User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 26

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Stanfield[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I please ask you comment here on whether the proposed hook is fine as it is, or if its closeness to the New York Times is an issue? I'll take my lumps if appropriate. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need a second opinion about a talk page[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria

I hope I am not catching you in a busy time. I thought I could seriously use a second opinion from a neutral but seasoned person.

There is a discussion (so to speak) in Template talk:Infobox OS directly addressing me and I am not sure whether I should participate or ignore it. What do you think?

Thanks in advance

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not comment at this point: see if someone else chimes in first, and then decide whether to participate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Schweigt stille, plaudert nicht, BWV 211 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cembalo
Vector measuring current meter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conductivity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

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

Nikkimaria, this article was approved today. The example you gave, "communal hatred", has not been fixed. I couldn't tell how serious you felt it was, so I thought I'd let you know what has happened subsequently. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I think after a slight edit it's good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Glad it worked out. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honorverse wikia[edit]

Please come to Talk:Honorverse#Can_we_link_honorverse.wikia.com_from_external_links.3F to explain to the 3 editors who were in favor of adding the external link what precisely you had in mind when removing it with a referral to WP:ELNEVER. Debresser (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am keen on equal treatment (of wikias on Wikipedia in today case). So what about fair use of extensive picture content at two wikias linked to Fallout (video game) (as well as to other Fallout articles)? [1][2] --Dotz Holiday (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to remove any links that you feel are problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. I'm afraid your fair use expertise is necessary. --Dotz Holiday (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source/formatting review?[edit]

I'd thought that the FAC for Russian battleship Peresvet was just about done, but one of the delegates pointed out that it could use a source/formatting review. Naturally I thought of you as it's one of the things that you do so well, so I'd be obliged if you have time to look it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying to save an article that is about to be deleted for lack of reliable sources. There are several reliable sources on the HighBeam teaser page but I don't want to pay $200 to get past it. I understand you have users with an account. Could you search for "Vince Molinaro" and add the cites to Vince Molinaro and comments at the debate Thanks. 71.174.67.162 (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Molinaro[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to save an article that is about to be deleted for lack of reliable sources. There are several reliable sources on the HighBeam teaser page but I don't want to pay $200 to get past it. I understand you have users with an account. Could you search for "Vince Molinaro" and add the cites to Vince Molinaro and comments at the debate Thanks. 71.174.67.162 (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, is it just the articles linked from External links that you're interested in, or others? If others, can you list the titles? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two that seem most hopeful are http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1420647871.html and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-136512596.html Thanks! 71.174.67.162 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the second says about him is "pundits have started to jump into the fray, creating models on which to base a proper leadership capacity growth strategy. David S. Weiss and Vince Molinaro are two such pundits, having recently released their first book together, The Leadership Gap: Building leadership capacity for competitive advantage. For a taste of their approach, read their feature article on page 20". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! How about the first? Enough depth to support WP:AUTHOR 3? 71.174.67.162 (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That one I added to the article, but it's a book review and really doesn't discuss Molinaro himself, so I don't know how helpful it would be at AFD. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I hadn't noticed that. I'll merge my edits with yours. The cite is in there twice at the moment. Book reviews are what I need to save the article because of clause 3 of WP:AUTHOR: Authors that create reviewed works are notable. By the way, don't let this bias you, but he's Canadian. ;-) One more question: Who is the author of this one http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-136512598.html ? Is it Dr. Molinaro? Or an independent? It's not clear from the snippet I can see. 71.174.67.162 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no author listed, beyond the note that it's an editorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Moon[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. I'm not sure that the list of details that was recently removed from Goodnight Moon constitutes trivia. As far as I can tell, most trivia and trivia-like lists (cultural references, etc.) are somewhat deprecated because they are theoretically limitless, tend to be disjointed, and may constitute information that should be better integrated into the article. By contrast, the list of book details in Goodnight Moon is very likely to never get longer, is self-contained (instead of referring the other media, etc.) and, in my opinion, is a significant feature of the book. I'd like to propose reinstating the list.

Also, as part of your edit, both media type (print) and number of pages were removed from the info box. Was that on purpose? If so, does that constitute trivia as well? I'm a low-volume editor, so I'm not asking facetiously; for all I know, those things may be trivia these days. :-) Royce (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever word is used for the list, I do feel that as presented it does not warrant inclusion - a long list of minute details from the illustrations, without any sourcing to indicate the significance of these details, limited only by the number of illustrations available to describe and sometimes referring to other media). It's undue and likely OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ames crater[edit]

Nikkimaria, there has been a fix to the close paraphrasing you found in this article. Can you please check back when you have the chance to see whether the issue has been take care of? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kronan-thanks[edit]

Thank you for commenting Kronan FAC. I really appreciate all the helpful pointers.

Peter Isotalo 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ulldecona Dam 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:
  • ] mountains, within the [[La Pobla de Benifassà]] municipal limits, [[Valencian Community]], [pain.<ref>[http://www.wikiloc.com/wikiloc/view.do?id=599509 Wikiloc - Itinerari Salt de Robert -

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jacob Gabriel 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:
  • * ''[[Nude & Natural]]'' (N), [http://www.bodyfreedom.org/guide/essays/N_TerriW.html "Beyond Safe Havens: Oregon's [[Terri Sue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Christian Lacroix 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:
  • * [http://www.christian-lacroix.fr/ Christian Lacroix] Official site]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 6[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

I want to express my thanks for your hard work regarding ensuring Wikipedia's compliance with copyright policies. I am sure that more often than not you receive not thanks but complains (including, occasionally, from me :)). Please don't let that deter you from your valuable work! Cheers,

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Summary[edit]

I think it would've been more specific if you mentioned, "reopening" - was rejected by... Evidently the DYK passed and stayed for few hours. If you want, I can edit that for you? Thanks, that's all I have to add here. OccultZone (Talk) 00:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the line automatically created by the template? I think we should leave that alone. Anyone interested should be able to follow the story as it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can add the content, explanation. That's how. Well, you already know it. OccultZone (Talk) 00:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coolie[edit]

Thanks for picking out the extended URLs, the article may require some more cleanup. OccultZone (Talk) 01:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested pg move[edit]

Hi Nikki, when you get a chance could you use your superpowers to page move over a redirect Pope Paul III and his Grandsons --> 'His' with caps. Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sound. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved?[edit]

Have I been approved for OUP access? I haven't received anything, as far as I can tell. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, we haven't processed the applications yet - it should be happening soon. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update! Brianyoumans (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your support at Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested_moves . I hope there are some more support votes out there, the people who seem to not understand that there are exceptions to rules run in packs. Those who will be negatively impacted usually don't, half the time not realizing the drama even exists. Montanabw(talk) 16:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Winnipeg[edit]

Will you please stop removing the SVG versions from Commons? They have already been scrutinised under DR and were determined to be in the Public Domain. Fry1989 eh? 17:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed anything from Commons. I have and will remove material from en.wiki when there is inadequate evidence of correct licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have! You keep removing File:Flag of Winnipeg.svg (which is on Commons) from Winnipeg and replacing it with File:Flag of Winnipeg.png which is an inferior PNG locally hosted here on Wikipedia. You also are doing it with the crest and you have done it on 3 different articles. The SVGs are on Commons and have licenses and they already went through a DR on Commons where the licenses were determined to be valid. Why are you doing this? Fry1989 eh? 01:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are trying to say you don't believe the licenses for the Commons images, then you should go to Commons and nominate them for deletion a second time. Otherwise there is no reason not to use the Commons files. If you refuse to restore the Commons images, I will report this matter to the administrator's noticeboard because I believe you are improperly removing content. Fry1989 eh? 01:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that we use the Commons files, and they don't meet standards here as they are; thus, we should not use them here, regardless of what Commons chooses to do with them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say there was a requirement to use Commons images, I am saying that as long as they are good quality and have a license, there is no reason not to use them. You can not give me any reason why we shouldn't use a good SVG image of the flag and instead use a tiny blurry PNG instead. What possible standards do you believe the Commons files do not meet? Are they ugly, are they low quality, are they inferior? No, none of that is true. You say that you will remove images that have licensing issues, but you will not explain what is wrong with the licenses of the Commons files. If you will not explain any of this and only insist on removing the Commons files, it is clear that I will be forced to seek intervention. Fry1989 eh? 02:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised this matter on the appropriate noticeboard. Fry1989 eh? 03:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the licenses present are correct (as I have previously explained), and reasonable evidence that they are incorrect. Where there is insufficient support for free licensing, we are required to assume that the images are non-free, and thus typically must use smaller, lower-resolution versions to meet NFCC. Indeed, downsampling of the flag image was specifically requested at the Winnipeg review for that reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there is no solid evidence they are copyrighted and reasonable evidence as was provided on Commons that they are not copyright violations, but you would not know any of that because you have simply looked at the wording of the licenses and made up your mind, unilaterally removing content and refusing to directly answer any of my concerns, and speaking nebulously saying "they don't meet our standards" and "there's no requirement to use them". Fry1989 eh? 03:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Again, we don't require solid evidence that they are copyrighted, but that they are free. We work from the assumption that they are copyrighted unless we have clear evidence to the contrary.
  2. The flag image is sourced to two non-free images, while the crest image's source gives a 1970s date; both strongly suggest that the images are non-free
  3. I read the DR on Commons; no evidence to support PD-self licensing for either image was provided there, and despite my requests you declined to support your assertions regarding the PD-Canada licensing.
  4. Despite your personal attacks, I have in fact directly answered your concerns - I simply haven't agreed that they are valid. You have now filed a report at AN, so rather than continuing to disagree here let's see how that turns out. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now been accused by both yourself and another of either "abuse" or "personal attacks" when I have done neither. I asked you a question and you gave me a very cryptic response, calling it nebulous is hardly a personal attack. Asking for a direct response or clarification is also not a personal attack. Accusing me of things I have not does not help the matter. I asked you why we shouldn't use these images, you instead say "We aren't required to", that is not what I asked and you accuse me of personally attacking you for finding that answer less than straightforward? Fry1989 eh? 04:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Luke fon Fabre[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was pinged by Storye book, who has reviewed the DYK and noted that the volume of quotations from the source in the reference citations seemed excessive, but wanted a second opinion. It looks excessive to me, too, but I figured you'd have the best take on it, including any pointers to the specific guideline. Thanks for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

My songs[edit]

Thank you for your helpful checks and comments in the FA review of my songs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moesha Pilot[edit]

How are my sources not reliable when OTHER pages use the same websites, and no one deletes them?? If you actually WATCH the series, there would be no need for sources anyways because the production details are obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminButler123 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BenjaminButler123, if you see other articles that use unreliable sources, feel free to address the issue at those other articles. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not justify using unreliable sources on this article. There is a discussion on the talk page in which you are free to participate, but you should not restore material without an actual reliable source to support it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond in film[edit]

Why don't you simply just block the two edit warriors instead of fully protecting an article, which is suppose to be the Last Resort, not the first option?--JOJ Hutton 17:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no - full protection is no more of a "last resort" than blocking. I want them to discuss the issue; protection allows for that possibility, blocking does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki is right on this one, full protection stops an edit war cold; blocking doesn't solve the long-term problem, as it shuts down all discussion and focuses excessively upon the editors and not the content. Montanabw(talk) 21:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The OP didn't notify you properly. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Ferreira page[edit]

Hello, I hope you can assist with Louis Ferreira's web page. Someone has butchered the page and cut it down to about half of what was there, removing a ton of perfectly good links (I check them periodically and they were all working!), plus removing some important credits, such as his role on Breaking Bad. I'm mystified as to why this happened, and there seems to be no way to contact the person as they only have an IP number. Can we change the page back to before they wreaked havoc on it? What can I do to help? I spent a LOT of time finding and checking all those links, and now everything is gone. I can only see this as vandalism. Please help.Bczogalla (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Bczogalla[reply]

Hi Bczogalla, that looks to be a very stable IP adress, so you probably could contact him/her via user talk. If that doesn't work, I would suggest filing a request for semi-protection at the protection requests board. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I tried the talk page for that address but it just goes to a talk page for general IP addresses. I have no clue how to contact a single IP address, sorry. Meanwhile, how do I get all the deleted materials back? I will definitely try the semi-protection route, but right now I want to find all the stuff that was lost. I run Mr. Ferreira's website and his Wikipedia page is an important referral both ways, I need it to be as accurate as it was before. Any advice will be much appreciated - thank you!Bczogalla (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Bczogalla[reply]

This is the talk page for the IP in question; you can leave a message there as you would for any other user. To find the deleted material, use the article's history page - for example, this diff shows all the changes made since your last edit to the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, yes, I know how to undo the last edit but we're talking dozens of edits here. I don't know how to get back to the site the way it was before this person messed with it... Sorry, I only do this one page so I don't know a lot of editing features. Bczogalla (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Bczogalla[reply]

On the history page, click on the old revision you want to go back to, then click "Edit". Add in any edits since then that you want to keep, then hit save. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Mer (appearances in other media)[edit]

Why remove that? --AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of the significance of these appearances - see WP:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2014[edit]



Headlines
  • Netherlands report: Libraries; Wikidata & DBpedia; Wikipedians in Residence; Open Culture Data
  • Norway report: 2 x GLAM edit-a-thons
  • Sweden report: Award, competitions and Coat of Arms
  • UK report: No trouble at t'mill; Assisting Metropolitan Police with image licensing enquiries; Wikimania is coming
  • USA report: New Edit-a-thons; GLAM at Wikiconference USA; Activities in New York City
  • Open Access report: WikiProject Open Access launched on the English Wikisource
  • Calendar: June's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

FAR question[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, a quick question about FAR...I've been helping with an article that was nominated two weeks ago (Central Coast Mariners), and reading the top of the page it seems to indicate that two weeks is the window at the FAR stage before moving on. However, given how much improvement has been made to the article since it was nominated at FAR (it was neglected before that), I genuinely feel we could address the issues entirely and restore it to the standard it was previously with an extra 10-14 days. My question is, is that possible just to defer the decision to move to FARC/close FAR by a week or two? Or are the procedures rigid in their timings? I understand if it's the latter, but hoping for the former. Regards, Daniel (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, it's fine to take a bit more time - just leave a brief note like the above on the FAR so the other coord is aware of your plans. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the swift reply. I'll link them to this section to save rewriting the message :) Thanks again, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the issues have been addressed and the article back to a stable state. Would you mind having a look at the discussion and making your determination? Thanks in advance, Daniel (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daniel, before I do that I'd like Bencherlite to weigh in again as the nominator as to whether his concerns have all been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selma[edit]

You're everywhere! If you are wondering, I moved the section with the HighBeam cites to Selma to Montgomery marches; I decided the film article couldn't bear the weight, and the 'marches' article was a more appropriate location. - Neonorange (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PTS, etc.[edit]

Sorry; it's an in-joke. In an earlier comment on Jimmy's talk page I likened some of Wikipedia's norms to those of Scientology. [3] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. So the RevDel request was a joke too? Careful no one takes you up on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

Reference Errors on 14 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On bended knee, asking for a favour once more...[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well with you. I wonder if you could join the fray on "my" most recent foray into FAC to undertake a source review. As always I think I've covered everything, but as always, I'm sure you'll probably spot several errors along the way! Many thanks for any advice and assistance you can give. - SchroCat (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Book links[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. In this edit to Fahrenheit 451, you shortened a bunch of Google Book links in the references by stripping off search parameters. Why is that? The extra part of the URLs highlights the exact material being referenced (at least it does for me). Do the links not work properly for you? Jason Quinn (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The long links lead to a search results page, the shorter ones directly to the page being referenced. WP:CITE supports direct page links, not search links. Since you're already including quotes in the footnote, including them in the URL is even more extraneous. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Nikki -- you've shortened a number where I wanted to refer to the multiple pages in the link indicated -- not the sole one you limited it to. Please restore those, and stop doing this. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an example of a link where this is an issue? As already noted, linking to search results is not appropriate, even if more than one of the results is relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it is forbidden. Are you saying it is forbidden? There are a number of article where you did this to cites I added -- here is one example. That's very unhelpful; to turn a ref that pointed to pages that support text, and change the ref they added to one that does not support the text. Very, very unhelpful. Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem with those citations is that you neglected to provide page numbers for the references. You can't expect either editors or readers to be able to tell what you're citing if you don't use a full citation; a GBooks URL, whether long or shortened, is no substitute. I suggest re-reading WP:CITE. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those highlighted references can often be misleading, or it can lead you to multiple pages even if you meant to cite to a single page. Usually, I would favour filling in the page numbers in "|pages=" within the citations template if you want to refer to multiple pages using the same book link. I see that full use has not been of that facility in the example you cited. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikki -- you are changing refs other editors put in. From ones that directly supported the text they followed. To ones that did not do so. So the text no longer satisfied our verifiability requirements. Where in the format guideline does it say you are required to do that? I would prefer verifiability over format -- where does it say the opposite? I think this is a step in the wrong direction, for you to strip articles of indicia of verifiability. Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epee -- your refs did not meet our citation requirements, and my changes did not change that. If you want to take a step towards verifiability, provide full citations rather than attempting to rely on GBooks URLs to do it for you, because they don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we cite, there is no requirement to include a link, even to satisfy WP:V. Our obligation as editors is to cite a text, which may be a paper document such as a printed newspaper or a book; we should give page number in such cases. Gbook pages are not universally viewable, they are only selective; viewable pages are country dependent. Plus there is always a possibility that one day Google will not provide the service, and then the link will be gone, and we will be up the Swanee without a paddle if there is no page number and the document is more than a small number of pages. I'd therefore say that the important detail is the page number, not the url. We shouldn't patronise the reader, who we can assume to be educated enough to find the relevant underlying text without the multiple highlighting by Gbooks, assuming the are told which page it's on. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikki -- forgive me if I neglected to inquire -- Where in the format guideline does it say one is required to do that? Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BURDEN: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)...See Citing sources for details of how to do this." WP:Page numbers (part of WP:CITE): "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited. Books and print articles: Specify the page number or range of page numbers". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did your edits -- see my above example at the Madoff article -- changing multiple urls repeatedly to urls that did not comport with that rule, by changing to urls that pointed to the wrong page, comply? And how is that better that the prior multiple page urls, where the reader could find the page that supported the text in question (but after your change, they can't)? If you are going to change a ref, you shouldn't change it from accurate multiple page urls to wholly inaccurate one-page urls. I would think that would be a pretty clearly "better format, horrifically worse substance" move. Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see: 14 URLs on that article, and 12 point to the same place both before and after my edit. One now points to the chapter as a whole for an unpaginated book, which is what you should have included in the citation in first place. The final one ends up giving exactly the same information as your search, because somehow the search was broken before I got there - you might want to look into that. So your claims are, to put it generously, overstated. And by the way, as Ohconfucius explains, even if you were correct you could not assume that the reader could verify the text using your URLs. One of many reasons why you still need to provide page numbers, and treat Google page links (not search links, not snippet links) as convenience rather than substance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - butting in. This page about google books is quite helpful and should be followed. Victoria (tk) 03:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice link, Victoria, thanks. That deserves to be more widely read. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is an excellent link and I meant to drop it here earlier in the conversation. People don't realize that what they see on g-books is not what another person sees. I don't use g-books links at all because all we need is the bibliographic information. Victoria (tk) 15:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear -- what is the nature of that link? Is it a guideline, or a policy? Or just one editor's view ... the same as my views expressed above. If so, if I were to create a page (or an essay) called "Problem With Link Removals that remove Information as to what Pages were being Considered," that would be a "link" as well, I imagine? I raise this only because at times people point to an essay or the like as though it is a guideline or a policy, while it is solely one editor's opinion (or that of a few editors), and has no more force by virtue of being a link than if it were a comment in a thread. Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested that the link is policy, but it is good advice. If you were to create an essay with that title based on the information/practices you've presented so far, it likely wouldn't meet that standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dulmers[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I put this up for DYK. You're often kind enough to scrub my contributions; would you please do that for this one as well? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

At Talk:Honorverse, at your leisure, can you respond to mine and Dotz's last queries for you? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Openpara RfC[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I'm closing this RfC, and I notice that you say in one of your comments that there is already consensus to remove the part about brackets. I can't find that discussion - could you point me to it? Thanks. Formerip (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I think I've worked it out. Apologies that the close is not going to go your way. Formerip (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grove online[edit]

Hello - at 23:14, on 6 May 2014 I put myself on the list for free access to OUP here - [4], I am 106 on the list. It says you " will be approving accounts and collecting email addresses." I haven't heard a thing, Grove would be very useful for the articles on Baroque music I work on. Then today I see another notice about free accounts and wonder why I have not heard anything.It would be nice to know if I have not been approved or what exactly the situation is. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smeat75, as of right now everyone not indented is approved but we're waiting on account distribution. Sorry for the delay! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 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) 14:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

Will reply[edit]

…to form fill-out request before weekend is out. Thank you for your effort on this project. LeProf Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Leprof, appreciate it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style[edit]

Nikkimaria, Great, thanks for the info. This is the first that anyone has informed me of that. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longmont's Alias List[edit]

Hi Nikki,

I understand that you might think the long list of Longmont Alias's are trivial, but I spent the last 7 years of my life listening & compiling that list and sharing it with the artist's many fans through this wikipedia page. I now see that you have entirely removed it. I don't know about you, but when someone deletes 7 years of my work and calls it 'trivial', it doesn't exactly sit well with me. Every single time a new album would come out, I would log on to wikipedia and document the multitude of absurd and hilarious pseudonyms that only a genius could concoct. I would now like this list back. If you could possibly send me the list so that I may refer to it for my own personal amusement, that would be much appreciated. I'm very offended at this deletion and hope that you may one day think of the users of the page and what they like, not what you believe to be trivial in nature.

Best,

Michael Stern

(925) 285-5183 mstern116@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineral1g (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael Stern, you can find the list here. When constructing a page on Wikipedia, we must consider that this is an encyclopedia and so can't be everything to everybody. I suggest if you want to share information with the artist's fans without having to deal with such constraints, you might want to create a fansite. There are a number of free services available for that purpose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of infobox elements[edit]

Hi Nikki. You've removed infobox elements here, including elements that may be filled in at a later time. That's unhelpful. Certainly as to those elements that may be filled in at a later time. Please revert yourself. Inclusion of what you deleted does no harm. Deletion of to-be-billed-in infobox lines reduces the liklihood that, and ease with which, other editors will later fill in that information. Which is detrimental to the Project. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which parameters removed do you feel are likely to be helpful and available? Leaving a multitude of unfilled parameters in a page reduces its accessibility and increases the likelihood of unnecessary bloat. I would prefer not to revert an edit that does more good than harm. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All that may reasonably possibly be filled in later. Removing parameters that may be filled in -- to delete parameters that do not appear in what readers see -- clearly does more harm than good. And I can't see any guideline-supported basis for your deletion of parameters from an accepted infobox template. That another editor has put in the article. To delete another editor's work as you did, you should have a guideline-supported reason, and explain in your edit summary what it is that requires the deletion. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which parameters specifically do you think "may reasonably possibly be filled in later"? It should be obvious on even a casual glance that many of the removed parameters do not apply to the school in question (like postal code for a US school with a zip code, kindergarten for a junior high, etc). As such, they fall under "exclude any unnecessary content". Furthermore, the parameters do appear in what editors see, and so affects their editing experience. Thus, the editor who copies and pastes a giant template onto the top of an article should take more care in tailoring than was evident here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You messed it up. By removing parameters. Without guideline support for doing so (I've asked, and you've pointed to none). Either restore everything -- it does not affect the readers. Or I will. Or restore all but what you don't think can possibly be filled in, and be prepared to explain why the guidelines permit that change. As to what might possibly be filled in -- res ipsa loquitur. You screwed this up; you can restore that which you don't have a guideline-based reason for removing, reverting another editor, and varying it from what the template used at the project has.
Also -- again the issue of edit summaries ... it's not sufficient to say what you did in a situation like this. Say what your justification is. "empty" is not a justification, where you (apparently) have no justification for removing empty parameters ("exclude any unnecessary content" -- unclear what "exclude" means there, and what "necessary" means there ... nothing whatsoever is "necessary"), certainly ones that can be filled in. You've had a number of editors request of you in the past that you indicate in your edit summary, where it may be controversial especially, the "why" rather that just the self-evident "what". Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed to a guideline. I've also pointed out that it does affect the editors, and so has the potential to affect the readers. I haven't reverted anyone on this article, yet, nor have I "screwed this up". The template at the project has all parameters to allow for all potential types of school that might use the template, but this particular school does not need all parameters, as anyone (including you) can see. If there are specific parameters that you feel warrant inclusion, great, let's discuss that. Not all of them do. There is no reason why this edit should be controversial, no need for further justification (and certainly not to the extent that you demand), nor any cause for a reasonable person to revert it wholesale. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All parameters do not need to be present in an infobox. I routinely exclude parameters that do not apply or that are empty - it's always possible to return a parameter if it later turns out to be felt necessary - but if a field is never going to apply it should be removed and left out. If you're discussing this edit - the removal of the "province" and "postal code" parameters are quite in line with policy - they will NEVER be filled in for a school in New York State .... nor will the religious affiliation and denomination fields be filled out for a publically funded American school. In fact, most of the removed parameters are never going to apply to this school ... so removing them is quite simply a good thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) Heyo, just passing by with a quick comment: in the last big discussion, I opined that one of the things that we folk who like everything about infoboxes could do, is stop populating articles with the Template:Infobox_school#Complete usage set (which are often overwhelmingly vast), and instead start off with the Template:Infobox school#Common parameters. (run-on-sentences-ftw!) I completely grok the desire to show the newcomers all the available options; but doing it by placing all the options directly within every article, does make the infobox a lot more intimidating, ie. if someone has to scroll down 5 screens worth of template-code, before they see the lead-paragraph. Balance in all things! That's all! Hope it helps. :) –Quiddity (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Cut (album)[edit]

Hello there. I like your userboxes!

I know you said something about "don't ping me on my Talk page", but to be honest, I didn't know what all those acronyms meant, specifically FAC, so I thought it might not drive you completely around the bend if I informed you, just for your convenience, that I wrote you a comment at Talk:The_Final_Cut_(album)#Dear_Nikkimaria. You advised me not to restore my edit at this time, and I am taking your advice, thank you.

That's just one of about 1,067 other paragraphs I wrote you. It's a good thing you're a Wikipedian who "enjoys reading anything", because a lot of people would merely glance at the length of my comment and inform me snidely that they didn't read it. Or call it a "screed"; "rant"; etc. I think you'll find it's actually relatively calm and well-reasoned. Since both previous reverters refused to discuss their reversions, I find myself more and more asking questions in my comments rather than making a pile of statements. I hope the length doesn't dissuade you. Your userboxes say you read between the lines, so I'm especially curious/nervous to see if you'll reply (unlike the other two), and I have no idea what you're going to say, if anything.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia in general, and for an Edit Summary that was both clear (in plain English) and civil. You seem to have a good reputation, you're an administrator, and any replies you leave me, positive or negative, I will likewise be civil with you. I do not have a squeaky-clean past with civility, but I'm trying to do better. Now if I could only master the art of brevity!

--Ben Culture (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ben Culture, FAC refers to Featured Article Candidates - this article is already a Featured Article, which means it has been assessed according to a set of criteria and found to be among the best Wikipedia has to offer. That doesn't mean it can't be improved further, but users are expected to take care in editing such articles. What has happened at this article is that the author has objected to some of the changes you want to make, and so far discussion between the two of you has failed to reach a consensus. A no consensus outcome to a content discussion typically means that the article is left in its original state. If this is unsatisfactory to you, I would recommend pursuing some form of dispute resolution, focusing on the content/balance of the article rather than the behaviour of contributors. Since it appears that neutrality is your primary concern (correct?), the Neutrality Noticeboard would be a good option for seeking further opinions. I will warn you, though, that respondents at most dispute-resolution forums tend to prize not only evidence and sources but also brevity in presentation, which I suspect might be an issue for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and your advice, Nikkimaria. There's just one problem with it. As you said, "What has happened at this article is that the author has objected to some of the changes you want to make, and so far discussion between the two of you has failed to reach a consensus. A no consensus outcome to a content discussion typically means that the article is left in its original state."
That would make sense, but there's a big problem with it: it's too easy to cheat. All a bad-faith, article-owning, uncivil edit-warrior has to do is, revert changes repeatedly (perhaps recruiting a like-minded friend to do it, too), and then refuse to engage in discussion, making any consensus impossible. What has really happened is that a discussion was never had, thus there could be no consensus. It's not "discussion between the two of you has failed to reach a consensus"; it's "discussion between the two of us has failed to happen." Despite my best efforts to start one. "No consensus" and "No discussion" are two very different things. Seriously: Parrot of Doom's brief replies had nothing to do with my comments (and were personally insulting), while GrahamColm has flat-out refused to post a word to the Talk page at all. You can see what an easy cheat this is for a biased, revert-minded editor who prefers "his" article never changes, right?
Brevity may be a problem for me, but citing reliable sources is not. As I've said from the beginning, all my changes were supported by reliable inline citations. No explanation was ever given for their reversions.
Thanks for your attention.
--Ben Culture (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why it can be helpful to seek out further, unbiased opinions - having more participants tends to create a more productive discussion and reduces the potential for "cheating", as you term it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attention. I've gone to three or four people I know and respect (one being an admin) that have been involved with Pink Floyd articles in the past, asking them to come and give their opinion. So far, no replies. I don't know a lot of people here. I'm an on-and-off Wikipedian because, though I love the concept of Wikipedia, and I love to improve an article, some contributors who are more obsessive have been allowed to remain hostile and anti-change. I would describe the average long-term Wikipedian as a rude jerk. Especially when they get a little status. (I'm not at all referring to you.) Mark my words: Parrot of Doom will never be blocked, despite recent Edit Summaries like "oh fuckoff" and "get fucked". See Blackbeard (Oh, I see you're already there). Better yet, see his little announcement atop his User: Talk page ("I insist on owning articles and insulting people!"). You're an admin, right? Why don't you at least warn him?!?
I don't know what more I can do.
The solution to people who revert edits, and then refuse to explain why, shouldn't be that they get their way! That seems a no-brainer to me.
--Ben Culture (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could warn a bunch of people across those two pages, but what would that accomplish? Everyone involved is already at least aware of WP:CIVIL and other applicable policies. However, as perhaps you're beginning to understand, WP:CIVIL is perhaps the policy with the most inconsistent application and enforcement, and previous efforts to police the discourse of experienced editors have almost uniformly ended in disaster and drama with little to no positive effect. I would prefer, if at all possible, to refocus the discussion at both pages on the matters of content rather than behaviour, and maybe find some resolution to the disputes. Could you put aside your upset with Parrot to help with that?
As to getting more people involved: asking individual editors in the manner you did is likely to be problematic. Had any of them responded, you likely would have been accused of canvassing because of the tenor of your messages. You could reach a broader and more neutral audience by posting a short note along the lines of "There is currently a discussion about X at Talk:Y that could use more opinions" at venues like WikiProject noticeboards, or by pursuing some form of dispute resolution as previously suggested. There is always the possibility that respondents won't agree with you, but this way neither side can be accused of "cheating" in any way. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it's a lot more important that Parrot of Doom, who has been consistently rude and personally-insulting to a number of other editors, should be disciplined. He clearly thinks he's indispensable and invulnerable. It isn't even entirely his fault. There is too much inequity among contributors; all the little awards and such -- I'd like to see them done away with altogether -- have convinced him he's above the rules. If you're convinced warning him would do no good, why not take the next step?
And it's not MY "upset with Parrot". The man is breaking actual rules. Not essays. Rules. He is doing stuff that would get me blocked ... but, so far, it appears some Wikipedians are more equal than others.
Fixing up The Final Cut (album) can happen all in good time.
--Ben Culture (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here it's more like some admins are more strict than others. I wouldn't block either of you over what happened; another admin might block both. That's one reason why I didn't encourage you to take this to WP:ANI, because chances are high that you'd either get the same answer or catch a boomerang. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, some Wikipedians are more equal than others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is just one of many reasons it's not an encyclopedia. It is, roughly, what the general public believes it is: Unreliable, personality-driven nonsense, written by obsessive, unstable bastards. Think about it: Does a real set of encyclopediae include "Featured Articles", or little pink boxes stating "This article has been nominated for Good Article status"? Of course not, because all the articles are good, or they don't get published, and all the articles are equal. In a real encyclopedia, I seriously doubt they run around giving each other barnstars, pictures of kittens, and little promotions (between beginner and admin) that gain them special access and a different set of rules to follow. As I say on my User page, there should be exactly two kinds of Wikipedians, no more: Registered editors, each one exactly equal to the other, and administrators, who actually enforce the rules. Like a real, reliable encyclopedia. Wikipedia is, to put it bluntly but accurately, too far up its own ass to produce its own ideal -- which was, initially, one of the greatest ideas ever: The world's largest ongoing encyclopedia. That IDEA was brilliant. In PRACTICE, it is not working. I have a damn good history and I'm being run out on a rail for complaining about a guy who tells people to "get fucked" in his Edit Summaries for God's sakes! Any real encyclopedia would have fired Parrot of Doom's miserable ass the FIRST TIME he did anything like that.
That is the ideal: All articles equal, perpetually "in progress", and all editors equal, owning none of their work, with serious admins watching over them, taking swift action as necessary. Verbal abuse (especially involving one of the "seven dirty words") should be met with immediate blocking, of a length to make the offender seriously reconsider his behavior.
Thank you for your honesty, Gerda!
--Ben Culture (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

I appreciate your suggestion about referencing. I will try to cite in the official format in the future. Thanks. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OA for Writing Course?[edit]

Hi NikkiMaria! Not sure if you remember me, we did the ambassador training together in Indianapolis. I am looking for two online ambassadors to help with a course I'm teaching in the Education program. More specifically, I'm hoping to find a few ambassadors who can review student proposals for possible edits and sources from July 25th to July 30 and then review article drafts from July 30 to August 11. I'm working on putting the full schedule up on the course page but those would be the main duties of the ambassadors involved. Think you'd be interested? Matthewvetter (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matthewvetter, sounds fun, I'm in. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! We'll be in touch. If you need to contact me outside WP, you can use mv115510@ohio.edu. Matthewvetter (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

Columns[edit]

Nikki, please don't keep changing these at Joel Brand. [5][6] I've written it with manual short refs that don't (because manual) link to the long ref. Therefore, the name in the long ref has to be easy to find, so I've used columns and indenting. Without the columns it becomes one flat list that's ugly and harder to read.

There's no consensus to deprecate columns; it is something that was suggested but not agreed upon yet, so if people want to use them, it's okay. Also, this is an article you've never edited before, so it seems unfortunate to arrive to revert on a style issue while I'm fixing it up. I'd really appreciate being allowed to get on with it using the style that I chose. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, the indents work fine for me whether using colwidth or fixed number of columns; I'm not sure why they wouldn't work for you? This is an accessibility issue, which is why using number of columns is deprecated. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you intended to remove Epeefleche's post, but it makes clear that there isn't consensus to deprecate columns, so people are allowed to use them (ditto fixing image sizes). Removing the columns means I can't see the names so easily because the indents stop working. I can't be alone in that, so I'm going to restore them during my next edit. I'd really appreciate it if you would leave them at least until after it has been on the main page (then we can resume the discussion if you like). I'm feeling under quite a bit of pressure with it for various reasons, mainly trying to make sure it's suitably comprehensive but not too much. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd be interested in why exactly it's not working for you, as I've not seen any reports of that issue before. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. When you remove the columns, they disappear for windows under a certain size, and not very small, as has been discussed at the refbegin talk page. When the columns disappear, you're left with the usual long line of text that is such a problem on WP. With the long lines of text, all or most of the indenting disappears, because the indents depend on the text being wrapped around. So for both those reasons, it is ugly. The columns look better and the indents make the surnames easier to find for readers and editors (I keep a window of sources open all the time when I'm editing).
I don't mind discussing it further, but can we please leave it until July 14? I'd like to focus only on the content between now and then, because it's a tricky topic, so there's a lot of juggling needed to decide what to include. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the indenting itself isn't the problem, it's the number of columns. Why not then try using smaller columns? The intent is to make the formatting functional for the greatest number of people, and the previous layout doesn't meet that. We'd like to display our best work at TFA, after all. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it wouldn't be our best work with columns (it might not be for other reasons, which is why I want to concentrate on it between now and then). The whole point of STYLEVAR, ENGVAR and CITEVAR is to stop these style discussions by saying that style issues need only be internally consistent, and this issue, in particular, is a matter of preference. I see Jeremy Thorpe, a recent FA, uses two fixed columns in Notes and four in the Citations section.
Again, I'll be happy to talk about it once TFA is over. Discussions about style suck all the pleasure out of writing, for me anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't simply a matter of preference, but of accessibility. Jeremy Thorpe is a start-class article and shouldn't be looked upon as a model. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to write Thorpe affair. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you went and changed that because I mentioned it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed out a problem, I corrected it. What is surprising is that you would revert the fix and re-add a bunch of spacing problems in the process. That's not exactly a positive step. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 29 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Infobox[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria,

In agreement with Gerda Arendt I have put a second Infobox for the "Intermezzo", which has another WAB number and was composed as alternative for the Scherzo of Bruckner's String Quintet. You have removed it with as reason "not 2".

The Bruckner's Gesamtausgabe puts the String Quintet and the Intermezzo together. In the German Wikipedia the String Quintet and the additional Intermezzo are also grouped into a single section.

If it is really forbidden to have a second infobox, please advise how we can put on a consistent manner the info about the "Intermezzo", which has different dates of composition, edition, first performance and recording, into the single infobox "String Quintet".

Thank you in advance for your expected advice. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have in the meantime combined the content of the two original Infoboxes. Please advise how we can improve it without loosing the info. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda and I are not very happy with the result. It looks indeed confusing, with so many data different. We are thus intended to restore the former version (with two Infoboxes). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 30 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gerald Garson 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 widespread political and judicial corruption inquiry in Brooklyn.<ref name="nytimes2007"/><ref>{{cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ZQGmgHjovawC&pg=PA155&dq=%22gerald+garson%

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Asia Minor (instrumental) 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:
  • ballet, which broke the top 40<ref name="waybackattack"/> and charted at #1 on the UK Singles Chart] on original release and #19 ten years later upon rerelease in 1972.<ref name="officialcharts">{{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • imeAndTheCityCDCSSL-1_.pdf | archivedate=2009-10-07 | deadurl=no }}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Canada Day![edit]

Bonne fête! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 146 (Bruckner)[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria,

I do not understand why you removed the text used for Bruckner's Psalm 146. It is well substantiated and referred: Die Heilige Schrift des alten und neuen Testamentes, Dritter Band (mit Approbation des apostolischen Stuhles), 4. Auflage, pp. 279-280, Landshut, 1839, and it is not the same as the text of the Luther Bible.

PS: I am restoring the date of publication of Bruckner's Psalms and the Magnificat. Except Psalm 150 (Bruckner), they were all published first by Paul Hawkshaw in the Gesamtausgabe.[1]

Regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text is already partially included in the Setting section; we don't need to duplicate it in full right afterwards, referenced or not. As to the other matter, please do not add material to infoboxes that is not supported by the article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I an not very happy with the removal of the full text, because only the very first words of each part of the work are included in the Setting section. Furthermore, not everyone has access to the score of Bruckner's psalm setting or to the old Catholic Bible Bruckner used for it, or even more can read it with the Gothic script.
Fortunately, I have also provided Hans Roelofs with the text. It can so be accessed too as a link on his discography page.[2]
NB: When restoring any data in the infobox, I am first looking whether it is substantiated in the article text. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Chronology of the Complete Bruckner Edition 1990-2001
  2. ^ Discography of Psalm 146
That is certainly odd, given that you have on several occasions restored unsubstantiated data. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peace music[edit]

Would you like your peace music to appear on this year's anniversary or wait until 2017? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2017. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruckner Gesamtausgabe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical edition (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) 08:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

Stop. Just stop it. Stop removing Wild 'n Out's trivia section. The King Gemini (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained to you already, that section is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it not appropriate? The King Gemini (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained to you already, it fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. Without reliable secondary sources, its content is original research and unencyclopedic. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you have a history of deleting info...Zigzig20s (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "info" is unencyclopaedic, such as trivia, it warrants deletion. Whether NM "has a history" is of no relevance. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Montgomery (architect)[edit]

I saw you edited Ross Montgomery (architect), but why didn't you remove almost everything from this article, as it is not referenced? The burden will be on whoever added unreferenced info to re-add it, with secondary sources. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no secondary reference for most of the article...Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've now decided to remove almost everything. So it's back to my old stub...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Levy-Hinte[edit]

Hi again, I saw that you recently edited Jeff Levy-Hinte, and yet most of it is completely unsourced. No primary and certainly no secondary sources throughout the article, except for one sentence. Why don't you remove everything in the article and let other editors find secondary sources? You could just leave the one referenced sentence. Please let me know why not. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are tagged as needing citations; both seem to be potentially verifiable and in line with WP:NOT. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just remove everything and leave just the one sentence with a secondary reference though, as the burden will be on whoever wants to add any info anyway?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That could be done, but since the problems could potentially be handled, I choose not to. In contrast, the disputed material that prompted you to post here can't be fixed unless it can be demonstrated to meet WP:NOT. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if I remove everything except for the one sentence with the secondary reference, the burden will be on you or whoever else to add secondary reference if they want to add any more info again? They won't be able to simply revert it, correct?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, but since that would be a very pointy edit you would leave yourself vulnerable to accusations of disruptive editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think removing referenced info present on the monument about prominent people with wikipedia pages from the other article was pointy and disruptive too. Or perhaps simply obscurantist?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps none of the above. As explained, the material in these two articles appears to meet our standards for inclusion, while the material from that article appears not to without appropriate sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, some "material" without any sources is good to know, but other "material" with sources (and also on a public monument for anyone to go there and read it...) is only good to be removed. This is why I thought you might be a bot (and I apologise if you thought I was joking): because this makes no sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, does this mean you prefer articles without references? This seems to be the logic here.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does not logically follow. Unsourced material without RS but potentially sourceable and otherwise in line with policies should be retained, per WP:HANDLE; sourcing it would of course be the best solution. Material lacking independent or secondary sourcing and that is not in line with policies should be removed, per WP:CANTFIX. It would be very difficult for a bot to determine the difference. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I doubt you could add inlined secondary sources for all the info both on Jeff Levy-Hinte's page and on Ross Montgomery's! Can you please prove me wrong? If you can't find secondary sources for everything, then it should be removed, as it won't meet the criteria for notability...Remember, the burden is on you, not whoever removes the info lacking secondary sources...Zigzig20s (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done for Levy-Hinte; since there is no deadline, the other can wait. While you're waiting, you may wish to re-read our policies regarding article content, which are helpfully listed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I count six sentences without inlined secondary sources in the main article (not the lead). Impossible to know if the reference at the end of each paragraph is valid for all the sentences, or if those sentences are unreferenced because you were sadly unable to find secondary sources. It also looks like it would be fair for me to remove all the unreferenced info from the Montgomery article until you reference it all, wouldn't it? Remember there is no burden to remove stuff, only to add it back...Zigzig20s (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
End-of-paragraph citations are assumed to cover the whole paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zig -- as anyone who watches this page knows, I often have views that differ from Nikki's. But while there is a technically correct aspect to much of what you say about the ability to remove material, there is much to support what Nikki says in turn as to: a) not being on a burden to remove all; and b) the fact that, under the circumstances, your edits could be viewed credibly as pointy and potentially disruptive. My (unsolicited) two cents. Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nikk should stick to their word and provide inlined secondary sources for the Montgomery article. Otherwise, it looks like almost all of it can be removed (by me, or another editor), and cannot simply be reverted. Either way, Nikk or someone else will have to add secondary sources for all of it. What happens if it cannot be found? Unfortunately, in this case, there is no public monument to look at.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, User:Epeefleche, do you think Larry King is notable?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm limiting my input here to my above point, rather than going off on a tangent about Larry King and notability. Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All goes back to secondary sources though!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not hinge on what sources are in the article, but rather on what sources exist. Anyway -- this sounds like a red herring. I'll leave you to continue your conversation with others, should they wish to converse with you. I've tried to give you a third party view that might assist you in avoiding being found guilty of disruption, despite there being elements of what you say that are true. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The sources exist on the monument of the Beverly Hills 9/11 Memorial Garden, but probably not anywhere for Montgomery, at least not all of it. Go figure. I haven't removed any info, so no disruption--just trying to talk some sense into what looked like bot replies but isn't...Zigzig20s (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not talking any sense at all. If the sources don't exist, as you admit, the information should not be included. Conversely, sources for Montgomery likely do exist, even if they are not yet in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that some sources "likely" exist, while others aren't, as long as they are not there? Are you omniscient?? Besides, there ARE sources for Larry King, etc.; I am not making this up. It is significant because he is a public figure known to MILLIONS. However, I suggest Montgomery did not design some of those buildings. Now PROVE ME WRONG! Nothing is "likely" or known by you without even a primary reference...You don't just decide what is likely to be true or not without any reference--you are not above others when it comes to knowledge.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've come a long way from having articles with NO REFERENCE to demanding that every single piece of information be backed up by secondary sources. Do you need a secondary reference to say that the sky is blue? Or that Larry King, a Beverly Hills resident, has his name as a donor on the monument, as does Lili Bosse, the Mayor? Is it likely or not, if it can be read by anybody walking by the neighbourhood? Perhaps it all only depends on whether, YOU decide that it is likely or not. In this case, we are in big, big trouble...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen your edit on Montgomery. However, you need to understand that sometimes common sense needs to be used. If a public figure's name appears on a monument because they are a donor, I really don't think we need People Magazine telling us, "his name is on the monument." Because it already is the case.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, common sense does need to be used. I will again recommend you read our policies regarding article content, and will again point out that there is a difference between the treatment of material which satisfies WP:NOT and that which does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should use common sense; we're not brainless robots. By the way, why are you removing edits on your talkpage from others telling you you are doing bad things on Wikipedia? I see a pattern here.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As do I: you don't understand policies and guidelines. Common sense would suggest you familiarize yourself with them. I think we're done here until you do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You refuse to use common sense by agreeing that it would make perfect sense to say that the monument READS Larry King and other prominent people.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

Please stop the flag icon removal[edit]

This has been upheld by consensus the last time an editor started mass removals. It was also recently talked about at MOS when someone did removals at football articles. That MOS does not "forbid" anything of the sort and is a guideline, not a policy. It doesn't work well in every single situation which is why consensus was formed years ago at Tennis Project and other Projects on how to handle certain items more relavent to sports like playing nationality. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: there is broad consensus that flag icons do not belong in the infoboxes of sportspeople. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with Nikki on this issue, as to at least certain sportspeople. Such as those who play golf and tennis and Olympians. See, for example, the discussion here and here. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally" is not an absolute, and I would very definitely challenge the claim that "broad consensus" exists. Certainly some small group on a guideline talk page may have come to that conclusion, but the 'real world' evidence of their use on live article indicates that the people routinely editing athlete bios forms a much larger bloc that disagrees. Resolute 15:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And per the last few arguments on MOS (ongoing) and several sports projects there is not broad consensus to remove flags from infoboxes of sportspeople. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect if we went by live article usage, a great many guidelines would be different than they are now. In many ways it's too bad we don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. But I think you write enough content to know that the people who live on policy pages occasionally fail to understand that guidelines exist as guidelines because there is no such thing as 'one size fits all'. Resolute 03:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this edit speaks volumes, or not.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't really care any less about this dispute, but Nikki restored those sections ten minutes later. It certainly looks like the removal was accidental. So just what "speaks volumes" here, Zigzig20s? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Nikki is having lots of issues with lots of other Wikipedians, and yet somehow removing some of the evidence. I don't think you can be "certain" of anything at all here, especially as it would be to his advantage to remove unsavoury truths. It is a known unknown.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it helps to spread this stuff ZZ. I started this flag icon section, and once I did I saw no more bulk removals. Always give folks a chance and assume good faith even if there is disagreement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They also removed another comment about an infobox war, which has not been re-added. How strange. As I said, it's a known unknown.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's being discussed elsewhere. The only thing strange here is I said "we're done" and yet you keep posting. I'll repeat: unless you have something productive to add (which hasn't happened for a while), you should instead spend time familiarizing yourself with various policies and guidelines (and at this point I'd suggest adding WP:OWNTALK and WP:DE to that list) rather than continuing to respond here. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Öland FAC[edit]

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter Isotalo 05:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

I just read and agree: "...editors who feel it's okay to impose their style preferences on articles they otherwise have no involvement in ... Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The style of the article Symphony No. 8 (Bruckner) was to have the information in the infobox uncollapsed. I suggest that you and I - both no editors of that article - leave it alone and accept the version which was stable for years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Key phrases: "where more than one style is acceptable", "good reason". Both issues are under discussion. Funny: here you want the stable version, yet usually you say "there is no progess [sic] in sticking to the status quo". Y'all can't have your cake and eat it too. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out my shortcomings in spelling and consistency. I'm sorry, it's not so funny for me. I found your change to an established style rather bold, and I should probably have reverted it to be discussed. However, you made improvements in the same edit. (Collapsing is no improvement for me.) Will you please restore the infobox to the state it had before we started wasting time on something that was "not broken"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not laughing, and it was broken. Since we are not discussing addition or removal of the box itself, it would seem you are allowed to join in the conversation while remaining within your restrictions. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out my shortcoming in understanding also, I thought you mentioned "funny". How was it "broken"? Your edit summary mos, refs, simplify did not tell me. It was acceptable, and it was accepted, unchallenged for years. We now have an infobox which doesn't show at all that there are different versions of the composition, while the very first template did. That is unacceptably simplified. - I try not to do more than two comments to any discussion, as I try to stick to 1RR. It helps me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Funny" has two meanings in English; the meaning meant was "odd". Here's another odd thing: it was accepted unchallenged for years, but when an article not having an infobox at all is accepted unchallenged for years you still want to add one. 1RR is unrelated to number of comments in a discussion, and the merits and problems of various box versions is best left for there. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. How do I know when funny means odd? I came to love my restrictions, really. Obviously I wasn't clear enough: I voluntarily try to stay at 1RR and two comments. Discussions would be so much easier if more people did that. It's no contradiction that I - believing that infoboxes are good for readers - try to protect the few we have in classical music when their contributors can do that no more. You will not find me on a statusquo side for the sake of statusquo. Kindly address the article-related issue that the infobox should show the key fact that there are different versions of the composition, as it did before you first collapsed and then removed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Limiting yourself to two comments does not mean spreading your comments out across several pages - that practice makes it much more difficult to follow discussions, and find responses like "I much prefer the current box rather than the one on the talk page" when you asked someone else. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I had to say is on the article talk in my first comment. What you call spreading is trying to explain, because it seems not understood. In a next step of maturity I will try to avoid that, also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of Bhaktivinoda Thakur[edit]

Nikkimaria, just to let you know that I have partially reverted your recent edit of Bhaktivinoda Thakur. I thought that the quote was relevant and even illuminating to his life story, and the list of those notable people he influenced is longer than one person. Otherwise, thanks for your tweaking the article. Hopefully it will come under yours and others' scrutiny for WP:FA some day. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've also undone your edit that removed the Quote field from the Hindu leader template. Lets discuss the usefulness of this field and reach consensus before removing it. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Felisa Vanoff[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to take a look at this nomination and article? Yoninah is concerned about line-by-line paraphrasing (structural paraphrasing?) in the article, and I naturally thought of you since you've dealt with similar issues in the past. Can you please take a look? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BlueMoonset, I think given the above that nominator is unlikely to accept any further guidance from me, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I frankly don't care so much about the guidance part for someone who clearly isn't interested in same as to establishing whether this is indeed structural close paraphrasing or not, which is what DYK needs to know. However, given the most recent review there, I suspect the point is moot, since significant regular close paraphrasing has been found, and given the various side conversations, I doubt will be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April to June 2014 MILHIST 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 April to June 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook 19 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. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2014[edit]



Headlines
  • Belgium report: Bouchout Declaration on Open Access to Biodiversity data; Virtual collaboration in the government
  • France report: Round table in Brussels; Video at Sèvres; 70th anniversary of the D-Day
  • Germany report: Exhibition photography
  • Mexico report: Edit-a-thon of Museo Soumaya; simulthaneous edit-a-thon in Argentina, Mexico and Spain about Spanish Exile; new cultural partner of Wikimedia México
  • Netherlands report: Music edit-a-thon; Library workshops; Videos, maps and Japanese art donations; Wiki Loves Earth
  • Sweden report: Wiki Loves Monuments is being prepared for Sweden
  • UK report: Free Culture; Image releases
  • USA report: A GLAM Day Out! in Philadelphia; Local History at the Local Library
  • Wikimania report: GLAM presentations at Wikimania
  • Open Access report: Open biodiversity data; Automated import of scholarly journal articles into Wikisource
  • Calendar: July's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Tendency of the rate of profit to fall[edit]

You're right about this problem. I've started a thread over at WP:RSN; your sage advice would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free media check on Megadeth[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. Can you check the images and audio files used in Megadeth, an FA nominee of mine? The review is here, and since this procedure is considered obligatory for these candidatures, your input will be appreciated.--Retrohead (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Scatter the Gold[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have mail... or not[edit]

Hi Nikki. You tagged my talk page for having sent me mail, but i never received a message. There are some stray cites on my talk page too - wonder if you hit a wrong key somewhere along the line? I do have a valid email linked to my WP account, so feel free to give it another shot! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hamiltonstone, it looks like those cites are from the section "Brandis edits" further up the page. I've resent the message; if you still don't get it, email me and I can forward it - there have been some issues with the WP email system lately. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found it caught in the spam filter. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

Source review?[edit]

I'd be obliged if you could look over my sources and bibliography at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (R10)/archive1 to see if I've crossed all mt 't's and dotted my 'i's. Thanks in advance,--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible FAC source review...[edit]

Hi there, I'm trying to wrap up a project before going on a longish break, and wondered if you might help. Jean Bellette has been at FAC for a few weeks now. It has three substantive supports and you did an image review, thanks. Although JimBleak picked up some source tweaks, it would benefit from a full source review and i just wondered whether you might be willing to take that on? I'd be very grateful if you would... :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused here[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm a little confused...Nothing from Jonathan Dickson's wiki page has been copied from ANY other sources directly. Everything has been cited properly and was created by the actor him self. I just maintain the page for him. AmccallYM (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)AmccallYM[reply]

@AmccallYM: "As fate would have it, in his second year at the conservatory, Jonathan was grabbed outside of class one day by a casting director and asked to read for a TV show" comes straight from the subject's web-bio and is inappropriate language for an encyclopedia anyway. The article said "While working for the TV station, Jonathan appeared in over 500 commercials, promos, hosted telethons and parades, and meet and greets"; his web-bio says "While working for the TV station, Jonathan appeared in over 500 commercials, promos, hosted telethons and parades, meet and greets, and had a lot of fun doing it." Shall we play spot the difference? And finally for now, "Jonathan had plenty of experience but no formal training so he decided to enroll at the intense acting conservatory, The New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts, in New York City" vs "Jonathan, however, had lots and lots of experience but no formal training so he enrolled at an intense 2 year acting conservatory in Manhattan, The New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts." If you are maintaining the page "for him" then you ought to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, in addition to the links on copyright that Nikkimaria has already left you. BencherliteTalk 13:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bencherlite: There is no conflict of interest involved. I'm still confused as to how its a copyright violation. We have consent to use the information that was relative. I'll leave the page as is and the next Wikipedian can contribute to the article. Thanks! AmccallYM (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AmccallYM, what do you mean you "maintain the page for him"? That's what's suggesting to Bencherlite that there may be a conflict of interest issue. If you have consent to use the material, I suggest you ask the copyright holder to follow the process at WP:DONATETEXT. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Status...[edit]

On WP:OUP? I think I might have some editing time coming up ... and would be nice to have access to the ODNB. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ealdgyth, everyone on this list will be receiving an email soon with a link for access codes. ("Soon" was meant to be "already", but since no one's clicked on the link yet AFAICT I'm guessing that part hasn't happened...). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Please take a look at the Alice Teodorescu, Fittja gård, Elsa Collin and Brita von Horn article that I created today. Thanks :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BabbaQ, good start on those. I've made a few small tweaks. On Fittja, you're missing full bibliographic details for Lilja 2011 - mind adding that? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Felisa Vanoff#Close paraphrasing explanation[edit]

As you can see, after I put a close paraphrasing template on the article, I was questioned as to just what close paraphrasing was there, and I replied by recommending that you be consulted, as the best close paraphrasing expert at DYK. I also pinged you, so I'm hoping you'll be willing to stop by now and let us all know where the article stands. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Pearll's sun's talk page.
Message added 07:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Pearll's SunTALK 07:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BMJ[edit]

I note that you propose to give user:Khabboos access to this valuable resource. Are you aware of his editing history, and current topic ban, and failed appeals of same? I also question the veracity of his application statement. Please at least examine this a little more. thanks -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roxy, thanks for weighing in here about how to most responsibly and effectively leverage our limited number of accounts. I'm going to give Khabboos a shot here, but I've also made a clear note that this is an opportunity to develop content while avoiding battleground situations. We can revoke access if the situation changes; until that happens, there is no topic ban in a medical area and it's ok for us to take the chance. Best, Jake Ocaasi t | c 20:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Khabboos doesn't meet the 1-year experience requirement (first edit was less than 6 months ago), and it would be very much a stretch to describe him as being "active in medical content generation, research, and/or verification work", per the requirements at WP:BMJ. I actually struggle to find any non-trivial edits to a medical article by this editor. (Really. This is the most substantial edit he's made to a medical article, as far as I can tell.) He does clear the 1000-edit mark by a little bit, but mostly because of a very large number of edits to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, plus all the edits that led to his extant topic ban. He has made a huge number of edits to Talk:Homeopathy (roughly 160) but most of them have just brought him closer to being topic-banned there, too.

If we're having trouble finding 100 editors to give BMJ access to, fine—but if it's a limited resource, Khabboos should not be one of our first picks. (I'll also ping @Ocaasi:.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the six months issue should be prohibitive here. Let's push off then until the next round and tell Khabboos we'll keep them on a waiting list. Ocaasi t | c 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, my mistake. SUL tool's back up so let's stick to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:BMJ[edit]

Thanks for the message!--Eukesh (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ[edit]

I've already sent my email address and username in the format you sent to me. Thanks, Nikkimaria! Best! --Correogsk or Gustavo (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BMJ[edit]

Thank you, Nikkimaria. I have completed the form you sent to me. Best regards, Eiron (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rakvere Theatre's page[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria

I have taken care of RT's wikipedia page since the spring. May I ask what made you return to the old version (before March 13, 2014)?

I understand that Wikipedia is a democratic ground and the results of everybody's effort who have willingness to contribute but still - weren't the changes I made more accurate than in the previous version?

Maybe I'm just too rookie in this business but would gladly hear your opinion.

Thnaks in advance

P.s. Kas on võimalik ehk eesti keeles arutada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakvereteater (talk • contribs) 06:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rakvereteater (sorry, don't speak Estonian), it's not an issue of accuracy; some of the changes appeared to introduce material identical to that on an external website. As I was unable to conclusively determine which site had that content first, and because there was no indication either here or there that licensing requirements have been satisfied, I had to assume that it was a copyright issue and so the content had to be rolled back. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OUP/Approved User Jyoti.mickey has undergone SUL rename to AmritasyaPutra[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria(copied on Ocaasi's talk page also), I have undergone SUL rename to AmritasyaPutra since I applied to WP:OUP. Now, In the email signup I gave my new username only. The email address remains the same. Is this okay? Regards. The earlier username (Jyoti.mickey) is also (re)registered to me but I do not use it. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks for letting us know. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

The Bugle: Issue C, July 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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Duncan (attorney), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney. 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) 08:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of content[edit]

Extended content

Hi Nikkimaria

I have reverted this edit by you, in which you removed from the infobox of the article John Johnstone (East India Company) the fact that his nationality was Scottish.

I see no justification for this removal. He was born in Scotland, to the Scottish holder of a Scottish title. Apart from his time in India, he made his home in Scotland, where he was a major landowner ... and he was a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency. There is a nationality field in the infobox; why leave it blank?

The WP:EDITSUMMARY which you used was only 3 letters "doc". That provides no rationale for the removal.

Many of your other recent edits use the same terse and completely informative edit summaries. WP:EDITSUMMARY#How_to_summarize say While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific as to what was done. Your summaries are not informative, even when they make major changes such as this one, which removed 16KB of content with the edit summary "mos, cull".

Please will you start to use edit summaries which provide a more helpful explanation of what changes were made, and why?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Nikkimaria has been asked, several times, not to remove nationality data from infoboxes, while her disputed claim that it does not belong there (in some or all cases) is unresolved. (Obviously, it will be far easier to remove it later if consensus is with her; than to re-add it if it is not.) For example, in Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 21#Nationality, I said to her "I note from my watchlist that you continue to remove nationality data from this template, in many articles. Please desist, until this dispute is resolved, since such mass edits will be difficult to reverse if consensus is against you. As such, I'm confident that sound-minded neutral third parties would view your continuing as disruptive.". No consensus for her actions has been demonstrated; and she should desist until it is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Mabbett: thanks for that background, Andy.
This is the second occasion in recent weeks when I have encountered Nikkimaria removing content from articles with inadequate edit summaries. The last time I challenged Nikkimaria, and got a thoroughly unhelpful response. I hope that on this occasion Nikkimaria will respond more collaboratively. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an abbreviation on Wikipedia is confusing, it is usually helpful to either search for it in WP: space or to check WP:ESL; from the former, "doc" refers to the template's documentation, which currently supports the removal of nationality where it can be inferred from birthplace. As you point out, he was born in Scotland. As to the other page, the cleanup tag I was resolving should make it fairly clear why that edit was made. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out to you more than once previously, birth in Scotland does not necessarily confer nationality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends of course on which definition of nationality you are using, and in which era, but in this case I don't think anyone is disputing that the individual in question is Scottish. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, the word "doc" could refer to tens of thousands of documents on Wikipedia, many dozens of which are applicable to this article and to the infobox. WP:ESL does not include the 3-lettr string "doc".
If you genuinely believe that that there is a consensus to remove nationality from the infobox, then explain in your edit summary what you have done, rather than doing yet another form of removal of content without an edit summary which explains what you are doing.
Your edit summary gave no clue as to which document you were referring to, or how it applied to that edit. An edit summary should explain what was done and why; yours did neither. So I ask ask again: please will you now start using more informative edit summaries? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As already explained, the word "doc" refers to template documentation - and while there are indeed many of those, since I was only editing one template it's not difficult to figure out which documentation is meant. Gnoming edits do not need paragraphs of explanation - "doc" is as acceptable as your "tidyup" or "tweaks", even more so perhaps because it gives "why" instead of "what". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try something else, open to anyone: find three examples of active editors with what you consider to be exemplary use of edit summaries. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, your gnoming consists overwhelmingly of removing content, and you have an obligation to be upfront about what you are doing. It's not complicated, and it doesn't need paragraphs of explanation. Instead of deleting the text, just copy it, and paste it into edit summary. "Removed nationality = Scottish" or "-nationality = Scottish per doc" or "-nationality = per infobox doc" would be a million times more informative than "doc".
Anyway, since it's clearly futile asking you to be more informative, it's time for an RFC/U. The unusually high number of supportive messages I get when I challenge you on this makes it very clear that I am far from being the only editor who objects, and it's time to test the community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before you do that, could you provide the examples I asked for? I'm serious. I don't think the standard you're requesting is one that's commonly met (except with script editing, which wouldn't be appropriate for this situation). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, that search is complicated by the fact that I know of no other editor who focuses like you on removing content from pages. It is the mass removals without explanation which make your uninformative edit summaries so problematic.
I am sure that at the RFC/U you will be able to explain what exactly is you would find so intolerably onerous about typing even "rem nationality". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that would be unproductive. If you can produce such examples I would be happy to try to follow them, but speaking only in the abstract does not really work for this situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the support I have received, I am sure that it will be very productive. There is nothing abstract about the question what exactly would you find so intolerably onerous about typing even "rem nationality"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting other people to agree with you is not the point of an RFCU; it's (nominally) to get a change in behaviour, and I'm telling you that you would be more likely to get that if you can provide a real-world model for me to follow. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, all that is being asked of you is to write an edit summary which is "specific as to what was done", per WP:EDITSUMMARY. If you want to explain at the RFC/U with the attitude that despite being an admin, you lack the competence to do so without a specific role model to follow ... then you are free to do take that approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I will try to follow the guidance at WP:EDITSUMMARY. Please in turn try to be more collaborative in your efforts to resolve perceived problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, I have provided you with a variety of examples of how you could construct an informative edit summary.
The fact that you choose to ignore all that and accuse me of being "uncollaborative" is merely an another example of the hostile attitude which you bring to every challenge of you conduct. That is one more diff for the evidence-mountain: a good illustration of a long-standing problem in your communication with other editors, which is why an RFC/U is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm asking for help, and you responded by claiming that makes me incompetent. If that's not "uncollaborative" and "hostile", I'm not sure anything I might do could possibly qualify.
So, one more try: I would be happy to try to bring my edit summaries in line with community standards. However, it's still not clear to me what those standards actually are. This is why I would like to see "real-world" examples of people you consider to have exemplary edit-summary usage. Your examples might work for you, but they really are not helpful to me. If that makes me incompetent, fine, but repeating those here or at RFCU or wherever else is unlikely to result in the sort of change you want. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, you made no response at all to my set of suggested examples. That is "not ignoring" only if the word "not" is omitted.
You now say that they "not helpful" to you. But you don't explain why they are unhelpful. Do you not understand how write an edit summary like that? Do you not understand what they mean? Do you not understand how they are "specific as to what was done" than the "doc" summary you used?
If you were seriously trying to be collaborative, you would have tried explaining some of those things. But you didn't, and my point is that is an example of a long-standing pattern in your communication which has been noted by many other editors, which is why we need an RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) PS I note that the part of the documentation to which you claim your edit summary referred was in fact added by you, despite the lack of a consensus at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 21#Nationality. This is way bad behaviour: edit guidance to reflect your view, despite there being no consensus to do so, and then point to that self-written guidance. Admins are expected to behave better than that.
I have reverted your change. If you want to reinstate it, get consensus first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misreading the edit history: the edit you cite shows me restoring the guidance which was removed without consensus. The version with that particular bit has existed since at least 2012, and was not originally from me. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, you are correct that the guidance predated the discussion. But a guideline should not include an instruction if there is no consensus to retain it. And an admin like you should know better than to justify the removal of content on the basis of a piece of guidance which for which you a) acknowledge there is no consensus, and b) have edit-warred with two other editors to reinstate.
The issues are piling up for this RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many guidelines contain instructions that are disputed (have you looked at the MOS discussion pages?), but consensus is needed to change the instructions. Since there is no such consensus at this point, it remains as it was. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it appears that there never was consensus to include the point in the first place. It was a bold edit, sustained without consensus by your usual edit-warring technique. (More diffs there for the RFC/U evidence pile). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without offering an opinion as to the most recent edit summaries, I would note that this is a subject that has been raised to Nikki by a number of editors (including me). Often in disparate unrelated edit postings, as reflected in part here.

I don't have an answer to his above questions, as I don't know who the best wp edit summary editor is. But -- and I think this addressed the heart of the issue raised by that question -- I can say that in the course of my 130,000 edits, I can't recall coming across any editor who has attracted more requests than Nikki has that she alter her edit summaries so that they are more explanatory.

I realize that at times editors can be ganged up on, for no good reason, but I think this is not such a case. Editors are just legitimately saying to Nikki: "I can't understand what your edit summaries mean." And at times: "That is especially disturbing to me where your edit is controversial". I've felt a bit attacked by Nikki's response to me when I raised the subject, and see that here we have another editor raising the same concerns as the lot of us have before. Epeefleche (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay. I have tried to change the way I use edit summaries in response to previous comments. I can try to adapt further. If anyone can provide examples of other editors I can look to, that would be very helpful; otherwise, I would please ask everyone to drop this subject for a few days so I can try to work with what has been given so far. After that time I would welcome further feedback on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Just in response to your question -- if you are looking for helpful feedback as to how to write edit summaries that don't elicit the reactions referred to above, I think the starting point is not "what other editor's edit summaries should I look at?" I think, rather, the logical starting place would be to look at those comments linked to above, regarding your edit summaries which seemed to other editors to be deficient in sufficiently conveying why you were making the edit (or similar concerns). There are a number of instances, cited by a number of editors, sometimes with thoughtful discussion. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAR closings[edit]

I noticed that Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of Maryland/archive1 was marked for delisting a month ago but the nomination was fully closed. As well, it is still classed as a Featured Article and still has a bronze star on the page. This is also the case for Microsoft's FAR. GamerPro64 16:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a bot that was to be fixing those, but I guess it never came to be. I'll take a look through the recent closings, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_26&oldid=1076075683"