User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 30

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

Kindle/ebook references[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm about to start on another article that I want to take up to FA in a while. One of the sources I have is is on a Kindle. This means that there are no pages, but there are electronic location identifiers throughout. Is there a way of using these in a way that passes FAC requirements, or is having the page numbers essential. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Enid Blyton, where one of the main sources is a Kindle eBook, which uses the location numbers. Depending on the type of source, it may alternatively make sense to use a section name instead, as workhouse does for Higginbotham (2012). Eric Corbett 10:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent; many thanks Eric, much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) If it's only available on Kindle, that's one thing; but if it's actually available elsewhere I find it's often possible to find the actual page number, by Googling an exact phrase (in quotation marks) from the page in question, and see if it comes up on GoogleBooks. Alternatively, if Amazon has a "Look Inside" for any of the the book's hard copy versions that isn't just a Kindle replication, you can do the same thing there, with possibly a shorter phrase from the page. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Softlavender. Unfortunately the copy on GoogleBooks is page numberless, and the Amazon Look Inside version is the Kindle only version. It's still fairly new (published last year), so no cheap second hand copies coming up on eBay or a few other sites either, which is a shame! I keep badgering my local library to get a copy, and I'm hoping they'll stick their hands on their pocket before I have to cough up for it myself! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Eric! Softlavender, the only issue with that approach is that the Kindle and hard copy are different editions - there may be textual differences and there are almost certainly pagination differences, so if you're going to use pagination from an edition found on Google or Amazon you would need to use all bibliographic details from there (rather than citing it as a Kindle ebook but just subbing in the page numbers from elsewhere). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously (except for substantive textual differences, which I've never ever found across eBook/hardcopies for the same or same-era edition). Since it's best for the reader to have actual page numbers, I personally think it's best whenever possible to make every effort to use page numbers (and a link to a viewable GoogleBook page as well, if possible), even if one is doing the research from an eBook/Kindle. Obviously wherever one locates the page number (GoogleBooks or Amazon), the publication data will be listed. Softlavender (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference, in your mind, between using page numbers or locations? Why is it "best" to use page numbers? Eric Corbett 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project Muse[edit]

I'm still on the page but I can't find any email. Eric Corbett 18:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just email me and I'll send it back. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing happened to me as well. I got your e-mail, but Project MUSE hasn't forwarded any log-in information to me. I read on the request page that it's not unusual for it to take a while, so I didn't mention anything. I also had this problem with JSTOR; I signed up and was approved over a month ago, but they haven't e-mailed me.-RHM22 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I've replied. RHM22...yes. I've just sent the spreadsheet of responses to MUSE, so those logins should be going out within the next few days (Eric, yours will take longer because you weren't on the spreadsheet yet - sorry about that). I know that JSTOR has been having more significant delays, for various reasons. At the moment, the time from signing up to having an account in hand varies from a few hours to a few weeks, depending on the partner and the process behind it. We're working on a long-term plan to fix that, but for the moment we're not too efficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't particularly concerned, since I don't need either of those immediately. I will likely use both for a pretty large article I've got in the works, though. So far, Newspapers has been the most useful. That is absolutely fantastic. By the way, I noticed something about keeping track of who uses what; are we meant to keep track of which articles we improve with the content from the various free accounts? If so, I can easily begin compiling a list. Sorry for veering this so far off-topic.-RHM22 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be lovely if you did, but we don't require it - we've also got our own metrics to look at. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem at all for me. In fact, I was considering doing it anyway for my own records. I'll get started on that soon, while the list is still reasonably small.-RHM22 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. I never had any feedback from Project Muse about my application for access. Have there been problems here? Thanks. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Apwoolrich, I had sent your login to you on April 23 - I've now resent it, let me know if you don't get it. I believe I also sent a RIPM email to the same address, so check for that one as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. Login now arrived. I will get it set up. Many thanks. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jeannette Corbiere Lavell[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IR request[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria! Would you be so kind as to provide us with an image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive2? I'll understand if you are too busy or uninterested. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if you could review my addition to the article about the Government of Venezuela. It's the list of legislatures.2602:306:C541:CC60:81C3:A68C:7275:692 (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the article generally isn't very developed at this point - I think as part of that process that list could be turned into a paragraph with more details about how these changes happened and when. For now I would suggest adding a reference to a reliable source from which you could obtain that information. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project Muse[edit]

Hi, thanks for the reminder. Some things had come up; I'm all completed now. Parkwells (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

Talk back[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback.
Message added 05:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another favour...?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I have Live and Let Die at FAC for consideration at the moment. Would you be able to work your magic on the references, please? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Chou[edit]

This article is currently a FA but I feel like it no longer meets FA criteria. So much information is unsourced, whole paragraphs just completely not referenced. What is the best course of action? Review? Delist? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lady Lotus, I would suggest opening a review of the article's status. If the problems don't get addressed, it can be delisted as a result of the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you! LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but please notify the WikiProjects listed on the talk page as well - we want to draw as many potentially helpful eyes as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/CG 4 reredux[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just noticed that The Herald pinged you here, and since you usually don't get notified of pings from templates, I thought I'd post directly here and let you know. Thanks for checking again, and I hope the issues are finally set. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reply a few hours ago. If you're not satisfied with progress, I'll let you decide when and if to pull the plug. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

consistent quality control

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

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

Three years ago, you were the 82nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - thank you with passion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project MUSE[edit]

HI, I'm wondering whether I am going mad here. I could have sworn that I received an email from you recently, accepting my sign-up for Project MUSE access via The Wikipedia Library. I thought I filled in some Google Docs form accordingly. However, I now cannot find my name on the request list nor can I find the email! Have I really lost my mind? - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopee. It seems I have not entirely lost my marbles! The older requests were archived a week or so ago. Sorry to have bothered you. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sitush, glad to hear you're still somewhat sane :) - everyone who's been archived has been passed on to MUSE and should have access sent to them shortly, we're just waiting on processing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update and all your work on this. Still waiting to receive access from MUSE.Parkwells (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Parkwells, thanks for your patience - the second group should be processed shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

The Edwardian Barnstar
Thanks for all your help on the Edward II nomination! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete wikilinks to Panama?[edit]

Looking at other hockey biographies, it appears standard to wikilink countries in infoboxes and within the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE - there is a more specific place linked immediately adjacent to Panama in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I've been thinking lately about doing source reviews at FAC, since that seems to be a bottleneck for a lot of nominations. Are there any particular qualifications needed? Has anyone written a guide to source reviews? I'd like to help, but don't want to do it wrong and just make more work for other people. Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coemgenus, you don't need any particular qualifications other than an eye for detail and familiarity with sourcing and related guidelines (WP:CITE, WP:MEDRS for biomedical articles, etc). There are three basic components to a source review: checking that everything that should be cited is, checking that the sources used are reliable for what they are citing, and making sure that the citations are consistently and appropriately formatted. Wikipedia:FCDW/June 23, 2008 is a good guide; see also User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates#Sources and User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You. If you want a bit of a "safety net", I'd be happy to double-check your first few reviews for you, until you get your bearings. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll look those over before I get started. I definitely appreciate the offer of a double-check. I'll let you know after I review something to make sure we're on the same page with how it should be done. Thanks again, Coemgenus (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the sources at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Negro Motorist Green Book/archive2. If you have a moment to look it over, I'd appreciate it. I had my doubts about the HuffPo source, but the author seems legitimate and the thing it's citing isn't bizarre. Thanks again, Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Coemgenus, that looks pretty good for a first effort. A few additional thoughts:

  • The Towne source is a dead link, so should include either an updated or archived link. You can use Checklinks to check for this
  • You might choose to query the number of citations in the lead, as some aren't needed per WP:LEADCITE
  • Your point about DeCaro and Trembaris: we usually use publication date if available and copyright date if not
  • Franz/Smulyan: that book is a bit odd in that the "chapters" comprise both edited collections of primary-source documents and essays by other authors. Based on the page numbers, only one particular essay is being cited - it would probably be best to use the author name and essay title for the citation rather than citing the whole chapter
  • I think the HuffPo source should be fine here, but since NYT and Washington Post include accessdate it should too. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the review to include these. Thanks again! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susan B. Anthony dollar[edit]

Hi Nikki. Sorry to be a bother, but could you please look in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Susan B. Anthony dollar/archive1 and do a source review when you get a few moments free? I can send you any book scans you may need by e-mail if you'd like them for spot checking. Thanks in advance!-RHM22 (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons for swimmers and other Olympic athletes[edit]

Nikki, flag icons are consistently used to represent the sporting nationality of Olympic swimmers in the infobox's nationality field. Please note that only about half of notable Olympic swimmers are medalists, and therefore your desire to eliminate the "duplicate" flag from the nationality parameter for medalists, such as Nicole Haislett, leads to inconsistent formatting for non-medalists for whom we do no have the option of displaying the flag icon in the non-existent medals table for non-medalists. For non-medalists, the flag icon can only be displayed in the nationality field. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirtlawyer, I don't see that as a particular problem - as you point out, there is necessarily already a formatting inconsistency given that non-medallists wouldn't have a medals table. When there is no table, we have another venue available to reflect the sporting nationality, but when there is a table that's where it makes the most sense to do that. Alternatively, we could remove the flag from the table heading and have it above for everyone. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki. I've been aware of the duplicate flag issue for a long time -- I wrote most of the template parameter instructions for Infobox swimmer, and work with American, Australian and Canadian swimmer bios regularly. As you're probably aware, the use of flag icons for the sporting nationality of Olympic athletes and other members of national sports teams has been the project-wide common practice since the early days of Wikipedia, but MOS:ICON includes self-contradictory guidance on point, and there is a vocal group of editors who oppose flag icons anywhere, for any purpose, including the sporting nationality of Olympians, etc. While that controversy has erupted again and has continued over the last year, I have hesitated to remove either flag icon from medalists' infoboxes so as not to prejudge the resolution of that debate. Frankly, I suspect we may see a definitive resolution on point this year; if someone else doesn't do it, I'm prepared to introduce a no-wiggle-room RfC to clarify what usage is permitted and conform the language of MOS:ICON as needed. Regarding flag icons generally, I am in the broad middle: I support use of the icons for the sporting nationality of national team members (as well as military units and personnel, ship registries, etc.), but I also recognize that they are grotesquely over used in some corners of Wikipedia, including some sports. I've even stripped my share of inappropriate flag uses from sports articles and other topics. To get to a final resolution, however, compromise will be required, and no one will be entirely satisfied. Until that happens, I'm just trying to preserve the status quo in swimmer and other Olympic athlete infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nikkimaria. I think this is a pretty sound resolution of the problem discussed above: [1]. There is now a new template parameter for Infobox swimmer, "national_team," which clarifies the intended meaning. Flag icons will only be used in the infoboxes for those swimmers who are/were members of their respective national teams in international competition, i.e., Olympic Games, FINA world championships, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, Pan Pacific Championships, or European championships. The new parameter is exclusive: once "national_team" is invoked, the "nationality" parameter cannot also be used. For the minority of notable swimmers who were never members of their national team, they will continue to use "nationality," but with no flag icon. There should be relatively few of the latter, because almost by definition notable swimmers are those who have competed internationally. The redundant flags will be removed from the infobox medals table (if there is one for a given swimmer), with a limited exception for the English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish flags for British swimmers who have won medals medals while competing for England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in the Commonwealth Games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dirtlawyer1, sounds like a good plan - would it be possible to implement non-linking icons while we're at it? Also, how will we treat those who have competed internationally for more than one country? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I have already de-linked major country names in the lead and text of virtually all American and Australian swimmer articles, and I'm working my way through British and Canadian swimmers too. As a commonly agreed interpretation of WP:OVERLINK, it is generally believed to be unnecessary/undesirable to link major country names in text unless the country is directly related to the article subject. As a minor compromise of that understanding, I, for one, am willing to accept flag icons with linked country text when that is the only occurrence of the country link in the article -- no harm, no foul.
As for the relatively rare swimmer who has competed for two countries in international competition, we should treat them similarly to British swimmers who have won medals in the Commonwealth Games; we should distinguish which medals were won while representing which country. FYI, I have edited close to half of the 4,000 articles that use Infobox swimmer; of those, I have encountered fewer than a dozen who have represented two countries, and none who have represented three or more (excluding the British athlete/Commonwealth Games scenario). It is indeed a rare issue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, of the 660+ U.S. Olympic swimmer articles, close to 600 of them have been converted to the infobox formatting discussed above; only 60 or so from the early 1900s remain in the old format. About 25 of the 250+ Aussie swimmers have likewise been re-formatted. With a little extra time, I'll finish both categories this weekend -- then it's on to the Canadians and Brits. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for your work on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2015[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.

Re: OUP access[edit]

I was approved to access OUP materials back in 2014 but I have never received login credentials. How do I access the resources? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. According to my records, you were on the list sent to OUP and should have received access last year. Will double-check on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have received many emails. I just went through them again yesterday. Nowhere does it say or explain how to actually receive or get login credentials. It did ask me to register my email address and user name at a Google site and to fill out a survey on another site. However, strangely enough, no way to actually access the materials. Viriditas (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

A new reference tool[edit]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces and territories of Canada infobox[edit]

Hello, after noticing the removal of the infobox. Would the infobox be accepted but the picture won't be in the infobox? As I tried to make it smaller with no success. Seqqis (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seqqis, as mentioned before I think it would be helpful to create a sandbox copy so we can try to fix the formatting - I tried shifting the map back to where it had been previously and there were still problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proper ping[edit]

Screwed up the ping at [2] so doing it the old-fashioned way. Montanabw(talk) 08:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I got 99% of your stuff now, have one remaining question and you need to do another check. Montanabw(talk) 22:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highbeam access[edit]

I don't need this so please make the place available to others. Jodosma (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 13 April[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Ali Mardan Khan[edit]

Nikkimaria, there's been a request at WT:DYK to check this nomination for close paraphrasing: the reviewer had found some in previous iterations, and now wants someone else to check, though the actual request was posted by the nominator. If you have the chance, can you please take a look? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, looks like Relentlessly has beaten me to it - I concur with his/her findings. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I'll keep my eye on it. Do you think the article needs to be given a close paraphrasing template, or is it not quite that severe? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could take it or leave it, at this point - I'd be more tempted to go with a copy-edit tag, as the attempts to avoid paraphrasing have caused more problems in that regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

Image review?[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria, are you the only person who does image reviews for FAC? Wasn't sure, but we need one for my Bazy FAC. Montanabw(talk) 02:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one, but I can do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed the tags, and I did search for a free image on the one you mentioned, but didn't find anything...let me knw if more I need to fix. Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I fixed that last one and explained the other. Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Looks like you are all done with your part, so do you have to sign off with a "support" on your ref checks and image checks being done, or do the powers that be just look to see that you are finished... or? Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Montana, usually I wouldn't support just on a source and/or image review - the coords just want to see that they're done and nothing's outstanding from those reviews. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's copacetic. Coords said that was the magic pixie dust needed, so all is good now.Montanabw(talk) 22:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Good Terrorist/archive1[edit]

From the Peer review volunteers list on British literature, you are invited to comment on this peer review which has been in the backlog. Good day, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biot listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Biot. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Biot redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GoingBatty (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran FAC 2.0[edit]

I have opened the second FAC for the article. Please do let me know if you would like to make any comments. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also do a source review for the film? Do let me know. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Fraser[edit]

Could you please explain your reasoning for editing the The Herald (Glasgow) link on the above article. As the creator of the article, I know of no reason for this edit!Gomach (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gomach, as can be seen from the article The Herald (Glasgow), the correct title of the publication is The Herald - Glasgow is included in the article title only for disambiguation purposes - and the correct formatting of the publication title is italics. Thus, |work=[[The Herald (Glasgow)|]] is the correct reference formatting, as it produces the visible text The Herald. Your edit creates a formatting error and should be undone. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I changed your initial edit because the formatting did not produce the desired: The Herald link in the article. As can be seen in the references section at the moment.... Gomach (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not sure why the piping isn't working properly, but I've fixed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 April[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Elsevier Science direct access[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, I've applied for the Elsevier Science direct access in January and got your mail for approval in February. I used the link in your mail to register four days later, but never got any feedback. So I've tried again to register four or five weeks ago, but again got no answer. I'm not sure if I have not filled the registration form correctly (but in fact there it is really easy) or if the registration procedure at Elsevier takes such a long time. Could you please check this out for me? Thanks a lot in Advance and many greetings, --Sternrenette (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sternrenette, according to my records you were sent your login on March 9 - I will try resending it to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria, thank you for your fast answer. I've checked my email accout (including the spam-filter) for this email but was not able to find it. I would be great if you could send the login data again. Thanks again and regards from Germany, --Sternrenette (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If you still don't get it, try emailing me and I'll resend that way. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A favor[edit]

Would you please take a look at Matthias Mende and check (1) if the article existed on 07 October 2013, and if so, (2) whether the guy described in the article at that time is the same guy (app designer) deemed not notable in the recent AFD? There is a notable art historian by the same name, which I wikilinked from another article way back then; it might have been a redlink at that time, but I'd like to make sure the article wasn't simply usurped without anyone noticing. Thank you! Maralia (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maralia, as far as I can tell that article was created from a redlink in March of this year, and was about the app designer from the beginning. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking! Maralia (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Noah Galloway[edit]

Nikkimaria, I've decided to help this DYK nomination get to the point that it can be approved, but after I started work, I realized there was significant close paraphrasing from Galloway's bio on his own website.

I've just done a first pass at attempting to take care of that close paraphrasing, but I'm not a safe judge of my own efforts, so I was wondering whether you could take a look and let me know what's left to do. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BlueMoonset, from a paraphrasing standpoint everything looks fine - stylistically I might reword the charitable efforts bit, but otherwise it's a solid start. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria, that's very good to know. I'll have another go at the charitable efforts section when I get a chance—it had been the most closely paraphrased, and I wanted to be sure it no longer offended. Now that it's fine from that standpoint, I'll see if I can find some additional sources and work from there. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review?[edit]

Hey, Nikkimaria, you mind doing an image review for the list article, American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front order of battle, since Anotherclown suggested it earlier in it's ACR. The reason I asked since I am pretty sure you're the only one in know that does image reviews at the ACR. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

Oopsie[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm sorry for the oversight, which has just occurred to me ... I pinged DrK and Maralia to this sandbox, as we all three work on WP:URFA, and Cas was pinged by his article work, but you never got a ping! We are developing a new URFA page at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, will take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015[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) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for going the extra mile, and finding an online source that I believed was lost. Scr★pIronIV 15:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Expeditionary Forces order of battle.
Message added 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

A question[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your edits on Gotland Museum, there were several things there I did not know. Small question though: The official name of the permanent exhibition about the battle of Visby and Gotland is "1361 - Battle for Gotland" but I linked it to the article Battle of Visby since it covers the same thing, roughly. Shouldn't the official name for the exhibition be used in the text? On the island the "1361" is sort of a "trademark" to sum up all of the things happening that year. It actually also includes the Battle of Mästerby. OR should it be specified that the exhibition is about all of the events that year? Or just mention the name of the exhibition with no link? Suggestions? Best, w.carter-Talk 14:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W.carter, I would suggest either using the name of the exhibition with no link, or summarizing the exhibit's content in the text (with links as relevant). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will start with no link (better than "wrong link") and think about how to make the text to fit in both. Much obliged, w.carter-Talk 14:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Clark (businessman)[edit]

Nikkimaria, there's a request for a second opinion on close paraphrasing from the reviewer here. Could you please check and see whether, in your opinion, it is or not? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Random reverts[edit]

Hello, please use the article talk page, rather then to randomly removing additions. Thanks. Via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elite:_Dangerous&action=history prokaryotes (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi prokaryotes, it wasn't "random": the material lacks reliable sourcing, and you should not restore it without providing such sourcing, per WP:BURDEN. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Video_games Unless there is a better source, primary sources or secondary sources can be used. And there is no indication that the cited sources are not reliable. prokaryotes (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
prokaryotes, as that page makes clear, a "primary source" in this instance would be the game itself. Wikis and forums, on the other hand, are not primary sources but self-published sources, which are not reliable per policy. If you can verify the information from the game itself, you can use that; you cannot use the current sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i see now that Wikia is listed on above, link - let me sort this out. Additionally this is a bit situation depending, since wikia seems to be the main wiki, thus contains a lot of info. I will try to improve cites, and remove the link to wikia. prokaryotes (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is so silly, i had to remove an integral game info because you insisted that the source is unreliable. I think this is a situational case, there is no source which is 1:1 in accordance with Wikipedia policy. prokaryotes (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source is unreliable and is not situationally acceptable here either. Perhaps you could ask at the WikiProject whether anyone knows of a more reliable alternative that would allow you to include the info - or, as I noted above, you could use the game itself as a source if it supports that "integral game info". 12:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Source = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources prokaryotes (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - common sense would agree that the sourcing didn't warrant an exception. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, because it is the only source with that info (Maybe in some forum thread as well), no indication that it is unreliable, no indication that unreliablity has a huge impact, and Wikia is in this case the main source related to this game, and it is info related to integral game mechanic. But hej, im not the only editor, maybe someone else will re-add it. I hope someone does, it would improve the article. prokaryotes (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone else will have better sourcing - if it's "info related to integral game mechanic" it should be described elsewhere. But when VG/RS specifically lists a source as being unreliable, and more general sourcing policies and guidelines agree, that's a pretty good indication that it is unreliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was a list of uncomplete independent factions with some explanations, i doubt there will be a reliable source other than a wiki which lists this. prokaryotes (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 11[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nexus for Exoplanet System Science ‎[edit]

Hi. While I appreciate your adherence to the MOS guideline, this edit throws off the entire table at lower resolutions, since the image is too big to fit above it. Would you be OK with me restoring the 100px size? It's there for good reason. Otherwise, the image will bleed into the table section which shortens the width. In other words, I want to keep that image out of the table area. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas, I'd rather not shrink the image because it makes the text and scale completely illegible - does the current layout work better? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. However, if you read the parent article, it looks like the text and scale are erroneous and have been updated with new data. That may be why an editor created a blank version. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would probably be worth swapping in a different version of the image, with either no annotation or a corrected version. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK.[3] BTW, is there anybody spearheading a main page redesign? The site looks very dated, circa 2004. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many efforts, in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2008... I would probably recommend talking to either Edokter and Guy Macon, they were the most recent on that front that I know of. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January-March 2015 Milhist reviewing award[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
For completing 24 reviews during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 6 May[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

please stop[edit]

Please stop attacking the Soldier at a Game of Chess article. Your claims of copyvio appear to be nonsense, your tagging on other issues is wp:POINTY now. If i were an admin and not involved I would block you from editing. Consider this as warning. --doncram 17:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned at ANI, or whatever I am supposed to say. I ask for you to be blocked in "request block DYK-related preventative right now" section of wp:ANI. --doncram 17:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I have now provided examples on talk to demonstrate that the copyvio issue is not "nonsense". As for the tagging, you will recall that I had initially added only a single tag, and that despite my objection that the issues were extensive enough that a whole-article tag was more appropriate than a more specific approach, others asked that I instead do the latter. This is not an "attack", but an effort to adhere to that request; I would far prefer to just tag the whole article, because there are enough issues that tagging each individually looks like tagbombing. For your part, if you insist that no whole-article tag can be used, I would request that you not remove the more specific tags without addressing the issues they flag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we ready for a Google-style front page yet? Search for an article... that's it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Laser, you might be interested in Iridescent's idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw Laser edit summary under "please stop", scrolled down through 180 sections ... holy cow, Nikki, Archive Your Talk Page! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it absolutely was tag-bombing and fighting to mar, reduce, and generally attack a DYK-featured article any way you could, when every concern could and should have been addressed later, IMO. You lost me when your "evidence" of copyvio turned out to be from your erroneous application of dupdet tool. Or maybe you lost me on some petty change you were forcing. Congratulations, you win: its DYK mention was taken off the mainpage. --doncram 19:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, this is why it would have made so much more sense to simply have a single tag at the top of the article rather than try to tag each issue individually, as we would have avoided the perceived tagbombing. And no, I didn't misuse DupDet to find the copyvio issue - I used it to point out the duplication of another article, which was a separate issue. The copyvio was manual checking, which is generally more reliable than automated tools for that purpose. Copyright concerns warrant immediate removal from MP and are not something that should be left for later; OR can wait longer to be addressed but should still be flagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renewing HighBeam access[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I'm having trouble renewing my access to HighBeam. I received your email which included my new activation code, but when I click on the link listed at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Support, all I end up with is page asking for a credit card # or some other form of payment. There doesn't appear to be a place to input codes for existing accounts. Levdr1lp / talk 20:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levdr1, sorry to hear you're having trouble. Do you have access to Questia under the same email? That can sometimes cause problems. Also, what (if anything) do you see if you try to log in via the normal login page, without inputting a code? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. No, I don't have Questia. I did, however, try registering/renewing my HighBeam account again -- same email, but this time with a new password -- and it worked. Thanks for your help. Levdr1lp / talk 23:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2015[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.

Thank you for getting me into project MUSE[edit]

Hi! I got the log in and password for MUSE and I've already started using it. Thank you so much! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, enjoy! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Clark (businessman) redux[edit]

Nikkimaria, the nominator has posted that he's taken care of the close paraphrasing. Can you please check to see whether you agree? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IR request (b)[edit]

When you get a chance, will you please provide us with an image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive3? RO(talk) 16:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you for providing copies of several very useful sources about George Meany. The article will be better because of your assistance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Best of luck with the GAN. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

Is this PD?[edit]

I know you're busy, but can you please confirm or deny that this government report ([4]) is PD? Thanks! RO(talk) 22:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RO, on a quick look I would say yes, though I haven't checked that all the contents (eg the images) are similarly PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! That's what I thought. I already uploaded File:Chetro Ketl RS.png, which is an amazing addition to the article, and there are lots of other great images and charts in that report. Thanks for checking that for me! RO(talk) 22:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the images in there are used with permission, but do you think the one I uploaded (see above) is PD? RO(talk) 22:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That image is partially credited to the Remote Sensing Archive (1972) - any idea what organization this would be a part of? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's NPS or NASA. RO(talk) 23:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can confirm that it would likely be PD. Based on the caption it seems likely that the image was created and possibly published before this report. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remote Sensing is in the Department of the Interior, the same department as the NPS.([5]). RO(talk) 00:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Youngstown, Ohio[edit]

I had to undo your edit because you removed the name from the Youngstown, Ohio article. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DemocraticLuntz, I've fixed that - in future, if you object to only a small part of a big edit, it would probably be easier for you to just amend that part rather than revert the entire edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizaveta Khripounova page[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

Why do you keep removing the new links on Elizaveta's page?

Flowerarmyrecords (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowerarmyrecords, per our biographies of living persons policy, wikis and other user-generated content should generally not be used as either references or external links from articles about living people. Any material in such an article without reliable sourcing can be removed and should not be re-added without better sources. Also, external links should generally not appear within the body of the article, but only in the References or External links sections. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ah ok, thank you for your reply. I'm very new to Wikipedia and it looked like somebody was trying to delete things :-) Some content has actually been deleted by your changes (or the Bots changes). It was reference to a Russian Film. I'm assuming it's ok to add that text if I don't add a link to it?

Flowerarmyrecords (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowerarmyrecords, you can add the text back in if you can find a reliable source to back it up - this can be a website but should not be a user-generated page like a wiki or a blog. See WP:Citing sources for details on how to add references. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stumped[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria, I have placed tentative {{Template:PD-US-no notice}} notices on two files that I THINK are OK to transfer to commons, but I need your eye on them to double-check. They are photos of two trophies (or replicas, which are PD if the underlying art is): the Triple Crown Trophy at File:Triple crown three sided Trophy.jpg, created in 1950; and the Kentucky Derby Trophy at File:Ky Derby Trophy.jpg created in 1924. The photographer is a wiki editor who put a GDFL tag on his photos, so that's OK, but the question is if the underlying work of three-dimensioal art - the trophies themselves - are public domain. I just did an hour or so of research on the issue of 3-D fine art works, sculptures, etc., for the USA and I think that this applies (it does to jewelry, for example). The Kentucky Derby trophy appears to have no artist credit and it's a "standard" trophy design, anyway, but the Triple Crown Trophy was designed by "Cartier" on a commission, so again, unclear if there ever was a copyright, but it's a unique design. Help? Montanabw(talk) 02:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Montana, in both cases you would want to include those details about the original trophies (date, creator, etc) on the image description page. It's hard to tell because the Copyright Catalog doesn't include images, but there are many entries for Derby trophies - would have to check more closely to see if any match, but the copyright holder details seem to mesh with this. I don't see the Triple Crown trophy there on a quick look - any idea who "Cartier" might be? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cartier (jeweler). Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, okay. I haven't found anything to suggest the Triple Crown trophy is now copyrighted. My best guess is that the Derby trophy design was copyrighted and the copyright was renewed, so it would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Derby trophy (created in 1924) is a pretty average "trophy" design - just cast in gold... ? Montanabw(talk) 22:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably unique enough to pass the threshold of originality (and doubtlessly the Derby folks would argue the same), but if you want a second opinion you could always ask at WP:MCQ. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I suspect both trophies could have been copyrighted, but their creation dates (1924 and circa 1950) put them in the "copyright not renewed" category and I've tagged them as such unless I can find evidence to the contrary. Does that work? Montanabw(talk) 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my search above, it would appear that the Derby trophy design was renewed; if so, we probably can't use the image except under fair use. Kind of hard to tell for sure since the catalogue doesn't include images, but the details seem to match. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are for the copyrights for annual commemorative items, see [6] all the "julep cups" for sure. The image of the horse and rider may or may not be copyrighted, and the trophy itself is a simple standard trophy cup design... tricky. Have to look for the individual cup created in 1924, not the various annual things...
By the way, Montana, some of the text from Triple Crown Trophy matches this source - it postdates our article, but I wonder if both came from an earlier publication? I can't find one, but you're probably more familiar with potential sources in this area. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably a copy and paste for sure - both from previous versions of the Kentucky Derby web site (I suspect they update that article each year, adding the newest stats). I don't have the time to go repair it, but perhaps a kindly wikignome would be willing to do so. Montanabw(talk) 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lela E. Buis[edit]

Please explain your changes. Pkeets (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pkeets. First and most importantly, user-generated sources like wikis are not reliable, particularly for articles about living people. The other two changes were stylistic: spelling out the state name for the benefit of non-Americans and switching to the adjectival form for nationality. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "American" more descriptive than "US"? American, for example, includes South America, Canada, etc. Pkeets (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's more descriptive, simply that it's the standard we've adopted here. Here is a recent discussion. And as a Canadian, I can tell you that many of my friends and neighbours would see the term "American" as an insult if applied to one of us. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Carl Nielsen images[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. I see you have not been on Wikipedia for the past 24 hours but if you find the time today or tomorrow I would very much appreciate your looking once again at the images on the Carl Nielsen article. Timing is becoming pretty critical if we want to hit the 9 June anniversary date. We hope and I have been working overtime on the images but Crisco 1492 seems to think there are still problems outstanding. I really would like to get these problems sorted out asap. Elekhh has also offered to help but his time is limited. Hope you can help by being more specific on the remaining problems.--Ipigott (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: Ipigott: My point was simply that Nikki's oppose is still outstanding, which would hold back the FA promotion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9 June 2015
Carl Nielsen made
Main Page history
and you were part of
working for his works!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Project MUSE[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I wanted to stop by and drop you a note to thank you for your work with setting up the Project Muse accounts. That's a database I've wanted access to for many years because it hosts periodicals with scholarly articles about children's literature that I've not been able to find anywhere else, and without access I've left quite a lot of articles unfinished for lack of sources. I activated my acct. this week and was thrilled at what I found there. A number of WP articles will benefit and hopefully get to a more finished state. Thanks again for your time for making this possible. Also, the women's literature database is quite fascinating, but it's not as useful because it's mostly primary sources. Still I've earmarked a few articles that will be benefit from that resource as well. Victoria (tk) 20:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Victoria, glad to hear it's being put to good use. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor[edit]

You may remember the disruptive and POVpushing editor that I've encountered on Somali topics, Middayexpress. He's continuing his POVpushing in all sorts of places, and I'm really exasperated. There's lots of evidence about what he does - talkpages full of it. Could I just simply block him? You may remember the RfC was indecisive, but the other alternative is Arbcom. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buckshot06, I don't think I'm the best person to ask, as I'm not really familiar with the background, and from the sounds of things it would take quite a bit of reading to get up to speed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi Eclipse[edit]

Nikkimaria

Thank you for reviewing my contributions to the Mitsubishi Eclipse page. I’m a new editor to Wikipedia and I appreciate any feedback. You removed the section I created for Popular Film and Culture citing “needs reliable sourcing.” Is the concern about reliable sourcing regarding the vehicle being in the movie or the fact that Paul Walker’s character drove the vehicle? If the concern is over the reference to Paul Walker, I’m happy to remove any reference to Paul Walker but I believe I cited significant support for validating that the Mitsubishi Eclipse appeared in the film.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Expandinglight5, unfortunately neither of the sources you provided are considered reliable by Wikipedia - IMDb (the source for IMCDb) and wikis are both user-generated content. See in particular WP:RS/IMDB. You should look for better sourcing to use instead of (not in addition to) those websites before re-adding the content. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck needed[edit]

I know you're busy, but we still need a source review and spotcheck for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive3. Would you be willing to help us out with this? If you need them for spot-checking, Maunus has PDFs for most of the main sources. RO(talk) 16:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Ali Mardan Khan redux[edit]

Nikkimaria, this article has been rewritten/edited since you last saw it, and I was wondering whether the close paraphrasing was adequately dealt with. If so, I'll be calling for a new reviewer, but I wanted to be sure it was first. Can you please take a look and let me know whether it's ready for review or still needs work? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BlueMoonset, it's much better - just the fourth paragraph is still a bit close. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Johnbod did a bit more work after I relayed that comment; is it finally okay now and ready for further review? Thanks for checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey BlueMoonset, this is probably good enough to go now. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. Good to know! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BNA[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria: I had an account with Birds of North America through Wikipedia. It was due to expire earlier this year, but I got an email from you on April 8 saying it would be renewed. Today, I tried to access the site and got a "this page is only available to subscribers" message. When I tried to enter my user name and password, it gave me the same message. Can you please let me know if I should still have access to this? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MeegsC, you have access to British Newspaper Archive that shouldn't expire until July or August - we haven't had a partnership with Birds of North America. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Oops, sorry about that — guess that was through my bird club! (Face definitely red...) MeegsC (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RIPM[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Alas no message received yet about this. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apwoolrich: resent. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 02:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with Project Muse[edit]

Hi! I'm having trouble accessing project Muse today. I tried a few times in different browsers. Is this a normal outage, or do I need to renew? Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Megalibrarygirl, it appears that I am able to access it normally, so the problem may be on your end or with your account. When you say you're "having trouble" - are you getting an error message of some kind? Are you able to log in but not access materials, or are you not able to log in at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I can't log in at all. It says I have an incorrect user name and password. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and just to be sure, you are using the correct name and password? Did you change the password from the default one I sent you? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I checked that too. I kept the default username and password. I tried logging in on different computers, too. Nada. Thanks for looking into this. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, sorry about this - I'm checking with our contact at MUSE to see if we can work this out. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing this again for me. I noticed I had access again and I didn't say thank you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Halifax Explosion[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Halifax Explosion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam (Wiki Ed) -- Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 May 2015[edit]

Your GA nomination of Halifax Explosion[edit]

The article Halifax Explosion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Halifax Explosion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam (Wiki Ed) -- Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Is there anything you want to look into for this article that I can help with ahead of any FA run? Resolute 23:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Resolute, any thoughts on how to address Adam's first comment here? Other than that, I was thinking of sending this through MilHist A-class first for a more specialist review before FAC - sound good? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The query about adding context to the start of the disaster section? I'll think on that. Also, sure, the A-class would be good. More reviews for a better article! Resolute 00:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(also pinging in @Adam (Wiki Ed):) I'll see if I can a bit more about the Narrows and how it worked, but also thinking, what about this map? It refers to modern Halifax, but the way the creator did it, it can stand as a solid visual of how the access into Bedford Basin is, with a simple modification to highlight the Narrows. Resolute 00:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you know someone who can create a free version of this. Resolute 00:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That might help, though offhand I don't know anyone who works with maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found a map already on Wikipedia that should demonstrate the layout well enough. Also moved the two sentences backgrounding the Narrows up. Thoughts? Resolute 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Froberg mutiny[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I've noticed you sporadically over at DYK checking articles in prep. If you don't mind and if you have time, could you check over this article to see if there still is any copyvio? Many thanks. Fuebaey (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuebaey: I see some places in need of copyediting, some where the sourcing doesn't quite line up with the content (eg. footnote 4 doesn't support its paragraph, footnote 2 is the correct source), and some minor close paraphrasing, but nothing on the level of copyvio at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I would normally relay this back onto the nomination template but I am somewhat involved in a content/review dispute there. Nonetheless, appreciate the work you do over at DYK! Fuebaey (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, the question now is whether the minor close paraphrasing is at the level that would keep this from being approved. I worked on a couple of instances, but am not sure whether I've adequately addressed the issues you saw, and it's clear that the nominator is not going to be able to help. Please let me know if you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's not that bad at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Belated thanks. I've called for a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa Railway[edit]

Nikkimaria, I hate to be asking you against so soon, but I ran into this nomination where the nominator and reviewer are in disagreement regarding whether there is close paraphrasing, and looking for a third opinion. I was hoping you could provide that there when you have some extra time. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset , looks like a third opinion has already been given - I agree that it's too close. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, Nikkimaria, and it's good to know that you agree. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I will do my best to make this site a better place. WpgJets4Life (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chips and dip[edit]

Why were the alt descriptions removed from the thumbed images in Chips and dip? Do they now automatically produce without having to add the alt parameter? North America1000 00:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but as screenreaders will already read out captions, having alt text identical to the caption is not really helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. It may be functional to retain the alt text for readers that have images turned off in their browser, though, as per WP:ALT. North America1000 01:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those users should still see the captions. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it. In this case, the image boxes would be there, but the images would not load, unless I'm mistaken. North America1000 03:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this - the caption displays normally, and if there is alt text it appears in the box where the image usually is. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, which has been very helpful and provided some information I wasn't entirely aware of before. Much appreciated, North America1000 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PR request[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Thanks for helping with so many IR and SRs. I don't know how active you've been at Peer Review, but would you be interested and willing to give me some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1? I've put lot's of work into this for more than three months now, but I fear it won't go anywhere for lack of interest. What do you think? RO(talk) 16:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RO, it looks like you've already gotten lots of feedback there, more than most PRs - is there something in particular you feel is missing from the review? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not sure, but I'm just feeling insecure about taking it to FA. Also, the article has almost doubled in size since most of that feedback was left, so I'm worried that I'll get hammered at FAC for newer issues I can't see. I've incorporated some PD text there, so maybe you could just take a look to be sure I've disclosed that properly. RO(talk) 16:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RO, on what basis are you saying Hawley is PD? It was published after 1923 and is not AFAICT a government work...Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We hope helped me with this. They did some searching and said there is no indication that copyright was ever renewed. Also, looking at the original scan, I don't think it was published with a copyright notice in 1934. RO(talk) 17:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Public Library lists has it as PD: ([7]), "Rights: 1923 through 1977, Published without a copyright notice." RO(talk) 17:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. :) When you asked about a copy of the book for images, I ran a check on the copyright--it was not renewed. See File:Second period construction at Chetro Ketl (1030 to 1070) by Florence M. Hawley Plate XII (1934).png for the renewal search details. We hope (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which part did I get wrong? It looks like it was published without a copyright. RO(talk) 17:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you're not certain whether there was a copyright or not with anything from 1923-1963, it's safest to go with a copyright check for renewal. There are times when I want to use part of a brochure from a railroad re: a particular train and I'm not sure that I've been able to view every page of it to check for marks, I then check for whether there were renewals of any possible copyright. If there are none, then I'm able to use the images from the brochure. If I can see the entire item, then I can say there are no copyright marks with confidence. I just thought it would be best to cover all possibilities. We hope (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but is it still safe to say that Hawley 1934 is PD? RO(talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because after any copyright expires, the item passes into the public domain and it's in the PD just as much as something from before 1923 or published between 1923-1977 without a copyright notice. We hope (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it equally safe to say it was never copyrighted? RO(talk) 18:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hawley Chetro Ketl book front pages.jpg Now it is. :) Go ahead and change the others--this is where the notices would have been if there were any. We hope (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. I'd like to see the article incorporate something from Category:Wikipedia sources for tracking purposes (attributing by hand instead of using templates means that this doesn't happen automatically), and include date in the attribution note. I'm also not sure that we've done quite enough to "unambiguously indicat[e] exactly what has been copied verbatim" - not everything cited to these sources is copied, and not everything copied is quoted. Are you copying only from particular chapters? How extensive is the copying? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

May I ask what is that thing you put on Sodor's Legend of the Lost Treasure article? --ACase0000 (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ACase0000, you mean {{hlist}}? It's a template used to format lists. There are several other template options available, but the version using <br> that you've restored is deprecated - see WP:L. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, That is what I mean. I have never seen a Film page with that before. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2015[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.

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moula Ali hill[edit]

I made some changes to the history section. I tried to make it more easy to understand. It is going be on main page, so I don't want any tags on the article. Does it need more copy editing? Is there anything else that I should improve? Thank you Supdiop talk 14:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Supdiop, the prose still needs improvement - perhaps you could ask someone from the Guild to help? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RIPM[edit]

Is it possible to return access so someone else can use it? Apparently the data from 1930 to 1966 is so sparse that the DB has nothing on any of the artists I was interested in. :-( Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skyerise, sorry to hear you don't find it useful. I'm not sure about return possibilities, so I'll check into that. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had hopes that the period would be well-covered but the DB is apparently biased toward the early end of the range they say they cover. Skyerise (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

Danan: The Jungle Fighter: Sega[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

Thanks for taking an interest in the article I'm currently writing! Why dit you felt that the "Sega Power" review had to go? - Although I wasn't able to retrieve a digital copy of the review, I did provide a link for its concluding words, overall score and subscores (graphics, sound, ...).

In the near future I will add a blogger review section and a scan of the box art. Wikipedia rated the article "stub-class". Have you any suggestion on how to improve it?

Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergewisbaar (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vergewisbaar, generally it's not a good idea to rely on a fragment of a source retrieved from a third-party site - you want to either be able to see the original, or if absolutely necessary a summary of the original from a reliable secondary source. You would also want to have the full original citation.
In terms of improving the article, sourcing is a big concern. You've got analytical sections cited to in-game text, which in this context is a primary source - thus, your analysis is original research. More reliable secondary sources would help greatly. Take a look at the video game article guideline. Also, we don't avoid spoilers or tell the reader what is important to note, or generally "break the fourth wall" when writing, if that makes sense. Finally, the prose is a little hard to follow - you might reach out to the Guild to see if they can help with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the feedback. I checked the links in your reply and they will definetely come in handy! I removed the "spoiler alert' and the last paragraph in the plot section.

Apart from the "speculative claims" bit, The "Nazi references" section is mostly paraphrasing and quoting primary source material. I could just neutraly summarize the relevant parts of the plot and describe the visuals without attaching the obvious conclusions. The "strong female" section is already for the most part descriptive, I would only need to leave out the last sentence (about the "damsel in distress" trope not applying)

What concerns me the most is the "noble savage" section. It would trouble me to leave it out, since I do think my personal analysis there meets academic standards. Is there a way around it? Likewise I feel that the blog content (which I was planning on including) is often more insightful than the published material. I defenitely wouldn't consider the latter to be the more "reliable source".

"the prose is a little hard to follow" Could you clarify that a little more, please? - contentwise, grammatically, ...

thank you for your time!

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergewisbaar (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vergewisbaar: my answer to the last question is both. Keep in mind that not all readers are going to be gamers - you want to explain or link terms like "Hack 'n Slash" and "NPC". Grammar is also a problem: consider for example "an Allied Mallus force that previously tried to infiltrate the Gaits rangs" - do you mean "ranks"?
Blogs can be included - you might have a look at the video game sourcing guideline as well. But your own analysis, even if it meets academic standards, is more problematic. If you really can't find sourcing to support it I'm afraid you'll need to omit it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice...[edit]

Nikki, if you've got a moment, I'm after a quick bit of advice. I've just been dealing with some cut and pasting at East Weare Battery, where a lot of copyrighted material had made its way in across the article, and have had to revert it back to a safe state. Looking back at the contributions from the main editor, I think there are a lot of articles with close paraphrasing and straightforward copyright vio issues. It's clearly been good faith editing, but the problems seem to be widespread. Do we have an established approach for dealing with this kind of good-faith issue? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hchc2009, if you can find five or more clear examples of copyvio (whether cutting and pasting or obviously too-close paraphrasing) in the work of a good-faith editor, that issue should be raised at WP:CCI so that their body of work can be evaluated in detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of archives in France[edit]

As the entries I am creating on the Archives Wiki can contain current external links not present on the FrWP pages I am taking basic details from what is the best way of indicating that the AW pages should be checked? (VisualEditor is needed to modify some of the FrWP pages or I would do so myself). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackiespeel, FrWP still has a "Modifier le code" (wikitext editor) option, as well as a preferences option to disable, doesn't it? That would probably be the best way to incorporate any relevant external links there, unless I'm misunderstanding your question. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Slightly beyond my level of French' :) ('Code is code') Jackiespeel (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't think I'm understanding you here. You want to tell FrWP about AW because your lack of French makes it difficult to add the ELs yourself there? It would take more French to explain that to them than to just add the links...Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did try - and left a few notes on FrWP. When I transfer the entries back to En:WP which tag do I add for 'translate from the corresponding Fr:WP page' (and do I have to add the URL)? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When transferring from Fr to En, you should attribute the source in your edit summary, and you can add {{translated page}} to the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will try when I get that far :)

Using AW theoretically enables more interaction than in a sandbox. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muppets template[edit]

Why are you removing the Muppets template now after all these years? It makes absolutely 0, 0 sense!! Ah ah ah ah ah!! -- Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 00:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grouches, as I mentioned to you, we can't include user-generated links in the EL sections of biographies of living people; that template generates such a link. If it's really essential that we are consistent throughout this set of biographies, then we must exclude it from all of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, have you actually removed that template from every article that relates to the Muppet World?? -- Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close - there are dozens of transclusions. However, we cannot use the template on BLPs or articles with implications for living people. And if you are concerned about consistency, we should remove it from all biographies. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close - if one article has the template, then they should all contain it, especially the great man himself: James Maury Henson. -- Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 01:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll go with no articles having it, because we cannot put it in those biographies. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. -- Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 10:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're here - linkvio does not constitute a reliable secondary source, which is needed to support an independent article for Irvine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell isn't Muppet Wiki considered to b a reliable source?!?! Seriously how the hell much more reliable can you get?? - Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 01:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much much more. Open wikis can be edited by anyone - they might be right, they might be wrong, and they change from day to day. They lack expert authors or trustworthy publishers to validate their content. 01:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Any chance of another review favour?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Tim Riley and I have recently been working on P.G. Wodehouse; this article is now at FAC and I hope I can tempt you into doing the source review, if you have the time to spare? Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About alternate future[edit]

There is a channel youtube made for mapping, so it decided to change the alternate future page. The edits I done were about mapping mappers needed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.48.73 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP: as I mentioned on your talk page, you will need independent reliable sourcing to support your proposed addition. The YouTube channel itself and another wiki do not qualify for that purpose. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/High Orbit Ion Cannon[edit]

Nikkimaria, a new reviewer pointed out some identical phrases between article and sources in this one last month, but when the copyvio detector didn't highlight them again this month, had given the DYK nomination a tick before I intervened. Can you please check to see how prevalent the close paraphrasing/copyvio is here? If it's sufficiently serious, I'd imagine you'd want to tag the article and/or pull problematic material from it. Many thanks for whatever you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it and posting to the nomination. It was a great help. Can I ask you to take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa Railway? It's just been withdrawn by the nominator after there having been disagreement between nominator and reviewers over close paraphrasing. I was wondering whether this is something that should be marked on the article (or even excised), or if it is not sufficiently a problem to warrant a template or other action. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i want to know you[edit]

HI maria Abd alwahd sadok (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

rm non-RS[edit]

what does that mean??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubisticmage626 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cubisticmage626, it means "remove non-reliable source - we should not include references to external wikis. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Forlong[edit]

Hi Nikki,

I see you removed a paragraph on Gordon Forlong's descendants, even though there was a source for it. I'm curious as to why you did that. The paragraph didn't mention any of them by name, so privacy concerns can't have had anything to do with it. Some other reason, perhaps? David Cannon (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, the source that was included was not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining! I get it now:-) David Cannon (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.[edit]

The knowledge facilitator award
I don't know if you prefer stars, strawberries, waffles, kittens, puppies, or whatnot, but I'll bet you like libraries. Here's a library for you. I just wanted to give a note of appreciation for all the hard work you do at Wikipedia Libraries, the clerking you do to make resources available to content builders. Thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, 78.26! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mail ?[edit]

Hi, I did not get any mail ? Shrikanthv (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shrikanthv, are you talking about the message from April? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015[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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you![edit]

This is a cupcake to MUSE over. LOL. Thank you for all your hard work. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Independence of Panama from Spain[edit]

Nikkimaria, it appears that the article of the two that you were concerned about has been expanded to 1585 prose characters. Can you please check, and if you feel it appropriate, restore the tick? (Alternatively, I can ask Cwmhiraeth to restore the tick if you'd prefer.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/In silico clinical trials[edit]

Nikkimaria, can you please take a look at this? I gather that the source of some closely paraphrased material has a CC license that allows copying, but isn't something more required here? I don't want this to be promoted and have to pulled back; if there's some additional crediting that needs to be done, it should be done sooner rather than later. (The nomination's our oldest at this point...) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: it was just promoted to prep from March 26, so if there's any credit that needs adding, is it something you can do rather than pulling it back? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Credit added; however, Yoninah, just FYI, the source is okay as CC BY 4.0, but if it had been CC BY-SA 4.0 it would not be usable, per WP:COMPLIC. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for covering my back. I'm completely unfamiliar with this sort of thing. Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. Glad it's now compliant and can safely proceed. Yoninah, I appreciate your work in getting this nomination finally out the door and into prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering a classical music Wikipedia assignment, need some guidance![edit]

I found your name on the 'Campus Volunteers' list, and am hoping you could give me some advice on getting started with a new Wikipedia assignment in a freshman-level music course. I'm looking at the idea of having students expand composer stubs. Advice on getting started, as this would be my first stab at using Wikipedia in an assignment? Many thanks! MusicUWT (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

Proposed deletion of King's Quest fan games[edit]

The article King's Quest fan games has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic London 14:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Findmypast.com[edit]

Hi Nikki. Sorry to drag this up again but, despite your thoughtful input, the thread over at WP:RSN seemed to run out of steam without any conclusion being reached. Although User:Primefac's crusade against findmypast.com was (apparently) short-lived, I'd appreciate your views on the specific case at Sunetra Sarker, as an example. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martinevans123, I would argue that in that particular example the use of Findmypast is fine - it's augmenting a secondary source, is an accurate reflection of the original record, and is not a particularly exceptional claim - but obviously others have different interpretations of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the input. I may try again. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, I would appreciate it if you would stop slandering my name every time you canvass to make your point making me out to be the bad guy. I did not have a "crusade," I did not tarnish the foundation of Wikipedia; I found a poor source and took BOLD steps to remove it. I did something, you didn't like it, and that's fine, but I'm not some evil corporation or supervillian that needs to be taken down. Feel free to continue asking for third opinions, but please stop making it a "me vs them" situation. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're over-reacting. I didn't actually mean you'd been off the Holy Land to fight with the infidel. Where else exactly have I "slandered" you? I just think your block of changes were too bold. There is still some debate about whether it's a "poor source" or not, and you gave no view at the WP:RSN thread I opened. Apologies, Nikki, for the intrusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, I was thinking of your comments on my talk page which were in a similar vein, and by human nature the only things we remember are the most obvious. My apologies for hyperbolism w.r.t. your references of me; I have refactored my comment above in that light. I never posted at RSN because the comments supporting the non-use of FMP were in line with my own, better worded than I would have written, and thus rather than simply add a "Support" comment with little extra information I decided to not comment. As you have mentioned above, my actions were short-lived because I realised that I was not proceeding in the most appropriate manner (though I did not feel that my edits were incorrect enough to merit reversal). Primefac (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My use of the phrase "personal vendetta" at your Talk Page was not meant to imply that you were an actual member of cosa nostra. You didn't complain at the time. I see you've archived that thead now, so I'm unable to correct "aaace" to "apace". I'm sure you edit in good faith and, like me, are only striving to improve Wikipedia. I think we'd better leave Nikki in peace now. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Johann Lukas Legrand[edit]

Nikkimaria, there was some question about close paraphrasing raised by one reviewer, who hasn't yet returned to respond to the article's author. Can you please take a look and see whether there is indeed any close paraphrasing? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset , the reviewer seems to be suggesting close paraphrasing of a German source - my German is not good enough to evaluate that properly. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, and sorry for bothering you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No bother - thanks for your work keeping track of these. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(mos, rm non-RS)[edit]

(mos, rm non-RS) in english? ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)

Hi Xb2u7Zjzc32, if you see an abbreviation or acronym you don't understand, a good place to start would be to search it with WP: - in this case, WP:MOS refers to our Manual of Style, while WP:RS details what kinds of sources are (or in this case, are not) reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Newspaper Archives[edit]

Hello. I'd like to renew my subscription. Do I need to request a new subscription, or will there be another way? Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff5102, you can request a renewal through the regular application list at WP:BNA - just mention there that you previously had access. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Babette Haag[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this one. Although this is one of those transwiki articles, a key source—the copyrighted English translation of Haag's bio on the bach-cantatas website—is where there were apparently issues earlier, with the English version of the article being too close to the one at bach-cantatas. I'm not asking for a German check, just the English versions. There was some work to reduce the close paraphrasing; I wanted to know whether it was sufficient, or that you felt it needed further work. Thanks for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, I'd say the paraphrasing is adequate with regards to the English bio. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Glad it's all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

BNA[edit]

Hi, sorry to trouble you, i was approved by yourself for the BNA, that was a couple of weeks ago, i filled in all the forms as requested but i am still showing as only 3 pages to view on the website? just wondering if you know how long it normally takes to get approved by the BNA? Again sorry if i am being impatient. Iantheimp (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iantheimp, I will follow up with this on Monday. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chetro Ketl[edit]

Hello. Chetro Ketl is now a featured article candidate. Are you willing to provide an image and source review? RO(talk) 18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Hi, I notice that you change {{reflist|2}} into {{reflist|30em}}, like you did on Beit Wazan, may I ask why? For me, this is rather inconvenient: I now get all the references in one column, instead of two: much more to scroll on my 13 inch Mac. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huldra, per the template documentation fixed number of columns has been deprecated in favour of colwidth, which produces an appropriate output for a greater number of users. In cases where it doesn't (such as yours), we should be able to address the problem by changing the width of the column - for example, does going down to 25 or even 20em produce a better output on your screen? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! When it was changed to 25em, it worked fine for me: (=got two columns).
Another question though: I thought is was decided to have {{reflist}} {{refbegin}} {{refend}} all with small letters; but I see at that template documentation that they use {{Reflist}} {{Refbegin}} {{Refend}}? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, template calls are generally first-letter case insensitive, so they should work whether they're capitalized or not. I know there was some dispute about AWB changing the caps some time ago, not sure how that worked out. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. And yeah, I see both capitalised and not all over the place, and both works. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ali Marpet[edit]

Nikkimaria, this nomination clearly needs someone experienced in close paraphrasing issues to comment on whether the article has such problems, so I'm hoping you can do so. (I would frankly want someone other than the person who most recently commented to do the examination given the disclaimer made in that comment.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether you could also take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Price Creek, Pancoast Creek; there seems to be divergent opinions as to whether there is or is not close paraphrasing, and as it has just been approved, I'm hoping you can take a look before it gets promoted. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BlueMoonset, I'm not seeing anything really concerning, but my access to sources for those two articles is limited enough that I wouldn't be able to sign off on spotchecking. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keesing's[edit]

Re: Bejnar Unfortunately, I am not interested in access to Keesing's at present. I do not have enough time for Wikipedia really until Thanksgiving. Right now I only have very intermittent access to the Internet, and as you may note my edit count is way down. Thanks. Yes, next year (2016) I would be very interested. --Bejnar (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 6 July[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Lukas Legrand[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. I wonder if I could persuade you to take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Johann Lukas Legrand? There is a disagreement over whether or not close paraphrasing exists in this nomination and an informed opinion would be very helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass, see above: it is certainly possible for close paraphrasing to be a problem in translations, but I don't feel my German abilities are sufficient to judge whether it is a problem in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the quick response. I guess we will have to resolve this some other way. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/National Smart Grid Mission[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just noticed that Cwmhiraeth attempted to ping you from this DYK nomination. Since you haven't replied, I'm assuming that pinging still doesn't work for you from template pages, and thought I'd let you know directly. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April–June 2015 MilHist reviewing award[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
For completing 29 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Ian! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_30&oldid=1088855047"