other than to make the MOS slightly more ambiguous and it therefore serves no benefit to anyone or the encyclopedia to do so. I am therefore unsure why you insist on it - other than the fact that you want to change the wider MOS. GiantSnowman 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition imposed an interpretation on the MOS that was not previously present, that does not appear to be supported, and that is inconsistent with examples of acceptable encyclopedic practice. That's why I want to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, basically my addition tidied up the MOS and you don't like the fact that it is now spelt out in black-and-white. You keep talking about "acceptable encyclopedic practice", and are ignoring "acceptable Wikipedia practice." I mean, where in the MOS does it say that places in the opening brackets are fine, and where does it tell you how to present such information (before or after dates, with our without commas etc.) GiantSnowman 15:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this already: just because the MOS doesn't describe in minute detail every eventuality does not mean that everything not so described is disallowed. If you want to talk about "acceptable Wikipedia practice", there are many articles that already include places in the brackets, as you know from your efforts to remove them. I don't suggest mandating the practice, but you've given no compelling reason to forbid it completely. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. So just because some articles are wrong, all articles should be wrong? Nonsense. As for no compelling reason, it's partly because it looks scruffy but mainly because there is no agreed standard. If you were to get a RFC going which stated how and when to present the information then that's a positive move to make. GiantSnowman 15:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a "current practice" argument: they're not wrong, they're just not in the style you prefer. But we do allow style variation, and don't require an "agreed standard" for everything. Compare for example WP:CITEVAR et al. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no common style, I see the following different styles all the time:

  • (Paris, 1 January 1900 – Paris, 1 January 2000)
  • (born Paris, 1 January 1900 – died Paris, 1 January 2000)
  • (born Paris, 1 January 1900; died Paris, 1 January 2000)
  • (1 January 1900, Paris – 1 January 2000, Paris)
  • (born 1 January 1900, Paris – died 1 January 2000, Paris)
  • (born 1 January 1900, Paris; died 1 January 2000, Paris)

As well as many other styles - with or without commas, with or without the province, with or without the country name. GiantSnowman 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again: "we do allow style variation, and don't require an "agreed standard" for everything". Differing styles may be an argument for discussing means of standardizing, if desired, but it certainly isn't an argument for banning altogether. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is already stated in the MOS that places should be in the body (or lede if it's important) and not the brackets. If you want to change that then start a RFC. GiantSnowman 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is already consensus to remove your addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is not. GiantSnowman 16:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gardening, I had an idea: leave all these "technical data" to an infobox where readers will easily find them, don't repeat in the lead but tell the readers right away why they might be interested in the article, - likely not because of someone's data of birth and death, calendar at time of birth, country some place is now, and pronunciation of a name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a bad suggestion, though it is worth noting that year of birth/death only are displayed when a FA appears on the main page, so that is obviously key. Personally I would go for full dates, but nothing more - no places, no pronunciations. GiantSnowman 16:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, your 'disputed tag' was a good one to place, summarises the situation very nicely. GiantSnowman 12:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raashid Alvi Page[edit]

All the stuff written is true and i am adding refrences. why is the written stuff being deleted Shakeeluddin (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. When you are writing a biography of a living person, it's important to add appropriate reliable sources when you add the material, not later
  2. Material added should be encyclopedic in both tone and content
  3. Long lists of things like countries visited, etc, are not appropriate
  4. Very long lists of links are not appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

Why Raashid Alvi page stuff is being deleted. Shakeeluddin (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Wats wrong , Y Raashid Alvi article's text is deleted

Hamdirfan987 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following policies and guidelines: biographies of living persons, reliable sources, neutrality, what Wikipedia is not, external links, and Manual of Style. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thanks for fighting the vandalism on my user page. They get vicious at times.

rJaytalk 21:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, let me know if you want the semi-protection removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting[edit]

Hi, I noticed on the John C. Bowers page that you changed the layout of the footnotes to 30em rather than 2 column. I was under the impression that 2 columns is easier to read. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) 30em makes it dependent on the user's screen width and font size, that is more helpful than fixed 2 columns, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda. It depends on the user's screen -- on both my iphone and my PC, fixed 2 is more helpful -- as 30em leaves it at one column, but fixed 2 makes it the easier-to-read 2 columns. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "can be more helpful". On a large screen, fixed 2 is broad. See also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fixed number of columns format is deprecated in favour of the fixed column width format - if you want you can adjust the width up or down a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks to both of you! Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same topic: I don't understand this edit, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start by following the link, as it helps to explain. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the link before. May I improve the references in an article I wrote? I came to like them separate from the article, because I find it much easier to edit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And others don't, and so find it no improvement. If you want to change the established citation style of the article, you should propose same on the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I "established" the style (simple, perhaps in a rush, perhaps a while ago before learning, 2011 in this case), and then want to improve it to my current quality standard (templated and in a separate section, if not harv citation), to whom would I talk about it? To myself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To whomever chooses to comment on the matter, once you have posted about it to the talk page. You aren't the only one to ever add a reference to the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was sarcastic, you seem to be serious. I improved my references to a standard that is self-explaining, thus easier to understand by any new editor, and better to maintain because you know where to find it, on several articles without requesting permission, and am willing to defend that quality on any forum. If you could just revert yourself on this article we would avoid wasting time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might find the standard "self-explaining, thus easier to understand", but not everyone agrees. I prefer to avoid making edits that I believe degrade the quality of articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, the method of having the refs at the end is preferred by many authors and is supported at FAC; I've had several FACs formatted in that matter (as well as several formatted inline). There are arguments in favor of each, and in this case, deference should be granted to the person doing the most actual work because it is consistent with one's own editing style. (I personally find it difficult to edit that format on my laptop screen, and I'm also not fond of sfn, but I will use both when needed, and if someone else creates this format, I will not change it if someone else prefers it, - and it IS much easier to use when sources are used multiple times, saves having to hunt through the body text for the original ref.) You are on a real IDONTLIKEIT tear this week, and I suggest you let it go, at least where other people have more edits to an article and have done more of the research than you have. If you start the article or are the lead contributor, then fine, dictate how it's done. But otherwise, I really wish you'd stop making a moral issue out of this stuff. Montanabw(talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim the formatting is not permitted generally. However, where there is already an established format in an article, changing it requires first at least an attempt to seek consensus on article talk. That would be a lot more effective than continuing to argue the matter here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, not here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Where the issue is one that relates to more than the article in question -- such as how an editor edits this and similar articles across the Project with regard to format -- I think this is one of the appropriate pages on which one might have a discussion. As is the case here. One might leave word on the article talk page, pointing here, to make sure that other editors interested in the article are aware of this discussion. But I'm not swayed by the suggestion that it is not appropriate to raise the matter here. The same as with the talkpage discussion in which many editors have expressed concern relating to your edit summaries being deficient, across many different articles. If its a practice an editors engages in, it's certainly appropriate to raise on their talkpage. Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CITEVAR requires discussion on article talk, not user talk; personal/behavioural issues should be discussed on user talk, not article talk. Issues that have been archived can be re-raised, but if there's nothing new to contribute to the discussion there's little point in that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These have interwoven elements of CITEVAR, article-specific issues, and editor-specific issues. As such, editors should not hesitate to raise the relevant issue(s) on any of the three talkpages, though it may be good practice to point one or more of the other pages to the one where conversation is taking place, to avoid duplication. We don't want editors to think: "I have a concern that Nikki is making inappropriate edits, but Nikki made me feel as though I can't mention that on Nikki's page so I'm afraid to do so." Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should in fact hesitate to raise issues in the wrong place, as it doesn't help anything to do so and can do harm. For newbies, using the wrong forum is understandable; for experienced editors like yourself, less so. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the right place to raise the issue -- to the extent it is a behavioral issue. The same as was the case here. Editors share common concerns about certain of your editing practices, and the concerns span multiple articles.
As you may know, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." Please don't try to chill the comfort of other editors doing exactly that on your talk page.Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, but if you need to "seek consensus for a change on the [article] talk page", this isn't the place to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I failed to thank you for the major editing you did on the Mortimer Adler article, so thanks. Vejlefjord (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viral Video[edit]

So - what have I screwed up? The hook was approved by a third party and I don't see anything controversial about it. Did I miss something? I don't normally do DYK.--v/r - TP 22:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can argue more about the hook, but my main concern with this article is a large chunk taken nearly verbatim from the source. I've reopened the nomination page, if you want to chime in there. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see. I'll trust your judgement. I've only pitched in lately because it's been behind schedule.--v/r - TP 22:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. It does make checking a bit more rushed for me (I typically double-check things once they're in preps, and if they're only there an hour before they hit MP, or better yet an hour after they were supposed to...), but unfortunately late scheduling is becoming a persistent problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

30em[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. Just wondering, as it comes up a lot: What are the advantages to reflist|30em as compared with reflist|2 ? Also, why 30, rather than 29, 31 or some other number? I just want to understand what is optimal. Thanks for any advice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) see above, #Reference formatting. If 30 doesn't work well for you, adjust. If all are short, 20em might be enough, compare Kafka#References --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its here and I'm missing it -- do we have a link to a Project-wide discussion deprecating the "|2" approach? It's used on umpteen articles across the Project. Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, colwidth is more flexible and looks good on more screens (various sizes and shapes) than fixed number of columns, and the latter has been deprecated. As Gerda says, 30 is not a requirement, but it is the most common; personally I use 25em for short cites, 30 for standard refs and 35em for explanatory notes, but whatever works for you is fine. Epeefleche, the articles using fixed number of columns are in a cleanup category to be gradually addressed; a discussion has just begun here about potentially automating that process. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where has the fixed column method been "deprecated"? I was hoping that you would explain the advantages to colwidth, but instead you seem to be saying that you and some other people prefer it. Where is the guideline? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the links and found this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that there was some good discussion there, but that's just a proposal that met substantial disagreement. It does *not* actually seem to be deprecated -- there does not seem to be a widespread consensus. I'm not saying that I disagree with this, I'm just saying that if we are going to change a large number of articles, there should be widespread agreement to do so. Also, some people in that discussion said that 30 is not a good choice as default. So, I'm still looking for more explanation of (1) why it is necessarily better, and (2) if it is better, then what is the best default for most articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had explained why it's better - it works for more people and offers more flexibility. See also the documentation for {{reflist}}: "[Fixed number of columsn] is now deprecated in favor of the option described above [colwidth], which is better suited to flexible formatting for a variety of display screen sizes, ranging from mobile phones and tablets to wide-screen "cinema" displays. Forcing a fixed number of columns has been disabled in mobile view. To identify articles using this deprecated feature, see Category:Articles using fixed number of columns in reflist". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[left] Hmmm. Just because a template says something is deprecated does not make it so. This template has said that it is deprecated since 2006. So nothing has changed. It seems to me that we should apply WP:CITEVAR and not make any changes to articles (other than ones we have worked on significantly ourselves) until a widespread consensus is reached, or after starting a discussion on the article's talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No, that's not citevar, it's not a citation style. What is a citation style is explained in your link. Fixed reference columns have been depreciated as far back as I can remember (2006 wouldn't be a surprise) and people should not be using them anymore. That people still do doesn't mean it isn't depreciated and poor practice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respect you and Nikkimaria, Ed, but if this is really deprecated, there must be an official utterance somewhere, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "official utterance" on how a template is used, insofar as we have one, is that template's documentation. (By the way, the diff you provide shows the transition to using template documentation, not anything about colwidth). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "|n" parameter forces n (number) citation columns irrespective of the users' screen width/resolution; "|30em" forces a defined column width. Both may render the same for you if you have a particular screen size, but then it may not. The flexibility mentioned by NM above is the fact that people with wider screens are more likely to see citations that fill the screen real estate horizontally and optimally with a greater number of columns of 30em width, thus fewer rows. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, this is similar in nature to the "upright" parameter used for images instead of fixed pixel width. The idea is that peole view wikipedia by everything from very wide flat screen monitors to thin, vertical smartphones. (Plus people who are vision-impaired also access wikipedia). The notion is basically that narrow columns are easier to read and use than wide columns, so mandating, for example, 2 columns is similar to making images be 200 pixels wide - on some screens, it will look like crap and be very unreadable. OTOH, the 30em parameter and the upright parameter allow the information to be formatted to a variety of screens. (that said, I'm guilty of still doing the |2 thing because I didn't really understand the 30 me thing until Nikki just explained it here, thank you Nikki) Montanabw(talk) 17:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree wholeheartedly w/Ssilvers. Such a change would impact a very large percentage of articles at the Project. And the forced column alternative therefore should not be deemed "deprecated" by a few editors in a side conversation, with their opinion anything but uniform, and the view of some then foisted upon hundreds(?) of thousands of articles.

This needs a wider discussion to become an effected change. Along the lines of our discussions when people wanted to change the date formats.

The importance of this is even greater because the purported advantages are not uniform -- on both my PC and on my iphone, the em columns are ineffective (resulting in one column, always), while the forced 2 column approach is superior.

Your removal of my edit at User_talk:Giano[edit]

Could I please query with you, your rather obscure message you left when reverting my changes to Giano's talk page please? I didn't know he was a regular or I wouldn't have templated him, and as far as I'm aware, a talk page is the only place I can leave a warning for something like this. I took what was quite clearly an ad-hominem attack against SfanIMG_00 out of the conversation, and your revert of my edit has put it back in. My edit was, at least in my opinion, helping, by removing an unjustified attack against another editor. Is there any specific reason I should not have done this? CharlieTheCabbie (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the attack is far clearer and more serious than this one, it's generally a bad idea to remove someone else's comments - in this case in particular it's likely to cause far more upset than simply leaving it alone. Per the talk-page guidelines, removal of simple invective is considered controversial and shouldn't be done; as explained at WP:DTTR, using the sort of template you did for an editor who's been around for years is seen as more patronizing than educational. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

This Month in GLAM: April 2014[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Source review request[edit]

Hello Nikki, if you have the time, would you be able to swing by my latest FAC to conduct a source review? I would be very greatful if you could. Cassiantotalk 09:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I took the promotion tag with me to talk accidentally. I restored it, but you beat me to it with a revert. Thanks for all your help once again. In the interests of continuity, could you just confirm that you are happy with the fixes on the FAC page? Cassiantotalk 15:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Congrats! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Alert[edit]

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

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - WINC (AM) FAC[edit]

First off, thanks for doing the source review on the WINC (AM) article. Just wanted to give you a heads up and let you know that I have finished it and made all the corrections requested, except one. I have posted replies in the Source Review section on the FAC page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I have to run an errand in the next couple minutes, but should be back in an hour. If you see anything else that needs corrected/fixed/added/etc., I will do it when I get back. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected the other mistake you caught, posted a reply on the FAC page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections made (hopefully the ones you were looking for) and a reply posted on the FAC page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious if the corrections I made earlier were the ones you were wanting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mail alert[edit]

Can you resend email, as it was being sent to a defunct email account, have now updated link to current email account.Dan arndt (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen characters[edit]

You're editing in bad faith. I am seeking out the reflinks, as I did with The Women, and was just about to add another one when your insistence on hitting the undo button created an edit conflict. Stop ignoring AGF. And if you keep deleting unsourced stuff while I am seeking out reflinks it makes it that much harder for me to do my part. Quis separabit? 23:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't hit the undo button, nor am I editing in bad faith. Once you have found appropriate references for the material, you can re-add it. Without such references, you cannot. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I just noticed that you also deleted sourced text in your mania to remove everything (see this diff). Quis separabit? 23:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Without such references, you cannot." -- that is untrue; that is why tags exist, to notify editors of articles needing sources or additional sources so the community can work together, not by your dictat, unless copyright infringement is involved which requires immediate deletion. Quis separabit? 23:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how come you did not remove this (following) unsourced text?? Quis separabit? 23:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosaline in William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is never seen, but is crucial to how the title characters fatefully meet. Unseen (by the audience) characters are frequent in other Shakespearean plays, such as John Dighton, Miles Forrest, Elizabeth of York, and Jane Shore in Richard III; Valentine, brother of Mercutio (also in Romeo and Juliet); and Escalus and Antonio in All's Well That Ends Well.

Shakespearean devotee, I guess. Quis separabit? 23:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite funny that you would refer to AGF, given your comments thus far. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (WP:V) - you can restore the material if you provide a reliable citation, and if you don't you can't, simple as that. And by the way, Wikia, Wikipedia, and other open wikis do not constitute reliable sources for this material (as indicated in my edit summary: "unsourced/non-RS"). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the unsourced Shakespearean fodder you managed to ignore? Quis separabit? 00:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly remove that too, if you are concerned about its verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cheezeburger for you![edit]

You can haz cheezeburger! Thank you for the HighBeam registration. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio[edit]

Please could you look at this DYK nomination. I have detected certain sentences that occur elsewhere online but the nominator is claiming that at least some of them are copied from the Wikipedia article. You have more experience of this type of problem than I do. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email preferences set[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

Sorry for the email thing being such a hassle. The "allow messages from other users" checkbox was not ticked, but it is now. Apologies again! Fleetham (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for setting up an account for me! Fleetham (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarp wikipedia the annoying role players[edit]

I would appreciate it if you would stop deleting the annoying role players entry on the tarp Wikipedia page. The first time I made the entry, it was deleted by a person hired by Wikipedia to go around and take care of spam and vandalism. The message that follows is what I sent him word for word:

Hello Happy Attack Dog, i'm new to editing Wikipedia, and honestly i'm not sure if this is going to get through, so I deeply apologize if this message ends up somewhere its not supposed to. On April 4th, you removed the contribution I had made to the tarp Wikipedia page, saying you found it nonconstructive. While I see where you are coming from, please understand, when talking about teen nerds role playing on a music site, it can get difficult to make much of anything sound professional. As well as the fact that, while I did my best to make it sound constructive and informational, that was not its primary intention. I myself am a member of TARP, and we have been hard at work creating our own wiki for the past month or so. To be completely honest, I posted it because I thought it would be cool if we could legitimately say we're on Wikipedia. While I realize that that is not in any way this sites purpose, I still feel it is justified, acceptable, and presentable enough to remain on the page, and would very much appreciate it if you would allow us to continue to stay there. (P.S. Again i'm very sorry if this ends up somewhere other than where you asked me to send you a message.)

Apparently it was enough to persuade him, because he never came back to delete it again. I know that everyone has their own opinion, but I believe that if this is enough to convince someone who works for Wikipedia specifically to delete spam and vandalism then it should be allowed to remain.

Hello Locorocky, there appears to be some misunderstanding here: editors are volunteers (not hired by Wikipedia), and we are governed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your edit has been reverted by no fewer than five other editors, which indicates that it does not have consensus. Furthermore, there is no indication that your group is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for things that you and your friends made up, but rather for things that have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. I would encourage you to continue to build your own wiki if you choose, but that material does not appear to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks very much for your email. I just responded - having a bit of a problem. Can you help? Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks![edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, got the email on HighBeam, thanks! Iñaki LL (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

Your deletions from blue article[edit]

Please explain why you deleted the images of flags from the article on blue. They are an integral part of the symbolism of the color, and similar galleries are found in the other main color articles. A gallery is much more effective than a list. Please restore it.SiefkinDR (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

julius nepos[edit]

hello;

thank-you for your sudden interest in the Julius Nepos article; which you have NEVER edited before.

however, if you only interest in the article is due to wp:canvassing by user:montanabw, which is in effect a circumvention of wp, then respectfully i feel your edit is inappropriate.

as regards the merits of the date format; i suggest that a single line that contains clear indications of gender, birth, & death is MORE EFFICIENT, in that it contains a greater information density, & clarity. for reader it specifies the subject's gender, & that the dates shown are for b & d, not reign.

the partucular format i'm using hybridizes the old uk who's who style, with wp/de standard practice.

& as there is no MOS-dictat regarding the matter, there is no real impediment to revising the format, other than sheer inertia.

if you have any REAL interest in working on this article, which i have edited extensively in the past, you are welcome to discuss it on the talk page.

if not, then fare-thee-well.

regards,

Lx 121 (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, but a) no canvassing involved - I prefer to make my own edits, and I don't need Montana to tell me I disagree with yours; and b) if you want to propose changes to existing practices, whether on a particular article or more broadly, it's up to you to seek consensus to do so, on article or MOS talk (see WP:CON, WP:BRD, etc). Incidentally, in proposing such changes you'll need a much more convincing rationale. But thank you for agreeing that there was "no invalid rationale" for my edit! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SCOMN! Yes, indeed, Lx 121, you are such a super-sleuth! Nikkimaria and I just SO TOTALLY agree on everything all the time! We are the chief architects and masters of "teh sekret cabal" not only that, but yes, she is my puppet and I always tell her what to do and direct all her actions. (< - the preceding is sarcasm, in case you missed it). Let me put it differently, Lx 121, if you have both me and Nikki agreeing with each other, the problem is more than likely yours, not ours. Now, as Nikki has the administrator mop, I suggest you apologize to her and listen to what you are being told, it's solid advice.. Montanabw(talk) 18:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abstinence-only sex education in Uganda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sugar daddy (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) 08:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You![edit]

With your help, the WINC (AM) was just promoted to Featured Article status. Together, we took a C-Class article, edited, added and made it a Good Article. We didn't stop there, we made it better and now it is a Featured Article. Whether you made one edit or twenty, you still helped and I thank you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK review request[edit]

Nikkimaria - since you seem to be the DYK expert, would you mind reviewing Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ford_Island for me? The hook has ample sourcing, but I'm not positive it's appropriate for the main page. There are other interesting facts that could be used instead of necessary. Thanks.--v/r - TP 23:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the DYK - thanks. I can send you scans of a few of the sources if that's helpful.--v/r - TP 22:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Huizenga[edit]

Rather than unilaterally removing stuff from this article as "unsourced", you might have checked the non-in-line references (specifically, his scientific autobiography, which contains the info about his wife's illness), or at least, put a flag on it and got in touch with me. This is a fairly easy thing to fix -- I'd been intending to work that autobiography in as a source eventually anyway -- but it would have been easier if you hadn't deleted text that is going to be put back in it anyway. (I have no problem with the edits to the obituary citations, which I did not write; thanks for doing those.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have ready access to his autobiography, and WP:BLP prefers immediate removal of unsourced information to tagging. The text is of course available in article history once you've found appropriate sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Zionist League in Iraq[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could check this nomination for close paraphrasing. There was one known instance where it took a couple interations to get significant change; I'd like your opinion on the article as a whole, if you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[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) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request media review[edit]

If you have the time and are interested, I would appreciate a media review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive1, so the FAC can progress past where its currently stuck. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gabe, didn't SilkTork already do a media review as part of his comments? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I'm not seeing it explicitly stated at the FAC, since he only mentioned the Mr. Kite! poster and didn't address the other images or the ogg files. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify what your concern is regarding the ogg FURs. Does this resolve your concern? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are the ogg FURS now acceptable, as its not at all clear at the FAC what the results of your media review are. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are acceptable. I think they could be better, but I also think they're good enough to pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Would you please make that clear at the FAC so that Graham knows its been done, and 2) If you can please point me towards a better ogg FUR I would really appreciate it, but your comments are frustratingly vague, almost as if you don't want to tell me how I can meet your expectations. I always do my best, but this guessing game is not helpful. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will look for one, but that was the same comment I made at the PR, where you made it quite clear you disagreed with what I said. As Ritchie mentioned there, part of NFCC#1 is "what bits of audio would be the hardest to explain in prose". You've explained that these bits of audio are important and have received critical commentary, but not explicitly why they are important to be heard rather than simply explained. If you were to explicitly state in the "not replaceable" portion that for example the first sample allows the reader to hear the stereotypical Beatles sound that cannot be adequately conveyed by prose alone, your rationale would be stronger than it is right now. It's not just a matter of quantity of critical commentary, but how you organize and use that commentary to support your fair-use rationale and justify the use of non-free material. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "As Ritchie mentioned there, part of NFCC#1 is "what bits of audio would be the hardest to explain in prose", nothing in NFCC#1 says anything about making a value judgment on the album as a whole to determine which audio samples would be most difficult to describe in prose. You and Ritchie are wrong about that. All NFCC#1 says is: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." For any and all audio samples, there is no free equivalent nor can prose serve the same encyclopedic purpose as audio. That point need not be debated with each new ogg file; it goes without saying.
All audio is difficult to explain in prose. Which are more difficult is an absurdly subjective thing that we don't want Wikipedians wasting time debating. Do you see some samples as more difficult than others? If so, why? This is one of the major problems with Wikipedia, IMO. Depending on who you ask and when you ask them you get different answers, which invariably contain riddles and goose-chases that are often self-serving. If you cannot link me to even one ogg FUR that meets your expectations then by reductio ad absurdum all ogg files on Wikipedia are inadequate, IYO. I can write them anyway you want, but when you spend two years doing what you thought was acceptable, then someone quite vaguely criticises them it unnecessarily frustrates content builders. From my perspective, what you are asking for is at the FURs under NFCC#8.
Anyway, in April you did a media review in which you passed this File:Thelonious Monk Quartet - In Walked Bud.ogg without comment. So, can you please explain to me how the FUR at the above file is better than mine, because I honestly feel like you are giving me a hard time for reasons other than FURs.GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you at least explain to me exactly what it is that I should do to my FURs so that they are acceptable in terms of NFCC#1 so that next time we don't have to drag this issue out for several days? This is what's there now:

NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

  • Audio file is irreplaceable. No free alternative exists.
  • Prose alone would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose as prose with an accompanying audio sample.

My reading is that there are two criteria to satisfy NFCC#1. 1) There can be no free alternative, and 2) it has to convey encyclopedic information that cannot be conveyed with prose alone. Please tell me what I am missing here so that I don't have to bang my head against this wall ever again. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course you'll get different answers, first because NFCC is all about case-by-case, specific contexts, and second because even professionals argue about how to apply these types of rules (and I and the other media reviewers around here are volunteers). There are few strict formulae or hard-and-fast rules that apply to all situations.
"For any and all audio samples, there is no free equivalent nor can prose serve the same encyclopedic purpose as audio", though, is untrue - some audio can be encapsulated in a textual description quite nicely, and some audio is nice to have but not necessary for our understanding of an article. When writing an FUR, it is most helpful if you can explain why that particular sample is in fact necessary for the reader to understand what's being discussed. This is particularly important where you have a large number of audio samples, something that was not true in the Monk case.
Nor is it true that I believe all ogg files on Wikipedia to be inadequate; I said I would look for an example to show you, and I was not given a chance to do that. I understand that you may be frustrated, but blowing up only makes discussion more difficult. As already mentioned, the current FURs are adequate for your purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one I'm not "blowing up", but I acknowledge your use of that term as a means to discredit my arguments. I appreciate your time and effort, but I'm not sure why you insist on withholding the solution, which you apparently have but won't share. It seems to me that you could have told me what was lacking at the PR, but you did not reply or follow-up on your comments – same with the FAC, which is not that helpful. Don't give an IR then refuse to follow-up or clarify your positions, because it leaves the delegate unsure if actionable objections are pending resolution; you should know that. This business about deciding which ogg files are better to use based on the relative difficulty in describing them with prose is far too vague to have much meaning. Are you contending that: "Womack describes the 'sarcastic brass retort' that ends the sequence as the 'most decisive moment' on Sgt. Pepper" is easily described with prose? Or that: "MacDonald praises McCartney's 'screaming hard rock vocal', and Martin regards the song as 'the most identifiably 'Beatles' sound" on Sgt. Pepper" is so easily described with prose that it casts doubt on replaceability? Really?
I'm curious, what part of the File:Thelonious Monk Quartet - In Walked Bud.ogg FUR satisfies NFCC#8? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or why, IYO, does this satisfy NFCC#1: "As a sample from a copyright musical recording, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other sample from the same recording would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary", but "Audio file is irreplaceable. No free alternative exists. Prose alone would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose as prose with an accompanying audio sample" does not? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gray (writer) links[edit]

I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. I added an External link to the article, since it seemed to offer visitors to that page information they could not get otherwise. It also indicates his impact on the larger web, and the Dr Who community, who seem very happy with his work.

Tardis.wikia.com Biography of Scott Gray, Dr Who stories by Scott Gray, Warwick Gray, W. Scott Gray http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Scott_Gray

I do not know what "mos, rm per BLPEL" means.

Kind regards, RC711 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RC711, BLPEL is part of our policy about biographies of living persons. Basically what that policy says is that open wikis like the Tardis Wikia should not be included as external links on articles about living people. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the possibility that a visitor to Wikipedia would follow an external link to a site that bashed or lied about Scott, but I have faith in visitors that they can make their own determinations of quality and relevance. External links are different from References, since one expects random material, that, hopefully, might give some extra information about the current topic. Do you know how I can find the discussion about that policy? Seems interesting. By the way, is it only that I pointed to a wiki? Is there some problem with wikis?

It is hard to find relevant information about rare events (a not very well known living person) on External links, so when you find one that is of moderate quality and completeness, it is hard to just throw it away. It might be relevant to followers of that living person. Most visitors can ignore it, but it might help the few. Thanks for the quick reply and the info, RC711 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest looking through the archives linked near the top of the page here for details on how the policy developed. The problem with wikis is that they are open (editable by anyone, including anonymous contributors) and dynamic. If you don't know who's writing or where the information is coming from, you can't easily assess the reliability of the site (unless you're already an expert on the topic). If you're sending visitors who want to learn more about Scott to that page, they would realize pretty quickly if some joker had replaced it with "Scott is a poohead"... but something subtler they might accept at face value, right? And what's there right now might be different by tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, after I saved my reply, I saw the links to BLP. Very reasonable conclusions, leaning toward protecting people. If wikis are unreliable because they change, then why do people rely on Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have an outreach to wikis? When I was running my own websites I would routinely review/analyze/comment on/ all the sites that I pointed to. I recommended quality standards and policies. Over time the whole community benefited. RC711 (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is unreliable - we have policies and other standards to try to make it less so, as you describe. I don't know of any outreach efforts on a wide scale - I think there've been some individual WikiProjects whose membership overlaps with another wiki, and we do liaise on occasion with other Wikimedia projects. But other wikis' standards and policies often differ from ours, and of course we can't make them change how they do things. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done![edit]

For this, I'll buy yuou a beer/ coffee, whatever you want! Name the time and place! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E-Mail[edit]

Just sent an e-mail regarding Highbeam access.

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

WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA review perhaps?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. While checking your user profile, I noticed that you frequently review FA candidates. Well, I have one, Megadeth, and if you have no other important Wiki-activities this time around, can you take a look at it and leave comments on what should be corrected at the nomination page? Thanks in advance and see you.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Вик Ретлхед, but that is very much not my area of interest or expertise. Best of luck anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/El Gran Carlemany[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to please take a look at this nomination/article? I'm most concerned about the anthem's translation and fair use guidelines, but there may be other issues. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BlueMoonset, the original text is now in the public domain. It's not clear whether the translation is original to the cited source or pre-existing; Wikipedia:Lyrics_and_poetry#National_anthems suggests that it would be acceptable either way, but the cn tag on the guideline is a bit troubling. Other anthem articles include full text; we could take it or leave it in this case, as the relevant section is quoted in the "Context" anyways. I've nominated the audio file for deletion, though. I'm not seeing any problems with paraphrasing in the sources accessible to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Nikkimaria. I think that we can safely call for a finishing review now, since you don't see any issues (except with the audio file), though keeping in mind that cn tag... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

Winnipeg[edit]

As infrequently as we have positive words to say about each other, I thought I would drop by and pay my respects on your latest FAC nom. Taking on a whole major city at FAC is an enormous contribution to WP. As a person who specialize in far branch articles, I commend you for taking on such a thick topic on the tree of knowledge. I can barely fathom such an endeavor. You can see my FAC that follows yours is very far branch.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Tony. On the other hand, my first FAC was Manitoba, so this is kind of building on that background. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angel Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic (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) 08:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CITEVAR[edit]

You cite today CITEVAR for reverting a reference style established in May 2013. Let me understand, also why you have a interest in such a change while nobody else seems to care, and it's of no consequence for the reader. I want to supply transparency for future editors, that is keep the references away from the body of the article to edit both sections with more ease, - consistent with FA and several GAs on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In making the references consistent after you introduced inconsistencies, you mistakenly chose the style that you added as opposed to the original. As we've discussed, both styles are permitted and both have their proponents and positives - "transparency" needs a citation - but changing the style requires that you first seek consensus on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my first question: why did you do that today, when the style change happened on 4 May 2013? You also didn't answer the second: why do you care, if nobody else does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The style change didn't happen in May 2013, when you added citations that didn't match the original style, but today, when you mistakenly changed all citations to be in your style. I care (and so do others more generally) because something of consequence to editors will likely impact the reader, even if not directly, and because the claimed "transparency" does not exist inside or outside the edit window. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the style in 2013, for my own ease of editing of an article for which I am the major contributor, and take 12 months of silence as consensus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. If I go to Yogo sapphire and add a sentence about its "colour", I haven't changed the style, just introduced an inconsistency; if I go back later and attempt to use that to justify making the article British English, then I have. I would expect to be reverted in that style change even if the original "colour" edit had gone unreverted, because it's not a change that should be made without consensus or rationale beyond personal preference. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are trying to say (other than "wrong"), but today is Sunday, I don't even want to deal with it. I'll be back on CITEVAR which obviously can be interpreted differently, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I rarely say this, but you are pretty much completely in the wrong on this one; I went through the refs in the article and having them at the end clearly dates back past January 2014, and as far as I can tell, you never touched that article until this month. If there is an inconsistency with some cites inline and some at the end, the solution is to point that out to the editor who is doing most of the actual work, not to make more work for them! I have edited articles with both styles, and I believe that deference should first be given to the person who is doing most of the real work, but if there are compelling and logical reasons (besides "NikkiStalksGerdaForUnfathomableReasons") for a change, the lead editor should be part of that discussion. For example, I took William Robinson Brown to FAC with the end-of-article citation style, even though I usually write inline because I had a collaborating editor whom I respected that preferred it, and because they were willing to step up and make substantive content edits, source searches and the like; I was perfectly willing to alter my style slightly to help such a useful and congenial editor. Montanabw(talk) 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda is welcome to put forward arguments to change to LDR, as any editor would be, and if you'd like to change what CITEVAR says about deferring to the original you are welcome to propose that also in an appropriate venue. I would encourage you to re-examine the article's edit history, though: you will find that in fact I edited the article even before Gerda introduced the first inconsistencies. In fact it is you and Rex and Olive who have never edited the article before this month. So how did you come to be there now? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I watch Gerda's and Montana's edits pretty closely. I share some interests with both. Montana's expertise with horses overlaps with my life-long interest. I sang in a Gregorian chant choir. When I see articles where two editors consistently show up together, I tend to notice. I came to this article and reverted/commented not because I noticed, but because I had concerns with what was going on.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
There is no reason to be bound by the "dead hand" of the past, at least when an original editor does, say, bare URLs or something. Clearly, the major contributors can boldly change things, but to override this requires consensus, which I truly have not seen you seek, perhaps ever. I have your talk page watchlisted, Nikki, I also keep an eye on Gerda's talk page and contributions because I know that you routinely stalk and harass her. When the two collide, and I feel like stepping in, I swing by. You are helpful on some articles at some times, and I have at times asked you to look at articles specifically because I know you are capable of very focused scrutiny, and I have generally valued those times you have helped me when asked. But at other times, and this is one of them, you are merely stubborn and obstructionist--apparently random in your targeting of "problems" that aren't. And no, Gerda's first edit to the article was in 2010, yours was in April 2013, immediately following one of Gerda's, in fact. FWIW, I was a music major (voice) at one time in college, have been a member of my local community's chorale (on and off over the years) and have an interest in Baroque and Classical period music, art - and especially horsemanship. Gerda's musical knowledge base is something I admire a great deal; as a singer I had the delightful experience many, many years ago of performing with a touring choir in Europe at venues that included Notre Dame Cathedral and Regensburg Cathedral. IMHO, Bach is simply amazing. Only Handel comes close. I'm telling you to drop this vendetta and obsession you have with Gerda, it is unbecoming. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where there is a dispute about the best way forward for an article, the "past" is usually the default; this is particularly true for things like citation style, to try to avoid just this situation. The "major contributor" actually can't boldly change citation style, particularly not if someone objects, but must seek consensus - I've done that myself on other articles, and there is absolutely no reason why Gerda couldn't have done it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh not so! If so, then we'd live with no citation templates or inline links or some such things that are (barely) technically OK by the weakest of WP guidelines, but clearly inferior. By that logic, we'd never improve anything! There is no reason that the person doing most of the real content work (and the research attached to sourcing it), should not be granted a bit of leeway by the rest of us to work within their best editing style so long as it is within the realm of policy - which it is. Personally, it is a bit harder for me to write articles that way, but I am more than willing to consider the positive contributions of others and HELP others to be most productive in their work; these are small things and no skin off my nose. I really wish you'd do the same. There is absolutely no logical reason I can see for your actions on this one other than some vague personal problem you appear to have with Gerda, who is someone truly knowledgable and a person toward whom I wish you'd show more respect. Montanabw(talk) 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes so, by our policies and guidelines and the standards by which we operate. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, WP:CITEVAR currently states, in bold, "defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Note "major". In the case of BWV 183 you are not taking your own advice, as Gerda created that article and has well over twice the edits as the next editor. At BWV 37, given that it was a poor quality stub before Gerda worked on it, Gerda is clearly the first "major" contributor‎, and clearly the first of the currently active ones. "Consensus" is not "agree with Nikki." I really wish you'd learn to show a little respect for other people when they disagree with you; we are not stupid, incompetent or inferior. Maybe it never occurs to you that you could be wrong about something or that a style issue is not a moral one? Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page". Consensus at WT:CITE has held that if there is an established citation style, even "major contributors" need to do that. Again, if Gerda simply bothered to present reasoning on the relevant article talk page, she could likely garner the support necessary. But that she chooses not to does not give you leave to restore the disputed change and remove content and references from articles, as you have now done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to explain your own actions, which are inconsistent, your behavior on BWV 183 cannot be justified by your own arguments here and at BWV 37. Gerda does explain herself, you simply fail to ever grant that any of her arguments have merit. Furthermore, one can certainly change THEIR OWN established style if they see something better. It is utterly ridiculous to go seek a consensus where you are the only editor who does much of anything, and even when one other person shows up to make inconsequential edits, WP:BRD trumps seeking prior consensus from minor contributors. And really Nikki, your pattern of following Gerda around just to find new things about which to to nitpick smacks of a personal vendetta. What do you have against her? Seriously, I think you are making this personal but hiding behind the screen of policy. I am asking this question sincerely because I cannot believe you really and sincerely give a rip about where citations go in an article. Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really and sincerely do, and would whether it was Gerda or Joe Schmoe making the edit. Even if you want to argue that "WP:BRD trumps seeking prior consensus", your edits at 183 cannot be justified: Gerda's change to the citation style was a bold edit, and I reverted. The appropriate next step, under either BRD or CITEVAR, would be to seek consensus before reinstating the disputed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's clear I'm beating my head against a brick wall with you. "Consensus" does not mean "Nikki has to agree or else it's not consensus." Consensus does not mean everyone agrees. My edits are completely within the guidelines and I really think it's time that you focus more on what you do particularly well - such as copyright reviews, error-checking, and so on - and drop the stick over where someone as experienced as Gerda puts the refs in the articles where they are lead editor. Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey for editors who mentor newcomer[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Ambassador,

I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V2SSrhU2NFOVAV

Also, if you are able to, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send the following survey to the mentee you worked with:

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V1quUdMZ1By3Ah

Thank you in advance for your participation, Gabriel Mugar 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Budapest String Quartet[edit]

Thanks for all your fixes to this page. The reason the word "include" was there is because these lists of recordings are almost surely incomplete; only the Columbias are fairly complete, but I'd guess there are probably still be some strays not listed. The other two lists definitely omit a lot of unknown recordings. Is there a better way to indicate this? I think it's important not to give the impression that these lists are definitive. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milkunderwood, I would suggest adding {{expand list}} just under the section heading - this points out that the lists are incomplete while encouraging readers to expand them, and it looks a bit neater then trying to explain in the section heading. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done; and thanks also for the tip - I'd seen it before, but didn't know how. This actually raises another question: the last external link, to Youngrok Lee's discography, lists tons more recordings than on our WP page. Other than not have available time now, I've also been hesitant to just crib from his webpage. (I did not set up the original WP listings, but did greatly expand them, based on information that I have at hand myself.) Please look at his link and tell me what you think. In any event I doing any further expansion will have to wait. I've redone only Beethoven recently, per a specific request on that talkpage (q.v.)*, but do have more specific info for a number of other Columbias not yet entered. Just too busy right now. Even so, my real question has to do with Lee's thorough listings. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Oops - the request for info about the Beethoven recordings is on my own talkpage, not at the BSQ. I was misremembering. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The site looks reliable enough, and a simple discography isn't considered original enough to copyright, so as long as we include attribution somewhere it would probably be okay to copy over some of the list. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Lee's site appears to be very reliable. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mon 5/26/2014
youngrok.lee@gmail.com
Budapest String Quartet discography
Dear Mr. Lee:
I want to both thank and congratulate you for your excellent and thorough discography for the Budapest String Quartet.
From time to time I have done some work on the [English] Wikipedia entry for the BSQ, adding some information from CDs I have access to, and also from Nat Brandt’s 1993 book Con Brio. (I did not originate the article, or set up its arrangement.)
This email is to request permission to incorporate your much more extensive discographic entries into the Wikipedia article, as I may have time to work on it. Of course since editing Wikipedia is open and free to anyone, there is no reason why you may not do so yourself, if you might have any such inclination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_String_Quartet
With gratitude,
Milkunderwood (my Wikipedia username)           Milkunderwood (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Major change of subject: Nikkimaria, I took a peek at your user boxes. For the past couple of weeks I've been watching every Guy Maddin I could get my hands on, with something of the awe and fascination of seeing a terrible train wreck; I haven't yet got a copy of My Winnipeg, but it should be coming soon, I hope. I couldn't help wondering how representative Maddin might be of his fellow citizenry - is it the climate? :) Milkunderwood (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Winnipeg has a lovely climate, much nicer than somewhere like Vancouver - but Maddin is a force unto himself. If you do get your hands on My Winnipeg, take a look at how it handles one of my favourite articles - If Day. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Nope, we haven't processed those requests yet - once we do, I'll let you know. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of access dates[edit]

Hi -- I noticed you are removing certain access dates in refs, such as here. I was wondering why. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no need for accessdates for google books - only for things that are likely to change or could have different editions (I include access dates for citations to the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography because they do go and update the articles there, but if a book is updated, it'll go to a different isbn and thus a different edition and a totally different google books preview). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mischief Makers[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just pinged you from this talk page (did it work?), hoping that you could take a look at the close paraphrasing issues raised and responded to, and see whether you think this is close paraphrasing or not. The disagreement needs an expert third (fourth?) party to take a look and give an opinion, and I'd certainly rather you look at it now rather than risk it not being seen by you because of how quickly material goes from prep to queue to main page. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't, but that isn't now a solely DYK problem - there have also been some missed pings from FACs. Looking now...Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation of your kind offer[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. I am very happy that you were the first person to reach out to me on Wikipedia, and your offer that I could seek your assistance here is greatly appreciated in this moment, of "my need".

Consider this, the editing I was doing was continuous editing that spanned 4 and a half hours. It is impossible to imagine that others, like you, would not also had looked at my edits; even in real time of their being saved. The tacit support of not being rebuked throughout the span, and your welcome, which thanked me "for my contributions", did not constitutes a "pact of support", but it was more than sufficient for me to say: "your message has truly brightened my day"!

And from this "high" "sense of acceptance", another editor cast's my efforts, and my editing "good cheer" as low as I care to go in criticism. And I don't know how to say what needs to be said

So I ask you: please, speak the "Wikipedia talk", that I do not know, and tell the reviewing board my side; as a new editor.

First, A link is given to a previous deletion, of an arguably dissimilar category – as part of the basis for the deletion of my work. And then; I am told that to argue for keeping my work while speaking of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF, is poor form. Well, the other deletion is no less OTHERSTUFF, and it shouldn't support a deletion any more than "other OTHERSTUFF" shouldn't support keep.

Based on the merits alone: the category is said to be "overcategorization per minor award." The categorization scheme is practically basic; I was limited to following very basic structural examples to model my editing solution by. And calling it a minor award is a laughable opinion; no more.

Then it is said, in further condemnation, "it is already listified". That is ridiculously irrelevant. Categorization serves a uniquely different purpose than a list article, and it is not counterproductive when it mimics a reasonably small list of a finite group. It becomes counterproductive when the list is incredibly long. And then, it's not the category that is inappropriate, but the "big ass sprawling list".

Now consider this. In the exact moment that I was editing the introduction on my user page, which said: "My primary editing interest will be on music related articles. I enjoy the topic and hope I am able to help with improving its coverage." Another editor was notifying me that my attempt to "enjoy the topic and help with improving its coverage" was actually "overcategorizing a minor award that wasn't needed because of a list article". It's bullshit

I know it wouldn't be good to actually saying this, which I am too close to saying, for believing it's so. And I think its bullshit that I should be disallowed from "improving [music's] coverage" which I had ironically just said I wanted to do; when I was last happy about my editing experience.

Consider this, the "creative professionals" that are categorized by this scheme, often depend on Wikipedia:ARTIST to demonstrate their own notability, and rightful inclusion on Wikipedia; The criterion says: notability exists when the subject "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Categorizing subjects by notable criteria increases accessibility of the content and literally strengthens the notability of its member articles in a clear and efficient manner which a back-link to a list article can not do.

So please, will you say what I am trying to say, for me, and relate it as the kind of experience that seriously jeopardizes editor retention. In case it's not painfully obvious.

I apologize for the length of this post, it also measures more of my time, but I wanted you to understand my situation as best as I can express it. I hope you will do this for me. Thank you. Anne F. Figy (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anne, sorry to hear you've run into trouble. It looks like the previous discussion being referred to dealt with the Wikipedia guideline WP:OC/AWARD, which states "In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic". This guideline is why the existence of a list is considered relevant. However, I think you make a good counter-argument to this point above. I would recommend you explain that point and your point that "Categorizing subjects by notable criteria increases accessibility of the content and literally strengthens the notability of its member articles in a clear and efficient manner which a back-link to a list article can not do" at the discussion page, and preface your comments with Keep - this signifies that you think the category should still exist, and explains your reasoning why this case should be an exception to the guideline. Discussions of this type are usually open for at least a week, so you have plenty of time to make your case. I will help respond to the discussion as needed.
I will warn you though that, because discussions at Wikipedia are based on a consensus of editors, it is possible that despite your efforts the category may be deleted. If this does occur, don't let that unfortunate outcome discourage you from further editing. I was quite impressed with your improvements to the Emerson String Quartet article and would love to see more of your work. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, your advice is appreciated, and very helpful. I really appreciate your generous appraisal of my edits on the Emerson Quartet article. Interestingly, the Emerson article was not an article I joined Wikipedia to edit. I'd never heard of them before. Instead, it was an article offered to me at random by the automated tutorial that launches as soon as an account is created, designed to help and encourage new editors to actually begin editing right away. And I saw where I believed I could improve the article. You wouldn't know however, that the 5 hours between creating my account and editing the article, were spent learning and contemplating how to proceed. It was an enjoyable challenge, and I became quite interested in the subject, and the peripheral articles related to it.
I actually created my account because of an error I perceived in the AC/DC article that I wanted to correct. It turned out however, that I am not allowed to edit the AC/DC article anyway, and that the error was actually only an error in my perception.[1] In this light, I think you can better appreciate why I am tremendously fond of your comment about my edits to the Emerson article. And it will be the reason I continue editing here, as long as I am not torn asunder by the process thrust into play. Therefore, thank you again, and cheers to you as well. Anne F. Figy (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Hindi Kinship Terms[edit]

Hi,

I think the page ||Hindi kinship terms|| is not yet encyclopedic but over time and edits it will be, so please refrain from deletion. The page can explain more on how the relationships/kinship are represented in Hindu culture (not Hindi, Hindi is a language and Hindu is religion). It does describe the relationships but not in detail. Give it more time. Thanks!

  1. ^ "A question of grammar".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_25&oldid=1086427186"