User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 27

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

Request[edit]

Would you consider continuing your review of Briarcliff Manor, New York? I would be glad to have more insight.--ɱ (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned you were going to check on a couple of things - have you had a chance to do that yet? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just books to see if they have page numbers; I've added them for all majorly cited works except the 1952 history, which I'll do soon. Otherwise, do you have any other comments for it? If not, could you ask any WP acquaintances if they can find any comments for it? I seem to have run out of people. (Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I forgot to watchlist this page as I often do when writing on others' talk pages)--ɱ (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop by the review today or tomorrow. If you need more reviewers, you might also consider posting a neutral message at relevant WikiProjects. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, I'll post something tomorrow. About your Sleepy Hollow Country Club edits, I know it's the norm not to resize images or put in line breaks like I did, although it improves the article's format by not having a few words left under the photo and by moving the second clause on the infobox's caption to one line. I believe MOS allows you to make formatting changes if it improves the layout. The infobox change should be consistent on all browsers and devices, and the image resizing should be an improvement for laptops and desktops; for mobile devices there shouldn't be much difference (it also only shrinks the image size by 20px).--ɱ (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some have their preferences set to a larger default image size, and fixing the size overrides that default, which can be a problem if someone has vision issues, for example - 300px is the most common custom image default, so that would represent a much bigger shrink. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. What do you think about the br tag?--ɱ (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if someone has different default settings, that's going to change the way the caption wraps - it might look better with a break on your screen, but not everyone has those settings. I don't think it's worth trying to force the break. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kacy Catanzaro[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

appreciation[edit]

I just wanted to come here to say how impressed I am by the remarkable etxent -- and consistent excellence -- of your work at WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google books[edit]

Thanks for the edit there! Had a quick scroll through your talk page and read the conversation a little further up on Google Books citations. In regards to shortening the urls, is it literally a case of simply removing everything after "PA###"? So: 

url=http://books.google.com/books?id=WjJ3THGG5iIC&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=bella+gerant+alii+tu+felix+austria+nube&... etc

would become 

 url=http://books.google.com/books?id=WjJ3THGG5iIC&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437

? Sotakeit (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sotakeit, if you're citing a single page available in preview,
 url=http://books.google.com/books?id=WjJ3THGG5iIC&pg=PA437
should be enough. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. Thanks. Sotakeit (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Student Project Proposals[edit]

@Nikkimaria: Hi Nikki, I'm having students post project proposals (a brief outline of what article they're planning on developing and some preliminary research) this Friday the 25th. I'll split up the students into three groups for each ambassador. You'll each have around 6 proposals to review by the 30th. My plan was to have them post to your talk page, unless you want to create a separate talk page? Let me know and thanks again for all your help.Matthewvetter (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matthewvetter, here is fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FP's Featured Article nomination[edit]

Hey Nikki! I don't mean to be bothersome, but it's been a week since your last reply at The FP's FA nomination, so I wanted to follow up and see if you had a chance to return to it. I apologize if this is coming off as pestering or annoying, as I know you coordinate several different things and probably have a lot of other work to do, but I felt like it was worth double checking. Thank you for all the work you do! Corvoe (be heard) 11:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Corvoe, I hope to get there within the next couple of days. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for getting back to me so fast! No rush at all, I know there's other stuff going on at the moment. Just wanted to double check to be safe. Corvoe (be heard) 12:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Resilient Barnstar
Nikkimaria, working on Arbcom I regularly see the worst the encyclopedia has to offer. It's nice to be reminded that some members of our community not only work tirelessly to improve the encyclopedia, but also show integrity in the face of difficult situations. I sincerely hope recent events do not put you off editing, and that you will continue to be a driving force for this encyclopedia. WormTT(talk) 12:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't kept up with the minutia in the case, but I've seen enough to have respect for what you just did. Work past these problems and if you ever decide to seek the mop again, I would be inclined to support. Having the character to do the right thing at the right time means a great deal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Account Flags[edit]

If you want any of your flags (reviewer, autopatroll, rollback) you had prior to resigning as an admin back, feel free to ping me-I trust you will only request what you need. Alternately you can request via the usual process. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 16:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xaosflux, I'd like autopatrolled for sure, if you don't mind. I might request some of the others later. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. — xaosflux Talk 03:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK close paraphrasing[edit]

Nikkimaria, there are a couple of DYK nominations you might want to look at.

The first, Template:Did you know nominations/Astronomical Society of New South Wales, you had issues with earlier. There have been fixes made, and another reviewer has subsequently given the nomination a tick, but I wanted to check back with you to make sure all the issues you'd identified have been solved. If they have been, then no need to post anything further there; otherwise, it might be nice to point out issues before it gets promoted if possible.

The second, Template:Did you know nominations/Felisa Vanoff, you've commented on the article's talk page about close paraphrasing. There have been a goodly number of article edits since then, which was also after I put a "close paraphrasing" template on the article itself. Since the author seems to think everything is fixed now, according to the latest post in the DYK nomination page, I was hoping you could check to see whether it is satisfactory, or if close paraphrasing remains.

Thanks for anything you can do here. My thought is that if significant close paraphrasing does remain, we suggest that the article be submitted to the Guild of Copy Editors—am I correctly assuming that they take care of close paraphrasing? If so, once someone from GOCE has completed the work, the close paraphrasing template could presumably be safely removed. Please let me know what you think. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueMoonset: I actually think this may be a good (and constructive, finally) idea, because I don't see close paraphrasing, or know how to fix it further than all the work I have done so far. I thought people who profess criticisms would fix it, be part of the solution not the problem, but if others can make everyone happy, that is fine. I do note however that no one replied to my other notes about home/private residence, or Google Books/Scholars...Zigzig20s (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey BlueMoonset, short answer: no. Some GOCE editors may work on such issues, particularly if they are aware they exist, but copyeditors are not required to and do not always look at the sources. In fact, in cases where editors have created awkward wording in an effort to avoid too-close paraphrasing, a copyeditor not checking sources could actually make the problem worse.
I will check the two specific cases tomorrow, as it's getting rather late here now and I want to run through the current queue before signing off. Thanks for your continued good work on these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it turns out that the "current queue" stands at one article, so I will check one of the two at least for now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know about the GOCE's remit, which is a very important point. Have a good night, Nikkimaria, and thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArthurRead1234 => Marshall1234[edit]

Hi. An investigation into sockpuppetry by ArthurRead1234 has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArthurRead1234. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't recall interacting with you or either of the two mentioned at SPI previously - was there some reason you thought I should know about this? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria,
Sorry if that's not clear, your interaction was deleting the hoax on The Shapies page and the master account reverting your edit.
This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Shapies&diff=617657714&oldid=617655329 MartinSFSA (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ free access[edit]

I have filled the form but did not get any news yet.--Ashashyou (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. We're passing the form results on to the folks at BMJ and they should hopefully be ready soon.
If there are any TPSes waiting on other resources I process for The Wikipedia Library: the same applies to approved OUP requests, but they should be ready shortly. Credo will be delayed a bit more. Approved Cochrane requests are sent to Cochrane once every week or two. HighBeam requests I process personally, so that happens within a few days to a week (unless there are problems with the application). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan.Hunstad Ambassador Proposal[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria!

First I’d like to thank you for taking the time to help us! This is such a new experience to all of us contributing to Wikipedia and I don’t think anyone in the class fully understood what we signed up for. I plan to fill the gaps in the gap articles! It sounded funny so I figured I would start on a cheerful note. I have decided to take three current articles, the Cumberland Gap, Pound Gap, and Moccasin Gap, and update them.

I have noticed there does not appear to be a standard format for organization among these articles as well as other articles about geological formations on Wikipedia. After looking at many different articles within this subject it appeared the best grade I could hope to reach would be a C-class until I saw the Grand Canyon page, a former featured article. I plan to build my three articles in accordance with the likes of the Grand Canyon in hopes other editors will continue to build more uniformed articles. This means I will be adding much needed information regarding a lead paragraph, Geography, Geology, History, Biology and Ecology, and Tourism. These pages are start class articles that already contain information that so far appears to be accurate but the references seem to be subpar. So I must reorganize some aspects of these articles to make them verifiably accurate and reliable. After looking over the talk pages I have taken into consideration the suggested changes needed to these articles that have not been addressed yet. Furthermore I plan to link these articles and create a Wiki category for Mountain passes of the Appalachians to continue the Wiki principle to "build the web" since they are related by regional location.

Below is my initial annotated bibliography and I created subpages under the username Brendan.Hunstad for each Cumberland Gap, Moccasin Gap, and Pound Gap. Also there is a link to them on my sandbox. Thanks again and I look forward to your comments!

Annotated Bibliography[edit]

  • Crawford, M. M., & Hunsberger, H. (2011). Geology of Cumberland Gap National Historical Park (XII). Retrieved from Kentucky Geological Survey University of Kentucky, Lexington website: http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsweb/olops/pub/kgs/mc199_12.pdf
    • This is a pdf file that also includes history, geology, and geography for Cumberland Gap
  • McGrain, P. (1983). The Geological Story of Kentucky (8). Retrieved from Kentucky Geological Survey University of Kentucky, Lexington website: http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsweb/olops/pub/kgs/GeoStory.pdf
    • This is an electronic version that will contribute to the formation in the geology and geography section of the Cumberland Gap.
  • Scott Couny Planning Commission. (2011). Scott County Comprehensive Plan (1). Retrieved from http://www.scottcountyva.com/SCcomp_final_042011.pdf
    • This document provides much useful information for Moccasin Gap; history, natural resources, physical characteristics, land use, and projections for area

Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brendan, looks very promising so far. It's a great idea to look to existing articles for organizational ideas; Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places has a few more that might work well, if you need. Your plans for expansion and referencing sound great. The one thing I would suggest about the existing content is reconsidering the "popular culture" section. This section, like similar sections on other articles, has attracted some trivia that isn't really encyclopedic in nature. WP:IPC is a good essay that explains practices regarding such sections but, more broadly, I would suggest limiting that section to references that are truly significant, and that you can support with reliable sources. If you run into any problems while working on these articles or have any questions, feel free to ask me. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! The links you gave me were a good read and helpful. I agree the pop culture section of the existing article doesn't fit in but wasn't sure about taking it out since some people felt it was important to add it in. But I think those bits of information would serve better on pages specifically related to them and from there hyperlink to the Cumberland Gap article. So I probably will take them out and offer my reasoning on the talk page. I'll let you know when I have drafts ready for you to review. Thanks again! Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Trivia sections were deprecated, many of these have instead inevitably morphed into 'Popular culture' sections because these are liked by some but on the whole are an unencyclopaedic collection of trivial facts that can be safely removed in nine instances out of ten. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nikkimaria! When you get a chance could you take a look at my drafts? I didn't get to do as much as I wanted to because the online information seemed to be limited. But the Cumberland Gap article I think turned out well and the Moccasin Gap article looks like a big improvement over what it was. Hopefully you will agree. I haven't done much with the Pound Gap article but I've already met the criteria for class so don't worry about looking at it. I'll work on it in my own time for fun. Thanks again and I look forward to your response!Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Brendan, those are looking very promising. A few suggestions for Cumberland (though several will apply to both articles):
  • The first map is helpful on a broad scale, but what do you think about a two-part map like the first one in Missouri River? This gives both broad and specific information about where the feature actually is
  • Your Geography section is very readable. However, being Canadian, I find it hard to follow imperial-only measurements. I suggest using {{convert}} to automatically provide conversions for your figures. It can be a bit tricky to use so take some time to play around with it.
  • "Hikers and backpackers in the area are advised to remember..." - to my ear this sounds a bit more like a guidebook than an encyclopedia.
  • "Many scientists believe..." - suggest having a read through WP:WORDS
  • "a meteorite the size of a football field" - keep in mind that your audience here is international: "football" means different things in different places, and so the field itself varies
  • History section could use a few more footnotes - aim for a minimum of one per paragraph
  • Even when you include a Google Books link, your book citations should still have page numbers
A couple additional points for Moccasin:
  • This Geography section could flow a bit better - the other was much nicer
  • History: as written that first paragraph suggests indigenous peoples were attacking settlers during the Civil War - is that correct? Also, any stats on traffic flow for modern times? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! Yeah I completely forgot to add the unit conversions. But I went through and made the changes you suggested with the exception of the maps. The Missouri River map is nice but wasn't able to figure out how to create one like it for these areas. I will try messing with it again when I have more time. Thanks again for all your help!Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

eh598110 Ambassador Proposal[edit]

Hello there! First off, thank you so much for volunteering your time to help our class learn how to write in Wikipedia! So far I am really enjoying the class and can already tell my writing has improved just half way through the class! Wikipedia wasn’t something I considered as a strong and reliable source but now that I have learned more about it and all of its uses I have changed my opinion, it is also nice that I can find other sources through Wikipedia by going to their references, which I am ecstatic about! As far as my project proposal goes I have two ideas that I would love your feedback and critiques on. My first idea is to work on the Greenfield, OH page. This is my home town so I know a lot about the subject, and unfortunately I know that there is a lot missing from this page so there is definitely room for improvement. On the talk page there really isn’t much action, actually pretty much no action at all. I have posted on there that I am beginning to work on it, and that it was a school project. So anyone who does go on its talk page will be warned. I am interested in this page because Greenfield doesn’t have the best rep, and I think that I could possibly change the stereotype of my home town. It’s known to be a small boring town which has an unfortunately high use of drugs. None of which is suggested in the Wikipedia page currently. As of right now the majority of its Wikipedia page is demographics, I would like to make the Wikipedia page more about Greenfield’s history and other interesting facts that I find when researching. My other option that I think could be interesting could be Tecumseh Outdoor Drama, there currently isn’t a page on this. This is close to my hometown and something that I have seen multiple times and think Wikipedia could benefit from this page. Obviously there isn’t a talk page for this since there isn’t a page on Tecumseh Outdoor Drama. This interests me in many ways but one way in particular is because one of the actors is on channel 4 news (a local new program) Jym Ganahl, he doesn’t currently act in the show, but it’s a part of the Outdoor Drama history that I would enjoy sharing on Wikipedia. I think that we could argue that this page is needed on Wikipedia. Between the two I think I could find more reliable sources on Greenfield, OH. Do you have a suggestion on which page I should work on? Here is a link to the current Greenfield, OH page, and here is a link to my sandbox where I will be making my changes to the article. Again, thank you for your time and help! Below is my annotated bibliography.

  • "Greenfield, Ohio." Wikipedia. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Wikipedia.org. Web. 25 July 2014.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield,_Ohio>. This is the original Greenfield Wikipedia page, I plan to still use the information found on the page and make additions to it as well. This page mostly focuses on the demographics, like numbers of citizens.
  • McLeese, Don. Tecumseh. Vero Beach: Rourke, 2004. Print. Discusses the Shawnee Chief, Tecumseh's childhood,the Battle of Tippecanoe, Tecumseh's return, and his death. This source is purposely for background information since there is already a Tecumseh Wikipedia page. However I can make Wikilinks to the original page while giving a brief overview.
  • Merkel, Jerry. Greenfield Ohio Celebrating 200 Years. N.p.: Turner, 2000. Print. Greenfield Ohio: Celebrating 200 years goes back in time from 1799 to 1999 depicting Greenfield Ohio's history. Chronicling the extensive heritage of each county through historic photos, families,businesses, churches, and organizational histories. The people and history is thoroughly researched.
  • Owens, Susie. "Ohio's Remarkable Tecumseh Outdoor Drama." Discovering Ohio. N.p., 27 june 2014. Web. 25 July 2014. <http://www.discoveringohio.com/2014/06/ohios-hills-.html>. This website gives a small and brief overview of the experience of the Outdoor drama. I think that it could be an interesting section to the Tecumseh Outdoor Drama Wikipedia page.
  • The Historical Society of Greenfield. Greenfield. N.p.: Arcadia, 2012. Print. Book is mostly pictures with captions underneath. Captions are filled with lots of tidbits of information. Discusses history, the high school (one of the most well known in the state), and towns people.

Again, thank you! Eh598110 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eh598110. Before you created a page on Tecumseh Outdoor Drama, you would need to be able to prove that it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. The best way to do this would be to present multiple independent reliable sources. Since you've got only one source on that topic and it appears to be a tourism site, I'm not sure whether you'd be able to do that. I think working on the Greenfield page is probably a safer bet. However, do be careful about trying to "change the stereotype of my home town" - if reliable sources document a problem with drugs, for example, that should be included in the Wikipedia article even if it isn't such a positive view of the town.
In order to better structure your approach to the Greenfield article, I suggest looking at some excellent examples of articles about similar towns. This list includes some promising choices in that regard. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline also gives some very good advice about what information to include.
Finally, while history might be what interests you most, make sure your finished product is a balanced representation of the town, including its geography, climate, culture, etc. Make sure you have some good sources for each of these aspects as well, not just the history. Let me know if you have any questions or need help. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, With your advice in mind my sandbox has my latest revisions. As you can tell I have focused on the Greenfield, Ohio page. I am still waiting on two of my sources and once I get those I plan to finish my final draft. Please feel free to leave me comments, suggestions on improvement, anything you wish to share! Thank you again for all your hard work! Eh598110 (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eh598110, good start. A few suggestions for you:
  • WP:USCITIES gives a suggested outline for US city articles. While I don't think you have room with your assignment to cover everything mentioned in that outline, I do think it would be a good idea to order the sections that way - Climate right after Geography, Government before Notable People
  • As a general rule, most Wikipedia articles don't include stand-alone gallery sections. I would suggest distributing these images throughout the article, where it seems to make sense for them to fit
  • Notable People: while many of the individual articles mention a connection to Greenfield, it's always a good idea to include sources here establishing that - see WP:NLIST
  • "To read more on these specific topics and others please go to the history section" - since the introduction introduces the whole article, you don't need to tell the reader to read the article, you just provide a summary and trust them to find more details in the article if they want them
  • In general, the article would benefit from some copy-editing. I suggest either reading it out loud to yourself, or having a friend read it over
  • Current: I'm not sure this needs to exist as a stand-alone section. Most of the content could be incorporated into the first paragraph of History, and indeed is already there
  • "Greenfield's comfort level on a scale of 1 to 100 if rated at a 44" - I'm not sure what this means or how it is determined
  • It's great that you show census information over time, but this would be more valuable if you compared it explicitly - eg "There were 4639 residents in 2010 compared to 4906 in 2000, a population decline of x%"
  • Where you use the exact same source multiple times, you can use named references to avoid repeating the whole code. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Russell Wilson (mayor)[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was going to call for a new reviewer on this one, but given the close paraphrasing found earlier, I thought it might be a good idea to get someone who's good at looking for that to see how the article stands now before finding someone to look at the ALT hooks. If you have a chance, please see how it looks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher Ambassador Proposal[edit]

The articles I will be working on for Project 3 are “Jesco White” and “The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia” (WWWWV). In my opinion, the WWWWV page should not even be considered a start page. The basic layout of the page is completed, but a lot more information regarding the details of the film should be included. There is a reception section is present, but only one sentence and view point is documented. This is from the site Rotten Tomatoes, a reliable source, but doesn’t really give info regarding how the movie has been reacted to. I plan on referring to other articles about documentaries for guidance on gaps that can be added (Waiting for “Superman”). The Jesco article contains 5 dead links (as well as a few repeats). My goal is to have sourced all the info that is currently on the page with working links as well as developing other areas of the article. There are several places within the article that have repeated information in different sections. For each film under the depiction in the media category, only a two sentence summary is given. This needs lengthening. The majority of the personal life section revolves around 1 arrest. This should be changed as well.

I plan on using many resources I found during class time, but also the WP:BIO page and WP:BLP (Biography of Living Persons) page for guidance on what info should and should not be included. I will be using the manual of style for film as well biographies for guidance on what material is appropriate.

I am having some difficulty with finding info about Jesco, which upon researching found was due to the local newspaper of their town being shut down. Not sure how to get around this, but did find a cached version of an article about him fleeing WV with his sister and gives good background knowledge of the family and his personal life.


“The Dancing Outlaw makes a run for the West Virginia border” http://clatl.com/atlanta/the-dancing-outlaw-makes-a-run-for-the-west-virginia-border/Content?oid=1244411 I want to use info from this article because it has lots of detail about jesco’s personal life, how he feels about performing, and life before the WWWWV documentary. It also gives an inside perspective on how Jesco interacts with family members apart from the documentary.

http://coalvalleynews.com/view/full_story/3169991/article-White-to-retire-from-showbusiness?instance=commented#.U9KXjI3_O8V About jesco’s retirement.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4675760570_1fbd0b9ac9.jpg This is a screen shot of the newspaper clipping discussing the murder of D. Ray White. Jesco was injured during the shooting and the death had a major impact on Jesco’s future. I am having difficulty locating an official obituary or news article (this could be related to the newspaper closing as previously mentioned.)

As previously mentioned, I want to add reception to the WWWWV article. I have found several reviews of the film which I think is important to include all of them to get an overall neutral tone to the article. These are: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-wild-and-wonderful-whites-of-west-virginia http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/The-Wild-Wonderful-Whites-Of-West-Virginia-4611.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rupert-russell/review-the-wild-and-wonde_b_591964.html http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/24/news/la-wild-whites-west-story http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/movies/05wild.html?partner=Rotten%2520Tomatoes&ei=5083 http://moviemet.com/review/wild-and-wonderful-whites-west-virginia-dvd#.U9KesY3_O8U http://www.popmatters.com/post/133214-the-wild-and-wonderful-whites-of-west-virginia-this-is-the-real-amer/ http://www.jamesweggreview.org/Articles.aspx?ID=1221 http://leestranahan.com/sunday-doc-review-the-wild-and-wonderful-whites-of-west-virginia/ http://firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/fdl-movie-night-the-wild-and-wonderful-whites-of-west-virginia/ http://pankmagazine.com/2011/01/12/pop-ulcer-the-wild-wonderful-whites-of-west-virginia/

A lot of these also include a snippet about the cultural significance of the movie which I think is imperative to include in the article. I’m doing further research in finding an academic journal or scholarly essay to support this. I will keep you updated.


I have found a lot of other info regarding the different white family members. This will be included (small bio section on WWWWV). This information is not from a reliable source so I’m worried it will be deleted/a waste of time if I do add it. A webpage giving info about jesco (2nd link) is also helpful, but from a reliable source. What do you think I should do? http://eddieonfilm.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-that-aint-country.html http://www.angelfire.com/wv2/bandytown/Jesco%20Page.htm


I found the press kit for WWWWV and the film inspired by jesco’s life “White Lightnin”. I plan on using the WWWWV kit to help write the plot summary of the film but am worried this is not a neutral depiction since it was released by the producers.

I have several additional resources I would like to share with you. These give background info about the whites and the making of the film. Because I have downloaded these articles I was unsure how to send them to you. I added them to my box account which I have posted a link to here.


Thank you so much for looking over my proposal and I can’t wait to hear the feedback you give! I really appreciate the time you’re volunteering to our class to help make Wikipedia better. Cf105308 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cf105308, it's great that you were able to find so many sources to support your editing. I agree with you that the Blogspot link is likely not a reliable source - I would suggest not including it, even if that means you will need to omit some of its details. I'm also curious as to whether that Angelfire site is an "official" source. Angelfire allows users to create and publish their own content, so we need to consider who the author is. You can use the press kit for the plot section, as that is an appropriate place to include a primary or non-independent source. Just make sure you're careful not to fall for the hype, and that you yourself remain neutral in writing the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! It was very helpful for editing the articles I am working on. I understand they are still a work in progress but I think the changes I have made are worthwhile. Please take a look at what I have done on my sandboxes below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cf105308/sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cf105308/sandbox/WWWWV

One specific question I had. How can I get rid of the "length" section in my track listing on the WWWWV page?

Again, any recommendations you have I would love to hear! Cf105308 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cf105308, good start. For the track length, the recommendation I've usually seen is to just use a simple numbered list rather than the template for cases like these - see Wikipedia:MOSALBUM#Track_listing. I can't make too many other comments about WWWWV at this point given that a few sections still need content. I'd say take out the external links in the infobox - generally only links to other Wikipedia articles should be included in the article itself (and either no link or a red link if no article exists), with links to other websites appearing only in references or an External links section. For Jesco, a few more suggestions:
  • Given the length of the article, you could probably make the introduction a little bit longer
  • Provide as much of a full citation as possible for each of your sources. For example, footnote 3 has a title and accessdate, but doesn't say when or where it was published. That means that if that link goes dead, it will be very hard to find a replacement. This goes double for citations that are only URLs, like footnote 23
  • Other wikis, like footnote 26, are not reliable sources
  • Suggest providing an overview of his family in the Personal Life section - how many siblings, any kids, etc
  • The cleanup tag in the Other depictions section should be addressed - in general, if you can't source a depiction, cut it
  • Generally, organization and weighting is a strange here. There's very little about his career aside from depictions in media, and too much about personal issues he has had. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E.Kassel Ambassador Proposal[edit]

Hi! Thank you so much for helping out our class with learning how to write in Wikipedia. The first article that I have chosen to expand on is the article “Western Maryland.” I go to Deep Creek Lake (which is in Western Maryland) every year for vacation, so this is definitely something that interests me. There is a lot of content that needs to be added to this, and there are many gaps within it. It needs an actual history section with header, population and economics, a tourism section, demographics and a few others that I am still debating on. The section that begins the article also needs some revision, and some of the information needs to be put in a separate area. It also could use a sidebar that has some information that people may be coming to this article to quickly find and read. This article is very underdeveloped and this project will definitely make this article one that people will get a lot of information out of. My second article I have chosen to update is the one on the Appalachian Baseball League. I am a sports management major so I thought that writing more on this article will not only help out anyone that wants to learn about the League, but will help me expand my sports knowledge as well. This article needs some information on each of the teams, references, some more history, and some updates to the team list area. If there is anything you can think of that I should add on either of these, the help would be much appreciated! Here is a link to both articles ( Western Maryland ) ( Appalachian League ) and a link to my Sandbox where I will be editing the articles. There is also a list of some of my sources listed below. Again, thank you so much for taking the time to help us out with this!

"Maryland at a Glance." Maryland Manual Online. Maryland State Archives, 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 24 July 2014. <http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/01glance/html/mountain.html>. This source will be helpful because it gives me some geographical information, including mountains and some history around it. It also gives me a link to more information that will be helpful in a different section of the Wikipedia article.

Scharf, J. Thomas. History of Western Maryland: Being a History of Frederick, Montgomery, Carroll, Washington, Allegany, and Garrett Counties from the Earliest Period to the Present Day ; including Biographical Sketches of Their Representative Men. Baltimore: Regional Pub., 1968. Print. This book is going to be helpful because the article really needs a complete and updated history section.

Check, Reality. "Western Maryland Map." REALITY CHECK PLUS - WESTERN MARYLAND MAP (n.d.): n. pag. University of Maryland. Web. 24 July 2014. <http://smartgrowth.umd.edu/assets/documents/rcp/western_maryland_guidebook_section.pdf>. This website article will be very helpful because it examines a lot about the population, economics, and some geographical information. These are three sections that I am definitely planning to work on.

"Appalachian League (Rookie) Encyclopedia and History." Baseball-Reference.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 July 2014. <http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/league.cgi?code=APPY&class=Rk>. Baseball Reference is a very good website for updated information on all baseball teams, both minor and major league. They have some history and all of the teams that I need to update the Wikipedia article with.

"Billsportsmaps.com." Billsportsmapscom. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 July 2014. <http://billsportsmaps.com/?p=21368>. This website also has really good information on the History of the Appalachian league. It will be useful for updating the history section and the different teams.

E.Kassel (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:Don't want to rush you, but do you think you could finish up reviewing proposals today? I'm asking students to have a draft of article edits by tomorrow and these last two are eager to hear from you. Let me know. I can try to respond to them too, but your insight is so much more valuable. Thanks for all your help! Matthewvetter (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it covered, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey E.Kassel, it's great that you've found topics of interest to you. In both cases I would recommend browsing through some similar articles listed here to get an idea about structure and coverage. There is a template for US County articles here that could be adapted slightly to deal with Western Maryland, or you could decide to organize it some other way, that's up to you. I would recommend incorporating some census data if possible for the demographics - I'm not sure whether any of it would be delineated by region. For the Appalachian League page, because many of the individual teams have their own articles already, try not to include too much detail on the main page that should be on the individual pages instead - see Summary Style. Let me know if you have any questions or need help. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks again for the help. Here is my current draft in my Sandbox of what I have done so far. I still need to add some more, but I wanted to get this to you for now. I am going to continue to update this throughout the weekend and during the week. Thanks! E.Kassel (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey E.Kassel, good start, and I hope you have time to complete it. I think there are some important gaps left to fill, but I'll just comment on what's here for the moment:
  • I'm not sure those long lists of mountains and heights is really the most helpful use of the Geography section. Those might be better suited to a "Mountains of Maryland" or similar article. Instead, I'd like to see broad coverage of the area's geography and climate
  • I think the current Agriculture section might work better as a more general Economy section, as it already includes aspects of tourism that might be expected in such a section
  • You might consider including a quick one- to two-sentence blurb about each community rather than just having a bare list
  • Provide as much of a full citation as possible for each of your sources. For example, footnote 10 has a title and accessdate, but doesn't say when or where it was published. That means that if that link goes dead, it will be very hard to find a replacement. This goes double for citations that are only URLs, like footnote 9
  • Since those Billssportsmaps.com pages cite Wikipedia, we should not consider them to be reliable
  • It might make more sense to have the team list sections in chronological rather than reverse chronological order. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mkak8 Ambassador Proposal[edit]

Hello Ambassador Nikkimaria and thank you for helping us with our course! I have decided on a couple articles that I believe could be improved upon. The first article I targeted for revision was the article about the Shelton Laurel Massacre. I had never heard of this event until I came across the article in the WikiProject page for Appalachia. I noticed that the page is start-class and rather light on information. I could research the topic and add in more details. The next article that I identified was the page for the novel Cold Mountain. This is a story about a Civil War deserter travelling through the Appalachian region to return home to his lover. The WikiProject page for Appalachia said that there was no critical reception section on the Wikipedia article. I think I could look up some reviews of the novel and add in some details on what I discover. I will begin work on these articles via my Sandbox page soon.


Mullan, John. "Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 July 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/sep/16/book-club-cold-mountain-frazier>.

This is a reflection on the novel Cold Mountain by John Mullan of The Guardian. The Guardian is a respectable online news outlet and I think I could incorporate some of Mullan’s thoughts on the novel into its Wikipedia page.


"Fiction Book Review: Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier" PublishersWeekly.com. N.p., 01 May 1997. Web. 25 July 2014. <http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-87113-679-4>.

This is a book review of Cold Mountain by Publisher’s Weekly. This a paid subscription-based periodical dedicated to literature. The author of this review makes some adept insights into the novel. I believe I could incorporate some of this information into the Wikipedia article for the novel.


Holt, Karen C. "Frazier's Cold Mountain." Explicator 2005: Humanities Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 25 July 2014.

This is a magazine article that I found through Ohio University’s database search. The article discusses the events of the Shelton Laurel Massacre and how they were portrayed in the film Cold Mountain. I thought I could add a “references in pop culture” section to the Shelton Laurel Massacre Wikipedia article explaining how it was portrayed in film. I did not include link because it is behind a username/password wall.


"COLD MOUNTAIN by Charles Frazier." Kirkus Reviews. N.p., 01 June 1997. Web. 25 July 2014. <https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/charles-frazier/cold-mountain/>.

This is another book review by a seemingly reputable website that employs many editors to review and discuss literature.


Gerard, Phillip. "Atrocity at Shelton Laurel." Our State Magazine. N.p., May 2012. Web. 25 July 2014. <http://www.ourstate.com/atrocity-at-shelton-laurel/>.

This final citation is a very well written magazine article that goes into some depth about the Shelton Laurel Massacre. There seems to be quite a bit of information that could be useful in improving the Wikipedia article.

Mkak8 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mkak8, very interesting topics. There is a very active Military History WikiProject with extensive resources that you might helpful for the first page. I notice that the article also has an "Additional reading" section with sources that could be incorporated, if you're able to access them. Be careful about overexpanding the "Popular culture" section - while it is important to get a sense of the impact of the event, such sections tend to be magnets for trivia, and of course you don't want to add a lot of content that actually belongs in a different article. Have a read through In Popular Culture and Summary Style for advice on how to proceed. For both this and the other article, I would suggest browsing through similar articles here to get ideas on structure and scope.
For Cold Mountain, a critical reception section would definitely be very helpful. You might also consider including information on the novel's writing/development and on its publication history, if that is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria and thank you for your helpful advice. I just finished my potential edits and they are available for viewing in my Sandbox. I'd appreciate any comments or feedback you can offer. Thanks. Mkak8 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mkak8, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the close paraphrasing I see in your draft. For example, "The 64th North Carolina Regiment had been suffering an epidemic of desertion. Originally comprised of 300 men, it was barely a third of that size at this time" is quite close to "The 64th North Carolina Regiment is an ill-starred unit suffering an epidemic of desertion. Once numbering 300 men, it scarcely fields a third of that number now". It's very important that material not being directly quoted from the source is adequately rewritten in your own words, and unique turns of phrase like "epidemic of desertion" should not be copied unquoted. Close paraphrasing has also led to style issues for this draft - for example, we prefer to use past tense to discuss historical events, rather than present. I would strongly suggest that you spend your remaining time working to rewrite the draft. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

I haven't read the entire AN discussion yet, though I read the close, and some of your notes. I've never been involved in the infobox war, I think, and I guess I'm glad for that. What I do know is that many, many times I have seen your edits in "my" articles and invariably they were improvements. Thanks for all your good work. I'm not going to tell you you don't need the magic tool to do the work that you do best, which is to make us look better by improving our articles--wait, I just did. Your decision was not an easy one to make, because yes it is a big deal, and I respect you for having taken it. But then, I already respected you greatly before all this. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drmies, appreciate that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

DYK for Anna Kravtchenko[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 10:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Shaughnessy, 1st Baron Shaughnessy[edit]

Nikkimaria, I've just given this one the "X" due to major sections being unsourced, but it's Storye book's copyvio discoveries that bother me the most. Can I ask you to take a look, evaluate them, and take whatever action is necessary? Many thanks. (Storye book's computer died shortly after this, and I have no idea when the computer will be fixed, since it's been over a week already.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the worst of the problems from the article - some of Storye book's flags are false positive (I think they're using DupDet?), but there's more that were missed. Spotchecks of that editor's articles going back six months finds another with apparent copying and one with close paraphrasing from a PD but improperly attributed source - not enough to warrant pursuing anything like a CCI, but definitely a concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for checking and doing the appropriate cleanup. I very much appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Kent[edit]

Hi Nikki, thank you for leaving feedback at the FAC. I had some follow up questions, and I figured I would put them here since the FAC was closed because you were the only commenter. I don't think there is an issue with primary sources for what is really cut-n-dry information (e.g., the best person to talk about the decision to film something is the person filming it, and often times they only give that information on commentaries or if you're lucky an official companion book), you mentioned "questionable sources". I wanted to know which ones you thought were questionable. If it's something that I can replace, or explain better than I'll be happy to work on that. I can work on the consistency issues with the formatting of the quotes and the sources. I've noticed that people have come in from time to time to change things, and I never checked to see that the formatting appeared the same. Again, I appreciate your feedback. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bignole, I don't mean to suggest that we should avoid primary sources entirely - I agree that in many cases they provide good information that isn't readily available elsewhere. However, when easily more than half of the sources in an article are primary/non-independent, that is to me a red flag. As to questionable sources, I would query the following at FAC: DVD Verdict; ifMagazine (for the moment because of the dead link, as I can't assess it properly); About.com; Fancast (again, for the moment because it's dead); KryptonSite; Ain't It Cool; AllYourTV (site suspended?); VoicesFromKrypton; Popdirt; Joe Acevedo; chiff. It's quite possible that some of these are justifiable - I just don't know the topic area well enough to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the apprehension when seeing a lot of primary sources. Which are you viewing as "primary". If it's the episodes, then they are really only sourcing the plot information (as I cited every individual episode where necessary, as opposed to just saying "In episode X..."). I'll go through them all and not only check the deadlinks, but review if there is a better source for the information where applicable. I know that a lot of the more questionable sources were used to source basic info like dates or Award nominations for the actor. Like I said, I'll review them again and see what's what. There are a few that I know are typical sources for TV and Film news, and others that I don't recall very well and need to see how they are being used. Any other suggestions?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources includes the episodes, the novels (novelizations?), comic books, etc. You could also check to see whether there have been any discussions of any of these sources at WP:RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glicken[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria! Would you mind giving me input on the lead infobox image in Harry Glicken? I know it came from a USGS source, but they recently redesigned their website and it seems to have been lost. All my attempts to find the image have come up fruitless. But it's the only PD picture I've been able to find of Glicken on the internet. Any ideas on what to do? Thanks, ceranthor 18:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ceranthor, there are two tools that are your friends when you lose an image source but you know it was online: archives like Wayback Machine, and image matchers like TinEye. In this case Archive.org is the winner; the TinEye results take a bit of massaging, but the USGS credit is confirmed via a now-broken link at Scientific American. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for your help. ceranthor 02:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, help! So Crisco 1492 carried out a wonderful review at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Harry_Glicken/archive1, but I have no idea what to do because the image is missing some crucial information at its description page. I also can't find the second image anywhere either. Can you point me in the right direction to find this sort of stuff, or am I screwed? ceranthor 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ceranthor, the USGS credit should be enough to prove that it's a free image, although more information would certainly be great if you can track it down. You can use the Scientific American source to confirm USGS if needed. As to the second, this site attributes it to Glicken, so that should be enough. It's showing up in Getty for some reason, but even there they attribute USGS so I don't think they should be able to claim rights to it. This isn't the best source but confirms the Glicken attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously the best. Thank you for all your help. :) ceranthor 16:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

childhood obesity[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria - I was looking to add some more global data to the Childhood Obesity page but see it is semi-protected. I don't want to insert problematic content or bluster into a controversial area. I want to be particularly sensitive because I have a conflict of interest. The data I'd like to add comes from the Global Burden of Disease study. Hoping for some guidance here. Savannah38 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that because you are now "autoconfirmed" (since sometime yesterday), the semi-protection of that page (or any other) will not prevent you from editing it.
If you feel your edits might be controversial, because of a conflict of interest or for other reasons, it would be best to mention them on the article's talk page Talk:Childhood obesity first, then proceed if there are no objections. You could also mention any relevant conflict of interest on the talk page at the same time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help1 Savannah38 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Savannah, just to expand on what Demiurge has said: if there is truly a conflict of interest issue, you can use the {{request edit}} template on the talk page to ask someone to implement the edit. In this case, though, I think simply proposing your change on the talk page would be sufficient, and then implementing it if no one objects. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria Savannah38 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Grand Theft Auto V FAC[edit]

Just a ping for feedback on the changes I made that you suggested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Development of Grand Theft Auto V/archive1. Not expecting a support, but a simple pass would be great. Cheers, CR4ZE (t • c) 00:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Cudgel War[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm concerned about the amount of identical text found in the one source that Cwmhiraeth checked with DupDet. There are other issues with the nomination—it's nowhere near 5x expansion, for one—but the important thing is to make sure the article is free of copyvio, and I'm hoping you can take on that task. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're now down to 2810 characters, I'm not optimistic about the chances of passing DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking and removing what needed to go. I've just marked it for closure, since it's shorter than it started as. Actually, if Catlemur wants to expand it again, it's better if it's nominated again, since 2810 will count as the base length—of course, that would still require a final length of over 14K, which is extremely unlikely.

Good Article mentor[edit]

Hi. I made my first good article review for the page Ashley Smith inquest. The nominator has addressed all of my concerns, and I believe the article now meets the criteria to be promoted to a good article. The only thing I am uncertain about, as per my review (Talk:Ashley Smith inquest/GA1) is when one reference backs up an entire paragraph, is it sufficient to simply place an inline citation at the end of the paragraph? Or does each sentence still need an inline citation from the reference in question? As per recommendations, I have decided to contact you as a mentor for my review before passing it, since it is my first one. If you're too busy, no worries, just let me know. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Freikorp, if the citation at the end of the paragraph does indeed support that entire paragraph, then it's sufficient to have it once at the end. It can pose a problem for article expansion, but it's not an issue for GA. Looking at your review, it's a very positive first effort. The one omission is a mention of copyvio/close paraphrasing - in order pass 1a, it's best if the reviewer does a few spotchecks to ensure there are no issues in this regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help :). Freikorp (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! Many thanks for your helpful review of images on Chopin FA review - I think these are all now sorted (in some cases by replacing with images that meet the criteria). Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 7[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
  • TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
  • Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
  • Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close, Demi. If you're going to be templating regulars, I'd start with that very talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a few templates for Jimbo, in my time. If you've forgotten the basic guidelines that the templates mention, then providing you with one is generous. Perhaps you just became carried away. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I've forgotten anything, but your reversion edit summary appears to be incorrect. My edit wasn't pointy at all, but in response to discussion at User talk:Sitush. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sleeper agent 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:
  • People's Liberation Army|PLA]] sleeper agent assigned with obtaining the Philosophers' Legacy] while posing as a [[KGB]] agent.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Plano, Texas 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:
  • side<ref>[http://tx-plano2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/329 Plano’s Quin-centennial Bur Oak])</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bernard Perlin 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:
  • Perlin was born in [[Richmond, Virginia]] in 1918. His parents were [[Jewish]] immigrants from [Russia. At the encouragement of a high school teacher, he was enrolled in the New York School of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviews[edit]

Hi Nikki, per the list at the top of WT:FAC, if you'd be able to action requests for Fluorine, U.S. Route 141, and Kangana Ranaut, that'd be great. I'll pin Brianboulton about the other ones to spread the load a bit... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note, was there anything more I needed to do at 'Chrome? Or is it back to you for spotchecks? You had one image question that I answered. I think all other reviewers have supported, so your bit is all that's left. Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Montana, I thought Ian said he didn't need spotchecks here? For the image: silks can't use previously copyrighted images (so no Mickey Mouse outfits), but it's possible for the design that they create to be original enough to warrant new copyright protection, which is typically an automatic thing (ie even if they didn't apply for it). Most of the designs in the category you mentioned are simpler, geometric or colour-only designs, so those aren't copyrightable. However, since I'm not sure whether this particular emblem is over the line on creativity, I'd love to hear further input. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the rules on racing silks in the USA is that commercial logos and other copyrighted designs can't be used. But I will also @Froggerlaura: to see if she knows for sure on this. Montanabw(talk) 06:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...yes. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. You are right that they can't use commercial or previously copyrighted designs. However, if you were to create an original never-before-seen image to put on a silk, you would hold copyright to it. My question is whether the emblem is original enough to qualify for that, or whether it is uncopyrightable. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ian passed it, and my analysis of the copyright issue is at the FAC if you saw it. Ian points out that the truth is there are thousands of silks designs out there, and on wikipedia, and so if you really want to go down that road, it's way bigger than one stable or one article as you can see and you will be dealing with thousands of images at Commons (even opening it up will seriously piss off pretty much everyone at WikiProject horse racing in the process, so I really don't advise doing so). Each set of silks designs is registered as unique to each owner, but none are to use copyrighted designs in the USA, the UK and so on - (a few places in the Middle East allow commercial logos, but it's frowned upon elsewhere). The UK is the most rigid, allowing only certain colors and patterns, but Queen Elizabeth gets this design because it is centuries old. Montanabw(talk) 00:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, most of those designs are geometric or colour-only, so this would obviously not be an issue - it's only emblems or images that are edge cases. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't need spotchecks at Chrome, just like to see that any image issues are resolved. On the subject though, Nikki, if you could see your way to source reviewing and spotchecking for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing Katy Perry, that'd be great, as it's a first-time FAC nominator. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, the refs should all be good now. Can you look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katy Perry/archive1 again? Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

Reviewing Sandbox Drafts for Student Articles[edit]

Hello @Nikkimaria:. Thanks for all your terrific feedback on student proposals. Students have now posted a link to their sandbox draft in response to your feedback and are ready for your final review of their full article draft. Please try to have this review finished before Monday (August 11) at 6pm. Thanks so much for your help and let me know if you have any questions. Matthewvetter (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matthewvetter, this is done but you might want to have a glance at my comments to Mkak8. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perrelli[edit]

I have worked to improve the Charlotte Perrelli article today. If you can find any further improvements, that would be appreciated! :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BabbaQ, great job. Looks like there's still some info in the Personal life section that needs sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Matthew account - Correction[edit]

I've just been reviewing my application to the Adam Matthew account page. I typed I had written 1000 articles, in fact its 100!! Kind regardsApwoolrich (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the correction.Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution notice RE:Retrospective diagnoses of autism and WikiProject tags[edit]

This is a notification to inform you that a discussion has been added to the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute you may be involved in. Muffinator (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tanisha (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambition. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

WP:ANI[edit]

Something you are involved is being discussed at WPI. ttb Martin451 02:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Tanisha[edit]

Hi I'm new to wikipedia and I recently did the Tanisha disambig page

I saw you did an edit and removed several persons of note if they had an external link. Is there some rule that I missed?

Your note said: (rm entries without articles)

I added the names back but removed the external links but can you please tell me what I did wrong.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisha1636 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nisha, it's good that you took out the external links. However, usually we would only include an entry in a disambiguation page if it is likely that someone will be searching for it - in other words, if it is significant or notable enough. Several of the entries now do not have articles and it is unclear to me whether they meet that standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I see what I did wrong, Thank you. In the anthroponymy pages we are supposed to list the occurrences of the name in culture. There are 2 of the people listed who's notability is questionable so I removed the links. I left the names but their are 2 other people who seem to be notable enough but don't have pages Wamiqa Gabbi & Zolee Griggs. Nisha1636 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Russell Wilson (mayor) redux[edit]

Nikkimaria, have the close paraphrasing issues been solved here? I don't want to put up a "review again" icon if the issue still needs more work... Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone already put up the icon, but I think it's improved enough to warrant it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Thanks for checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HighBeam Research[edit]

Hi there, my application was processed a little while ago. I was wondering when I might have access please since I have some projects lined up? The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TWW, I thought I had left an email notification on your talk, but it seems not to have gone through - if you check your email you should have received an access code from me. Let me know if you can't find it and I'll resend. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA review of Tintin in Tibet[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria! Does Tintin in Tibet pass its Image Review now? Thanks! Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in Tibet/archive1 Prhartcom (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so can you please go to the FAC page above and state your Support, saying that your image review has passed? Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we don't see that for image and source reviews - these are standard reviews that have to be present for the article to pass, but they are not usually the basis for a support vote (search for my username on the FAC page and you'll see what I mean). If you feel it's important to do so I can say that the issue has been resolved, or you could say so yourself and provide a diff to this comment to confirm. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I did instead was check how other reviewers handle image reviews. Prhartcom (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref list[edit]

Hi, just wondered why you took out the ref on the Progressive Party page, if I made an err?Rstory (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) The reference was to another Wikipedia, which is never a RS (reliable source). (I was told that on my second article which I translated from German where I found no inline citations.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another review favour[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, can I ask another review favour from you please? I (and Tim riley) have John Gielgud up at FAC; would you be able to do the honours on the sources for us? You really must let me know when I can return the favour in some way. Many thanks! – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2014[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 21:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twice in two days is way too much![edit]

Hi Nikki: sorry to be a pain, but can I ask for another review please? (and I promise this will be the last one for a while!) It's for George Formby, who has gone to FAC today. Many thanks for your comments on Gielgud, too: your presence in FAC is greatly appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle the prose review, if you like, but I usually wait until we've got two solid reviews first, since I'm trying to get the final proofreading in as well. While I'm here ... Nikki, what's the best way forward at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1998 FA Charity Shield/archive1? Would it help if I drop my temporary oppose? - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the delegates, but for me it won't make much of a difference either way. I will try to get a look at some of those offline sources in a day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jaipur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fremont. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I was going to ask you earlier today whether you would have time to do a source review for Rodent and Isopoda, both currently at FAC. I then thought I had better check through them myself before asking you, and it was a good thing I did so, because I found a number of errors, omissions and inconsistencies in the referencing, particularly in Rodent. Hopefully there is not much more amiss, but I feel sure that you can find things that I have missed! Your input in the FAC processes would be much appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these two source reviews. All your comments have been dealt with (I think) except for one in Rodent which I didn't understand. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert A. Brooks[edit]

Nikkimaria, can you please take a look at this one to see whether there's any close paraphrasing or copyvios? The original review was concerned that there was some and cited one; the nominator says there aren't, and references the dup detector. If this can be settled one way or the other, the review can probably be concluded in short order. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

Creature of Havoc[edit]

Thanks for that. Will have to check the other FF articles for any more of that particular reference. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book titles[edit]

As you can see, I've reverted your change. It's an absolute nonsense to change book titles to fit our own Manual of Style – the book title is a simple fact, regardless of whether you agree with the typography or not. Number 57 12:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS, apologies if this came across as overly terse. I'm dealing with a number of frustrating issues on Wikipedia at the moment, so am a bit more easily annoyed than usual. Cheers, Number 57 12:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Number 57, I'm not minded to pursue this, but we do actually routinely change typography in titles, quotes, etc to match our Manual of Style. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nagato-class battleship FAC[edit]

Could I impose on you to take another look at the images in the article as I've replaced all of the questionable ones and to take a gander at the sources at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nagato-class battleship/archive1? Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Shamir (musician)[edit]

Nikkimaria, Cbl62 has expressed a willingness to drop the Northtown article from the multi-article hook (change it to an ordinary link rather than a bold one). Will this take care of your objections, or are there other issues? Either way, can you please post the current state of the nomination? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert A. Brooks.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Briarcliff[edit]

Hi again Nikkimaria,

The Briarcliff Manor FAC review wasn't receiving enough attention and was closed, but I recently reopened it. I would be glad if you could take another look, I really wouldn't want two FACs to close just due to a lack of attention. Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know whether you saw the above message - Would you please consider helping me again? Thank you.--ɱ (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the further comments. I replied, as did one of the photo creators. Care to take a look? Thanks--ɱ (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Dogs in the United States[edit]

Nikkimaria, this has spilled over onto the DYK talk page at WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/Dogs in the United States, but from what the reviewer was saying there were significant close paraphrasing, if not copyvio, issues with the article. Can I ask you to please check the article and post your findings on the nomination? (There seem to be other issues with the article as well, but these ones would seem to be quite serious, if the descriptions are accurate.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article has now been passed by the original reviewer, but it might be worth have someone more experienced doing another check, which is something you frequently do to promoted hooks anyway. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email contact[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I just received a message notifying me that you have contacted me via email. I wonder if you could advise me as to the subject line of this email so that I might find it? I've not yet been able to locate it (sent Aug 19, apparently). Many thanks, Dan Danimations (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Danimations, the subject line is HighBeam. Let me know if you can't find it and I'll resend. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email address updated - please resend[edit]

Hi Nikki, I just realised the problem re: missing email... it was sent to a previous (and inaccessible) email address of mine. I've since updated my email to my current address. Are you able to resend the email you sent me on the 19th of August? Many thanks, Dan. Danimations (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Nikki, can you conduct a review on the images and audio files used in ...And Justice for All? The FAC is here. Thanks a bunch.--Retrohead (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

Districts of Portugal[edit]

With all due deference to your years and volume of edits but, as much as I agree with you on the extinction of the districts in Portugal, the document you referred me to on the "extinction" of the districts never states that they were abolished. In fact, the document never uses the term "district" (or its variants). In fact, the document is cited by the "Procudaria-Geral Distrital de Lisboa", further enhancing my point about the form that the districts continue to take on: as much as they are not quasi-political, they are used as a "de jure" socio-administrative territorial unit by organizations within Portugal (ie. football associations, school systems, etc.). If you refer to article 3 about "revoking laws", then your statement is not necessarily a "clear link". Regardless, these are not points of contention and will not get into a protracted argument. It might be the type of conversation to have on Wikiproject Portuguese geography, and possibly in conjunction with User:Markkussep who is working on the new PT municipality infobox. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeorymer, sorry, but I have no idea what you're referring to here. Can you provide some links or context? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your post on my talk page referencing the following link: [1] But, no biggy, I am not concerned. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zeorymer, that link was added by an IP, who appears to have forgotten to sign. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Definitely an untimely coincidence. On that note, I appreciate your message regarding access to HighBeam. I will endeavour to make the most of my access, with expanded referential content in my area of interest. Thanks. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive4[edit]

I have added page numbers to the Fishing Creek article where appropriate just as you suggested. Would you mind striking your oppose unless you have some other problem with the article? Thanks. --Jakob (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Please respond. --Jakob (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jakob, in my view, the problems with referencing are still enough that promotion of the article would not be appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: So what is the main problem now? --Jakob (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same as it was before: incomplete and inconsistent citations. You've made some good progress towards addressing this, but it's not done yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OUP Email[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I received the OUP email, but the link in the email to the form that needs completing (i.e.: this one) apparently does not exist. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the errant period at the end of the link. <g>. Collect (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1814 campaign in France[edit]

Good on you for rewriting 1814 campaign in France. If it was PD source and you rewrote it so that there was no PD source in it then the PD attribution template could be removed but attribution template has to remain because it remains a derived work under the ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License.

If you want to develop a completely new article, then I suggest that you do it in a sandbox and we can zap the original article along with its history just before you are ready to put the new text in place. -- PBS (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PBS. If you want to zap the history then go ahead, but the final product should not constitute a derivative work under the terms of the license. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a derived work. You will have to start with a clean page and no history if you want it not to be, it would not be ethical to zap the history of an article that is not a new work, and it would be against the wording of the licence. What I am saying here is exactly the same position that Wikipedia text is in when it is incorporated into derived works. -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As we disagree on the interpretation of the licence, I have asked for more opinions Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence and attribution. Please leave the attrition in place until such time as there is a consensus to remove it. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you want to delete the history go ahead, but the current version is not derived from the site being attributed according to the wording of the license. The only material remaining from the previous version of the article is stuff that was added after your import, not anything from the external site. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before as we disagree on the interpretation of the licence, I have asked for more opinions Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence and attribution. Please leave the attrition in place until such time as there is a consensus to remove it. -- PBS (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PBS, I'm not quite sure why you're telling me this again, but we have already received feedback that the rewritten version (absent your recent addition, which is being discussed elsewhere) need not include attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reflist[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I notice that you are replacing reflist|2 with reflist|30em. I just wondered why this was. I'm sure there is a good reason, and I certainly don't object, but as a coding illiterate I'd be interested to know what difference it makes, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jimfbleak. Basically |2 results in a fixed number of columns, so no matter what size your screen is you should get two columns in the references (this doesn't always happen in practice though as it doesn't work on some mobile platforms). In contrast, |30em divides the references into columns with a fixed width (which you can select, it doesn't have to be 30), so if you have a tiny screen you'll get one column or on a huge screen you'll get maybe get maybe four or five. While this too doesn't work on every platform, it provides better results for more people because it is flexible enough to adapt to the amount of space available, reducing wasted space on big screens and being easier to read on most small screens. For that reason, the documentation for {{reflist}} states that the fixed number of columns approach (|2) is deprecated in favour of colwidth (|30em). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I guessed it had something to do with screen size, but that's a very clear explanation, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update information[edit]

Thanks for editing a page about my career. It should be noted that Parksville is my 'hometown' as I went to high school there. I was born in Aldershot UK and came to Canada with my parents in June of 1957. Thanks TimCoachfrick (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Dexter[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could please check the article for close paraphrasing. (I did say I'd be asking you to do so.) It was approved today by PapaJeckloy, who has had issues with his DYK reviews in the past, whose own articles have had major prose quality issues, and who is currently under investigation for sockpuppeting. (I filed the sock report after another user came to my talk page with strong concerns; PapaJeckloy appears to have used socks to approve two of his nominations, though other issues have subsequently been raised with both so neither has yet appeared.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the quick work. I've added the DYK problems template on Edwardx's talk page, so I'm hoping that a new round of edits will commence to fix the close paraphrasing from the various sources. I'll doubtless request your assistance again when those edits are completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think I'd be back so quickly, but after Philafrenzy worked on the one example you gave and I pointed out that you were clear that it was more than this one example and source, he pushed back and said, "You can't spot something that isn't there". At this point, I think I'm going to leave it in your hands. If you're not in the mood to take him through every single example, one at a time, and if you feel that the issues are significant enough, might it make sense to tag the article? I tried to engage the nominator and co-author, Edwardx, but Philafrenzy pretty much forestalled that. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary suggestion[edit]

I noticed that you have been removing certain types of Wikipedia self-references, in an entirely appropriate manner. However, I suggest changing your edit summaries to include a succinct pointer to the relevant Wikipedia policy (e.g. "rm non-RS, per WP:WPNOTRS"). This will inform other less-seasoned editors of why you are deleting the references that they or others have taken the trouble to carefully include in an article. I am not in any way criticizing your editing, just suggesting a modest change that will help other editors who may be unaware of the policy, or of the reasoning behind it. Reify-tech (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reify. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Removing own text"[edit]

Dear Nikkim,

I noticed that you removed the words and link "Open door policy" at User talk:Jimbo Wales a day or so ago. [2]

I'm not complaining or approving, but if it's not too personal I'll ask for some information.

1st you should know that I seem to be involved in an arbcom case involving these words at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and I suppose there's a small chance I might note the removal or quote you during the case

So my questions are:

  • Why did you remove these words now?
    • Is there a particular statement you mean to make by the removal?
  • When did you put these words onto the talkpage? (exact date not needed)

Please feel free to ignore these questions.

Sincerely,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smallbones, reading through the ArbCom request I had noticed a few people saying something along the lines of "Jimbo says he has an open door policy...". I don't think he's ever personally said that on-wiki, so I assume they're assuming he writes his page notices. In reality, though, I and not he had added that particular phrase back in July 2012 (actually during another discussion centering on whether he could exempt his talkpage from normal policies). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Dogs in the United States[edit]

OccultZone says that the close paraphrasing and copyediting issues you raised have been addressed. When you get the opportunity, can you please take a look and see whether that is the case? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In popular culture" sections[edit]

As an ex-admin, I'm sure that you're aware that there is no Wikipedia-wide consensus for removing "popcult" sections wholesale, so I would ask that you stop doing this. Of course, any item or items which you object to can be discussed on the article talk page to see what the consensus of the editors there is about it, but entire sections are almost never appropriate for deletion. Regardless of any personal biases you may have about Wikipedia's popular culture coverage, it's best to act conservatively in this area and follow the procedures normally used when sourced information is deleted. (Remember that every popcult item which is straight-forward description, and not opinion, interpretation or analysis, is sourced by the item it refers to, and does not require any additional sourcing. Items which are analysis, opinion or interpretation must, however, be sourced.) Thanks. BMK (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BMK. I am indeed aware of our policies relevant to pop-culture content, such as WP:NOT and WP:V. In accordance with such policies, I do not simply remove any and all pop-culture content in articles indiscriminately. However, it is appropriate to remove trivial or unsourced/poorly sourced content from such sections; "self-sourcing" does not verify the significance of such references to the topic, and in some of the instances you have restored it does not even support the content given. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a popcult item is "significant" or not is an editorial decision, based on consensus discussion (much in the same matter as WP:WEIGHT), and does not require a secondary source for establishment. Obviously, while every bit of information in the encyclopedia is (theoretically, if not in actuality) verified, we do not require that every bit of information also be established as significant as well - that is something that editors decide. For popcult items, the media artifact itself is the source, and this is sufficient for verifiability, while editorial discussion can determine significance.

If there are items which you feel are not significant, you should bring them up for discussion on the article talk page, and editorial consensus can make the determination, just as with any other piece of information; the point being that popcult items should not be dealt with any differently than any other. BMK (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT suggests otherwise, and as I have pointed out above not all the popcult entries at issue are in fact cited by themselves; though WP:IPC is of course not policy, it does offer some helpful guidance in how best to approach such sections. As for your claim here, I'm not sure what your MOS contains, but ours includes the provisions of MOS:ACCESS related to breaks and pseudoheadings, and of course WP:V encourages the tagging of uncited material as an interim step. I would thus encourage you to self-revert that edit and any others you might have made that added or restored pseudoheadings, or removed referencing tags without adding references. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UP[edit]

Didn't I tell you to stay of my user page? The King Gemini (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KG, as I told you before, the material you had on your user page contravenes the user page guideline and is disruptive to the collegial editing environment. If you add it again you may face more serious consequences. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor asks you to stay off their talk page, you need to respect that, and only post there when required to by Wikipedia policy -- for instance when notifying regarding AN or ANI threads. If there is material on the page which contravenes policy, you should bring it to the attention of an admin, who can then deal with it. BMK (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have respected the editor's request that I stay off his talk page, thanks. As I will again caution KG, further problematic edits will be "dealt with" by an admin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just what do you consider problematic? The King Gemini (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly, anything that does not contribute to collegial encyclopedia building. More specifically, material in violation of the user page guideline or other policies and guidelines such as the civility policy; if you are unsure whether something is or is not permitted, it is best to leave it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? The King Gemini (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

non-RS[edit]

What does non-RS mean? The information you removed is relevant and taken from the references.

Wronghood (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wronghood, "non-RS" indicates that the source used is not one that is considered reliable on Wikipedia. Tabloids and wikis are not good sources of information, particularly not for biographies of living people where our standards are higher. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence you removed was referenced from The Birmingham Post, which isn't a tabloid.

Wronghood (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is not the only consideration in how we write biographies - I suggest you read through the BLP policy for more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - however, you keep moving the goalposts. Nothing I have added in controversial (in fact, it is all written about in her own book) and is sourced. What is your issue with my edits? Why have you posted on another page to get other editors to look as if I am doing something bad? Very strange. Having looked at the BLP policy, my edits are not biased, are verifiable and don't constitute original research.

Wronghood (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment from a page-stalker... Wronghood, its worth re-reading the bit in WP:BLP that stresses "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources... Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Take for example the deleted statement that the actress was "born the illegitimate child of Robert Alexander Archer..." That was referenced firstly to a Wikia page (which is a self-published, unreliable source, just like the Wikipedia), and was added by an anonymous IP address, called 86.131.108.92 - not exactly the best basis for a claim about someone's early life. The sentence was also referenced to an anonymous TalkTalk page (it's actually cut and pasted from there by the looks of it, in breach of the copyright guide at the bottom). Again, no indication as to who wrote it, their sources, or how well informed they were, etc. These examples aren't reliable sources, and we shouldn't be making statements about a living person on the basis of them, particularly when, if incorrect, they might well be contentious or hurtful for the person concerned. If there's a published book on her life, by a reliable source, we should be using that instead. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong - it's referenced from The Birmingham Post and TalkTalk (not an anonymous page - it's an article on talktalk.co.uk). None of the information is controversial - it's in her book aswell. Despite the Bill wiki ref being removed, the information is still referenced - which speaks for itself. So yes, the references are reliable. I find it somewhat unsurprising that neither yourself or Nikkimaria have contributed anything to the article, and evidently no knowledge of Roberta Taylor.

Wronghood (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wronghood, if it helps, have a look at the diff here [3] which was the deletion mentioned above, which involves the Wikia and TalkTalk references. I personally can't see the author's name on the TalkTalk page, or where the page acquired its information. If the information is in a reliable book, I'd strongly advise citing it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wronghood, I posted at BLPN because I was expecting to be offline for some time and so could not immediately follow up with you, and because many new editors struggle with the provisions of WP:BLP. These provisions include a requirement for high-quality sourcing, particularly for negative or potentially contentious material; they also include guidance around tone and balance, among other issues. Finally, the policy allows for the immediate removal of even questionable material. I would again encourage you to read through the policy and follow the advice given at BLPN and by Hchc2009 above. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) 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:
  • htm|accessdate=4 September 2014|title=Anton Bruckner Critical Complete Edition|publisher=MWV}}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brigantes 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Achaemenid Empire 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:
  • livius.org">http://www.livius.org/maa-mam/maka/maka.html</ref><ref name="behi">Behistun Inscription]]</ref>|{{flag|Nagorno-Karabakh}} (''de facto'')|{{flag|Northern Cyprus}} (''de facto'')|{{flag|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of countries by forest area 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:
  • {|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: left"
  • |{{flagicon|Australia}} {{flag|Queensland}}||align="right"|346,130||align="right"|>||align="right"|20.00%

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michel Ducros may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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:
  • 46, "Quand Ducros se jette à l'eau" (When Ducros takes a dive)], Page Seen on October 9, 2009</ref>)
  • In total, Michel Ducros eliminated over 700 jobs at Fauchon] in his first five years at the helm. It went from 900 employees in 2004 to 200 employees in 2009.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michele Sorice 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:
  • working papers series and member of the scientific board of '' Communication Management Quarterly]''.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lauren Albanese 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:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The New Land (TV series) 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:
  • Christian and Anna Larsen immigrate from [[Sweden]] to the [United States with their children, nine-year-old Tuliff and eight-year-old Annaliese, in 1858 and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ibele 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:
  • '''Ibele''' is an autonomous community in [Njaba]] Local Government Area of [[Imo State]], Nigeria. The town is located at the old Douglas road,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bayrampaşaspor 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:
  • {{Fs player|no= 9|nat=Turkey|name=[[Recep Berk Elitez]]{{efn | name= |pos=FW}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Magus (novel) 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:
  • | media_type = Print (hardback & paperback

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mooto 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:
  • by VZW Mooto & Bikoro ( Raeymaekers-Verboven).<ref>[http://www.mooto-vzw.org www.mooto-vzw.org)]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theatre Royal, Drury Lane 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:
  • Theatre Notebook'' 18 (1964), 98, Mark A. Howell, ''Theatre Notebook'' 49.1 (1995), 52–3 and 49.2–3), Graham Barlow ("From Tennis Courts to Opera House", Phd. Diss.I, 99 submitted 1984 to University of Glasgow", 100;
  • Lane via a long ten foot wide passageway from Bridges Street. The passageway opened onto a yard (previously a "Riding Yard"<ref> according to ''The Survey of London'' Volume 35 (London: Athlone

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Skagen Painters[edit]

Nikkimaria, I thought I should in courtesy let you know that Belle reapproved this despite you having pulled it (without any article expansions, so far as I can tell), it was promoted to prep, and has already been moved to Queue 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't think she should have done that or that it should have been immediately reapproved, but since it's already in queue it's kind of late now to argue about it. Thanks for letting me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

DYK nomination of Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Few realize how important it is we have article reviewers such as yourself, but I do and I thank you for all your tireless contributions. MONGO 03:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MONGO. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Halbmondlager[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's also featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to German, feel free to add it there yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive stats added, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philip De Carteret, 8th Seigneur of St Ouen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew Baker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bonshō/archive1.
Message added 10:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲水 10:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Pucill[edit]

Nikkimaria, Edwardx has just posted that he has made extensive changes to the article to address the close paraphrasing that caused you to ask for it to be pulled from queue. When you get the chance, can you please take a look and see whether it passes muster now? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women writers Invitation[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria/Archive 27! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria- Thank you for your edits to the references in my list. Two lessons learned: don't copy the same template over and over if there is an error (i.e., "pages" when it should be "page") and cut the link off after the page number. Should you have the time, any comments you might have at the FLC nomination (...if I'm not pushing my luck...) would be appreciated. Thanks again for the ref edit.--Godot13 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. I'm working on the edits. You asked about copies of the book in non-US libraries, do you know of a search tool for that? Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat will sometimes show them under a different entry (same edition details), so you could check that. Of course not all libraries are in Worldcat, and I don't really know of any good English-language tools that show more than a few of those that aren't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed your comments/concerns for the list and made changes to most of them. Could you let me know if it needs more tweaking please? Many thanks--Godot13 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to the second paragraph of the lead and removed the WorldCat fact (reason noted in comments). If you feel the lead still needs more could you give me a few bullet points so I know what kind of info you feel should be there. Many thanks--Godot13 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. If there are any additional changes that would result in your "support" of the list, please let me know. In any event, your input has been very helpful in improving the prose and flow of the list as a whole, and I very much appreciate your time responding to a fairly random request for a review. Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Godot13, don't take the lack of support as an indication that there's anything really wrong with the page - the issue is not only am I not very familiar with the topic, I'm not very familiar with the process/requirements either! If this was an FAC I'd probably support it. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood... But if I expand it to cover details for each state and take it to FAC, I'm pinging you for a review ;-) --Godot13 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ron Capps[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you could take a look at this one. It isn't for the usual reason: there's a military-related question, and I've noticed that you're involved in the Military History WikiProject, so even if the issue raised isn't in your expertise, you're likely to know someone who can say whether this is something that should or shouldn't need addressing in the article. It's been sitting for a few weeks without any action, and I'd like to get it moving again. Thanks as always for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for the Web[edit]

Hi, Nikki. I am trying to get Writing for the Web set up in the WEP for this term (just copied from the winter term). I've written Jami two emails but haven't heard back yet. Class began this past Tues. Any ideas?Professorclee (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prof. Lee, it looks like Jami set up your course page right after you posted this - it's now here. I've added myself as a course volunteer. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Dexter redux[edit]

Nikkimaria, it turns out that Philafrenzy turned around in two hours and fixed the one close paraphrase you pointed out, and hasn't done anything else. I'm annoyed enough that if I found anything more, I'd just close the thing, but you're generally far more forgiving than I am, and besides I said last time that I was leaving this to you. Can you please take one more look at it? The nomination is currently one of the very oldest out there—it's from July 6, which puts it at over two months old, and either the second or third oldest one out there. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that Template:Did you know nominations/Dogs in the United States says it's been updated since you noted some close paraphrasing still remained. Can you please also stop by this one when you get the chance? Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Annoyed"? "Forgiving"? Philafrenzy (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Your You can't spot something that isn't there was extremely annoying: an assertion that we were wrong about close paraphrasing when we weren't. Close paraphrasing is a serious matter on Wikipedia, yet you were blowing us off. You also didn't, as I noted, go beyond the one example when it was clear that there was more work to be done. In my experience, Nikkimaria has shown a great deal of patience in working with people who have problems identifying their own close paraphrasing at DYK and are resistant to dealing with it, well beyond when I would have simply tagged the article and closed the nomination. So forgiving as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria - I left a clarification request at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stroma, Scotland/archive1; could you please advise? Prioryman (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2014[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 13:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Kızıl Kilise[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to please give this nomination a comprehensive close paraphrasing check? As you can see, I found some with one of the sources (FN3, World Monuments Fund)—it's one where Duplication Detector doesn't work—but haven't checked any of the others. I'm also a bit wary of how the article represents information from that source, at least in terms of accuracy of interpretation. (I mentioned one in my most recent reply.) Thanks for any help you can give. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom/Kızıl Kilise[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Kızıl Kilise.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--CeeGee 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

URAA-images in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chandralekha (1948 film)/archive1‎[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, any advice on the image situation in this nomination would be greatly appreciated. As you probably know, Commons stopped to delete URAA-affected images and i am at a loss, how that would affect our handling of such images on en-Wiki. Should they be used in featured articles and how? GermanJoe (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As our policies are currently written, only under fair use. However, this issue urgently needs to be addressed wiki-wide, and if needed amendments made to our local policies/guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator election[edit]

G'day, Nikki not sure if you are keen, but have you thought about running in the Milhist co-ordinator election this year? We need a few more bodies in the line if we are going to complete our frontage this year, and with your experience I think you would be a good candidate, particularly as you've fulfilled the role before. Nominations close at the end of 14 September, so if you are keen you would need to nominate soon. The nomination page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2014. Cheers and have a great weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matthew Baker (governor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry VII. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested: Template talk:Find a Grave#Summary of points[edit]

Hello, I apologize for being snarky about the changes to the Rhoda Holmes Nicholls article regarding Find a Grave - I was in a bad mood that day (not an excuse, an explanation) and that had nothing to do with you. I started a discussion regarding updates to the Find a Grave template and posted a summary of pointed suggestions for changes to clearly state when to use/not use the Find a Grave template. Rather than some people, some cases, etc. kind of language at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and elsewhere.

Do you mind looking at it and responding at Template talk:Find a Grave#Summary of points?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Carole, don't worry about it. I will take a look at the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ecce sacerdos magnus (Bruckner)[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State thanks[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria - thanks for the work you did on Kent State shootings, and setting up the popular culture daughter article. By and large I agree with all the choices you made, except for a very few in the music section. I've been a lead editor there since 2006 and couldn't have done better myself. I really appreciate your taking it on. I'm not sure that I agree with the editor(s) who removed material from the bibliography/external links sections - as an historical event I think the collection of sources that have been amassed are valuable to researchers and our readers. Seems to me this is a good time to not apply the "not a collection of links" guideline - the article has depth and and more sources, to me, only strengthens it. I'm inclined to reinstate them, but would like your opinion on that. And, nice to meet you. Tvoz/talk 03:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tvoz. One possibility would be to create something akin to Bibliography of the War in Darfur for this topic, incorporating some of the direct coverage from the existing daughter article (documentaries, etc) as well as stuff from the extended bibliography. We could then point to that from the main article. Thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me - would you be willing to pull it together? Tvoz/talk 04:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Made a quick draft, feel free to expand. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great - thanks so much. A pleasure working with you! I'll read it more carefully when I have both eyes open. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruckner issues[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

Frankly I'm a bit disappointed.

  • removing a reference for the discography section of an article — OK, it shouldn't have in an EL section but properly formatted in a Sources section. I see however a lot of talk in the ensuing discussion but little working towards a solution that satisfies all.
  • Knowing that these futile discussions tend to ask more energy than necessary from everyone involved (or: from those not really involved like myself) you have been asked to participate in a mediation that might help, as well for you, as for the others involved, to come to a more streamlined handling of such issues. Yet you neither said yes nor no to the actual question, but instead, with something I perceive as a somewhat arrogant attitude, you put yourself in the place of those who have to assess whether they want to take on the role of mediator, and "decide" in their place the case is not according to prerequisites. I can assure you I've seen enough of the discussions on the topic to say some third party assistance might be very useful. And indeed, as shown in the small example above, the talking next to each other on these topics continues...

Just saying, the requested mediation was nothing too soon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Francis. No arrogance was intended, but the answer is no and the request was indeed far too soon. Mediation is not intended to be either WP:3O or a replacement for talk-page discussion. You are of course welcome to explain your views on the talk pages, or not, as you prefer. Your first point in particular is not correct but is better discussed elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK close paraphrasing revisit?[edit]

Nikkimaria, it's been several days, and I was wondering whether you could recheck the following nominations:

  • Thanks for revisiting the Dogs and the Pucill. I had misread the Dexter: those two words were changed prior to your most recent post on September 11. It having been over a week without a response, I've put the X on that one due to inaction. I apologize for not leaving matters up to you, but the week's inaction sealed it for me. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I think that was a good call. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

Another review favour?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well with you. I have George Formby Snr at FAC, at the moment; can persuade you to pop over for a review? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain[edit]

I may have a language problem. By repeating my well-known point of view when a question is formally asked, I break my restriction how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's broader than that: "in discussing", not "per discussion". You've made your two comments, actually more than considering the other venues this has been pulled through, so now you're well over. I'm not going to do anything about it, because I'm tired of the whole thing. I just wish y'all would show as much "respect" as you think you should be shown. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like if you talked to me only if I ask you a question that concerns me alone. You said I broke my restriction when I repeated (!) my arguments in a formal support. I will not ask the arbitrators if that is what they had in mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"y'all", that's not me. I don't think I lack respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not you alone, but yes you. I would like if you talked to me rather than about me. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me where you had the feeling I talked about you. I tried not to mention your name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have a talent for talking about things without mentioning them, and for suggesting others continue wars where you cannot. "No need to tell you". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New day: I have a simple suggestion. If you see an infobox that you don't like, respect in good faith that someone wanted to improve an article and put time and effort into it, - in other words, don't revert it, only discuss. The rest will fall in place. The war is over, if there ever was one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Good faith edit" is not always the same as "good edit". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"good edit" is often subjective. You are being asked kindly to discuss an action that brings subjective opinions together. That's collaboration. Discussing is a good faith action and the beginning of establishing what is a good edit(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
The basis of establishing what is a good edit when opinions differ is bold-revert-discuss, because both performing and undoing the action represent a good-faith desire to improve the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah! Nobody buys that. This is a collaborative community. Discussion is collaborative. Undoing is edit warring. Someone is asking you to discuss.Think about it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Most people buy that, because BRD is actually encouraged and is not considered edit warring. Discussion can be collaborative, but not the way it's being done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is seldom encouraged in contentious situations which this is (infoboxes) or articles, and can be considered in some cases as peremptory deletion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
No, it can't. What is encouraged in situations that are expected to be contentious is to discuss the issue before making any edit at all. That is not what Gerda is proposing; she wants the addition to be made, just not reverted. While her last proposed solution to infobox conflicts was not ideal, it could at least be evenly applied to both "sides". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You realize you're contradicting yourself right. You're suggesting BRD then saying one should discuss. Peremptory deletion implies no discussion. BRD is in its first step, an edit with out discussion, a peremptory deletion. While peremptory deletion might be fine on non contentious articles on a contentious one its not a great idea, and with sone arbitrations if repeated it can be cause for sanction, although I'm not suggesting that here. I'm not going to argue with you about Gerda, I came into this to suggest discussion. Discussion. Not BRD. The info box situation is so highly charged, so contentious that any move, any at all should be discussed. I don't see that BRD applies to infoboxes, as in, the infobox was added, now I get to revert per BRD. I guess I'd say start discussing everything. I'll leave you to it. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)_[reply]
Er, since discussion is a step in BRD, I'm not seeing the contradiction there, unless you're suggesting that the B is a "peremptory addition" as well. But I'm happy to go with "discuss before making the bold edit" as a principle. Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An edit can be a removal of content as well as an addition.... secondary meaning for BRD not common, although, I see what you're saying. Adding an infobox is not the kind of edit that is generally considered by most editors in BRD usage. Its a way to lay out information, an organizer, a container so it might be worth seeing it that way as well in discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
They have their place, particularly in data-heavy situations where laying out numbers can be quite helpful, but most agree they're not a benefit in every single situation. It's just where that line is drawn that's the main issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold?[edit]

I missed an interesting discussion. For me, adding an infobox to a Bruckner composition is the normal thing to do, nothing bold. I see people around who seem to think the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit, no matter how "normal", can be considered a bold edit - we encourage people to be bold in fixing grammatical errors, for example. "Bold" is not the same as "major" or "controversial" (although of course some edits are both). Perhaps this is a situation in which Wikipedia has given a normal English word another connotation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virga Jesse floruit[edit]

Like Ecce sacerdos magnus, I suggest to add "(Bruckner)" to Virga Jesse floruit, because the Latin text has been set by several composers, including Bach (in Magnificat). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Could you please review sources of astatine? It's going to be released to FAC soon, but first I would love to have references checked, and help on that is needed and very welcome. I would be much grateful.--R8R (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Dogs FAC[edit]

German Joe reccomended that I contacted you to see if you were available to do a media check at the Sleeping Dogs FAC.[4] URDNEXT (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some comments at the nomination, please? URDNEXT (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi URDNEXT, I see Crisco has already kindly provided the requested media check. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give some comments then? About anything really. URDNEXT (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/50 Carnaby Street[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just found a rather egregious bit of excessively close paraphrasing in this nomination, and it's from a source I'm not sure it reliable to boot. (Second time today; the first was in an article I was in the process of reviewing for a Good Article Reassessment.) I was hoping you could check the rest of the article to see whether this was an isolated bad section, or if there are other significant instances of close paraphrasing. The nomination is old enough what I found bad enough that if there are indeed more, I plan to close the nomination, given the authors and the recent issues we've had with close paraphrasing in their nominations. Thank you very much for your assistance. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't know that I'll be much help here. In addition to the section you named, there is some more close paraphrasing - for example, "a meeting place for black intellectuals" is taken directly from a source. The problem is first, the place it was taken from wasn't the source being cited for that section (and if that persists it will be difficult to catch), and second the other sources that are most likely to present paraphrasing issues are not accessible, so I can't check them. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. That one insertion of an exact phrase from one source into a section sourced elsewhere (and not really implied by the supposed source) is definitely troubling. I'd like your opinion on reliable sourcing. As you saw, I wondered what made henrybebop.co.uk (FN11) a reliable source, and FN18 appears to be a forum where someone in 2010 is supposedly reprinting a 1974 magazine in a series of page-long posts. Is this considered reliable? I think there may be a bit of close paraphrasing involving this source, and there's definitely a "whites only" quote in the article that isn't to be found at all in the source. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reprinting would be reliable if the original source were reliable and the reprinting were accurate, but if the latter is true then it's linkvio and we can't use it anyways. The henrybebop site is a self-published source, as you pointed out; I'm not finding anything to support the expertise of the author, but then it's a fairly common name. This is also an SPS, same person as FN19. This site is questionable too. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked the nomination for closure. Philafrenzy "reworded both parts", and the close paraphrasing still seemed quite obvious to me in the Club Eleven section, which is simply not acceptable. If you disagree, please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA review[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. A couple of weeks ago you very kindly performed a source review on the FA nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bonshō/archive1. I think the issues you raise have now been dealt with - would you mind looking again and letting me know whether there's anything else you would like me to address? Much obliged, Yunshui 雲水 08:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mooto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bantu. 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) 10:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruckner's Motets[edit]

Dear Nikki,

Thank you for drafting some pages about Bruckner's Motets. For the discography please refer to Roelofs' review of all available recordings (review of Vexilla regis still ongoing).[5]

I have at least one recording of all Bruckner's motets. For your info, hereafter you find my own selection (recordings 'faithful' to the score, in chronological order):

  1. Pange lingua (1st version), WAB 31 – H. Baumgartner (YouTube). No other recording available
  2. Libera me (I), WAB 21 – T. Kerbl
  3. Asperges me, WAB 4 – N. Tanaka (Bruckner Archive). No other recording available
  4. Asperges me (äolisch), WAB 3.1 – E. Ortner
  5. Asperges me F-Dur, WAB 3.2 – G.M. Cavallo (YouTube, live with noise). Other recording: N. Tanaka (Bruckner Archive)
  6. Tantum Ergo D-Dur, WAB 32 – E. Ortner
  7. Tantum Ergo A-Dur, WAB 43 – J. Brown
  8. Dir, Herr, dir will ich mir ergeben, WAB 12 – T. Kerbl
  9. O du liebes Jesu Kind, WAB 145 – R. Frieberger
  10. Herz-Jesu-Lied, WAB 144 – T. Kerbl
  11. Four Tantum Ergo (1st version), WAB 41 – T. Kerbl
  12. Tantum ergo D-Dur (1st version), WAB 42 – T. Kerbl
  13. Zwei Aequale, WAB 114 & 149 – E. Ortner
  14. In jener letzten der Nächte (1st version), WAB 17 – R. Frieberger
  15. In jener letzten der Nächte (2nd version), WAB 17 – T. Kerbl
  16. Zwei Totenlieder, WAB 47-48 – D. Ferguson
  17. Libera me (II), WAB 22 – M. Best
  18. Tantum Ergo B-Dur, WAB 44 – T. Kerbl
  19. Ave Maria (I), WAB 5 – P. Fiala
  20. Ave Maria (II), WAB 6 – E. Ortner
  21. Afferentur regi, WAB 1 – E. Ortner
  22. Pange lingua (phrygisch), WAB 33 – E. Ortner
  23. Inveni David, WAB 19 – M. Flämig
  24. Iam lucis orto sidere (mixed), WAB 18 – R. Jones.
  25. Locus iste, WAB 23 – E. Ortner
  26. Christus factus est (II), WAB 10 – R. Luna
  27. Tota pulchra es, WAB 46 – E. Ortner
  28. Os Justi (+ Versus-Choral), WAB 30 – D. Ferguson
  29. Ave Maria (III), WAB 7 – R. Frieberger
  30. Christus factus est (III), WAB 11 – E. Ortner
  31. Salvum fac populum, WAB 40 – R. Jones
  32. Veni creator, WAB 50 – J. Brown
  33. Ecce sacerdos, WAB 13 – P. Fiala
  34. Virga Jesse, WAB 52 – E. Ortner
  35. Iam lucis orto sidere (3rd version), WAB 18 – D. Ferguson
  36. Ave regina caelorum, WAB 8 – R. Shewan
  37. Four Tantum Ergo (2nd version), WAB 41 – P. Fiala
  38. Tantum ergo D-Dur (2nd version), WAB 42 – E. Ortner
  39. Pange lingua (2nd version), WAB 31 – J. Brown
  40. Vexilla regis, WAB 51 – E. Ortner

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I will examine your suggestions in more depth when I am able. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: My name is Reginald (Meneerke bloem, i.e., "mister flower" is a pseudonym). Some coductors, as Jochum, Best, Fiala, Ortner, Ferguson, Flämig, Frieberger, Brown, Kerbl and Jones, have recorded several motets. Unfortunately none has recorded a complete series of Bruckner's motets. I have put my own selection from several CDs, or from YouTube and the Bruckner Archive, when there was no commercial recording available, in chronological order of composition on two own compilation CDs. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Band 21 of the Gesamtausgabe (KLEINE KIRCHENMUSIKWERKE)[6], you find all the motets in chronological order, but also a few other "smaller" religious works: the three early masses (Nos. 2, 5 & 41) and the two Aequali (No. 14). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible map problem in FAC-nomination?[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, i am no map expert, so may be wrong - but File:Paddlefish_distribution.png looks like the map itself is based on the linked USGS map (everything except the recoloring of "no data" is almost pixel-identical). Copyright-wise this is no problem for a USGov work (Commons:template:PD-USGov-USGS can be used). But if the USGS map was only modified, the Commons map should clearly be described as derivative work, with attribution and template for the original work. Just curious, but is the OTRS-template OK here? For uncontroversial "own work" images an OTRS-ticket is usually not required. The whole image situation just looks a bit strange. GermanJoe (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GermanJoe, you are correct that this would seem to be a derivative work of that map. However, I don't have OTRS access to verify what that email says; I think probably someone who can see it should weigh in on whether it supports an "own work" designation or not. It's possible, though unlikely. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can leave a request for clarification at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. It's still early in the nomination, so there should be plenty of time to figure out this probably minor point. GermanJoe (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And done Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Paddlefish_distribution.png_.282014062310008537.29 - might need a few days/weeks for a response. GermanJoe (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS checked the ticket and improved the template (see thread). Unfortunately OTRS usually can't tell specific mail details - but when they say it's OK, that's fine for me. GermanJoe (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for following up on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_27&oldid=1201135347"