User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 31

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

The Wikipedia Library[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, how did you achieve that the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library were sent to users from your BBlist? In other words: can I get invitation templates sent to editors also, and how? Thank you for your help! --Miraclexix (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miraclexix, see WP:MMS for information on how to do this. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! --Miraclexix (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sumgait pogrom/GA1[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was hoping I could ask you to take a look at the article for copyvio/close paraphrasing. As you can see from my comment right after the nomination was passed, I found not only regular issues that should have been fixed, but a passage that clearly did not respect copyright, being either a copyvio or a very close paraphrase. My question is whether the issues are sufficient such that the article should be tagged with a close paraphrasing template or worse. Thank you for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BlueMoonset, I think a GAR would be the most appropriate step here - would you like to initiate that or should I? I noted some close paraphrasing but far more instances of material that was unsourced or not supported by the given citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I think you should definitely initiate the GAR; I'm not going to have time to work on it this month. I should point you at the discussion I started here, since the review was done by a new reviewer who started as part of this year's GA Cup. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 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.

Template:Did you know nominations/Racket Brook[edit]

Nikkimaria, this nomination seems to have foundered on whether there is any close paraphrasing or not. Can you please take a look? If there isn't any, then the review should go forward; Copyvio detector is a tool that needs to be used with a great deal of care, and I'm not at all sure that was the case here. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Coffee production in Peru[edit]

Nikkimaria, you found enough PD material in this one to keep it from being approved; they've subsequently pinged you from the template (which you don't see because pinging doesn't work for you), so I imagine you'll want to take a look the next chance you get. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Bregman[edit]

Nikkimaria, there's a request from the reviewer of this nomination to have "someone with more experience in assessing" close paraphrasing take a look at the article. Since you're the best I know in that area, I'm hoping you can stop by. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Roving reference[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question on Halifax Explosion[edit]

I meant to ask earlier but forgot - is there a reason why you switched the date format to DMY from MDY? I know CANSTYLE says either is acceptable, but DMY is exceedingly rare in modern usage in English Canada, in my experience, and even in 1917, it MDY was common if newspapers of the time are anything to go by. Also, the original version of the article was MDY. It's just a little jarring to me. Resolute 23:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Resolute, the version I saw had a mix of date formats (particularly in the citations), so I just picked DMY because that's the one I prefer and is more widely used globally. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mkay. I figured it was something along those lines. Thanks, Resolute 00:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPS images on Facebook[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Thanks for the recent image review. I was wondering about NPS images posted to Facebook, and what I need to do to utilize them here. Is it enough to just link to the image page as a source? Thanks! RO(talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RO, can you give me a bit more context here? Are these NPS images posted by NPS to their own official Facebook page? Images posted by someone else but credited to NPS? Some other situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I should have just given you the link that made me wonder about it in the first place: ([1]). RO(talk) 22:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - official page, official account, no indication of other provenance. We're fine to use that with just the Facebook source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 12[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

Too Much Too Soon (album)[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Would you be willing to perform spotchecks and a source review at my FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? Dan56 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFA image[edit]

Hi Nikki. As our image expert I have a question for you. I currently have the article Tank Girl (film) at FAC (Incidentally if you could do an image review for the article that would be really appreciated) and i'm searching flickr for an appropriate image for the article if it ever gets features at TFA, but i've never had a good understanding of image licenses. Is the licence this photo has [2] (some rights reserved) OK for featuring on the front page for either DYK or TFA? I'm not sure if that's the image i'll want to use, just wanted to check for future use if that licence is OK for the main page, as there are a plethora of images with that same licence. Thanks for your help. Freikorp (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freikorp, short answer: yes.
Long answer: "some rights reserved" on Flickr covers several different licenses, so if you don't know what the symbols mean, you should click on that to find the full license. In this case, it's CC BY-SA, which we can use; we would also be able to use CC BY. Anything that has NC or ND in it, we can't use (unless under fair use). Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, thanks again. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another reviewing favour request[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well with you. Ihave recently been working on the Hitler Diaries article, which has just been through a very positive and beneficial PR; the article has now moved on to FAC, and I wonder if you would be able to cast your eagle eyes over the sources. Many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SchroCat, I've done that - could I interest you in my FAC? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure - it'd be nice to return at least one of the favours I owe you! I'll be there in the next couple of days (picking my daughter up from school shortly). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick glance at the lead - it looks fascinating (and horrific too!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NM, I know I'm being greedy on this one, but can I ask for an image review too? Crisco, who I normally strong arm into doing them, has his,hands full in RL at the moment and doesn't have time. He did his usual good job on them in the PR, and I think I covered all his points there, but could I ask for a check to see if I missed anything? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elselvier Science Direct[edit]

Sorry to bother, Nik - but I'm having a time trying to sign-in to Elsevier to read the following text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24290641/

Anything you can do on your end? Thanks in advance. --Atsme📞📧 14:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Atsme, two quick questions first: can you access other articles, and if not have you been able to previously? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't even login - says it doesn't recognize my username, email addy, or anything. I tried several. Atsme📞📧 14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've sent an email off to our contact at Elsevier, and hopefully we can get this resolved. In the interim, if you send me an email I can forward a copy of that article for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the PDF file. I'm not quite sure why I've had so much trouble logging in. It's a recurring problem. Atsme📞📧 11:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO question[edit]

What is Wikipedia's policy on text taken from the World Heritage encyclopedia? Is it acceptable to copy/paste that into Wikipedia article, as has been done on websited like Project Gutenberg[3] or hawaiilibrary.net[4]? Cassianto recommended you for sourcing questions, and I am still learning things. Thanks in advance for your assistance! Scr★pIronIV 19:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ScrapIronIV, there are actually two issues to consider here: copyright and provenance. On the first point, we are fine copyright-wise so long as we attribute the copied material as described here. However, when it comes to provenance...the vast majority of WHE's content is copied from us to begin with. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project MUSE[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I was wondering about the Project MUSE subscription. I returned the form around 9 June when I received it, so let me know whether I should resend it. If it's just that it takes time to organize, I understand. Best, Sarah (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, according to my records I emailed you a login on 7 July - possibly it's in your spam folder? If you don't see it send me an email. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you! It was in my spam folder. Sarah (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Kashtariti[edit]

Nikkimaria, the reviewer was concerned about copyright issues given the quoting in the various reference entries. The nominator hasn't responded, and seems to have done 160 total edits on Wikipedia, all between May 24 and June 12 of this year. I wanted to consult you to see whether these issues are something we indeed need to be concerned about. If so, please let me know what you advise regarding the nomination. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, the quoting was excessive, so I've removed some of the larger quotes from the footnotes - the article text itself looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Findmypast[edit]

Hi Nikki. Just checking if you know when the latest approvals might come through. I know they might be waiting for enough applicants to make a batch but thought I would leave this note here because it has been a while now. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddaido, your email has been passed on to FMP already so we're just waiting for them to approve you. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Eddaido (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BNA renewal progress?[edit]

Did the British Newspaper Archive give an indication of when they might restart authorizing subscription renewals? Thanks! Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupert Clayton, we're expecting it will be later this week or early next. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (and the BNA)! There's no special rush. I just wanted to check that renewals were still planned. Rupert Clayton (talk)
Hi again. Is anything happening on the WP:BNA renewals? I see that some of the first requests do appear to have been processed, but it seems nothing is happening with the later ones. Should I just hold tight? Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - we're working on transitioning to a new coordinator there so have been a bit delayed in getting requests processed. I'm hoping this will be resolved shortly, so thanks for your continued patience. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for the update. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Taylor & Francis[edit]

I still have not received an email... Is something wrong? --TIAYN (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TIAYN, I sent it the same day as the approval...could you please send me an email and I'll forward the information? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how do I send you an e-mail? --TIAYN (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TIAYN: Special:Emailuser/Nikkimaria. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project:MUSE[edit]

Hey there! I know you are pretty swamped, I'm sure, as a volunteer, but I was approved for MUSE access, got an email, and then filled out the appropriate form over week ago and there has been no response. Is that normal? I only really noticed because I have a tab open with a MUSE article so I keep getting reminded I can't read it yet. :-) Ogress smash! 01:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ogress, it usually takes a couple of weeks from approval to distribution - we have to collect a batch of emails, pass them on to MUSE, get logins back and then hand those out. In the interim, if you wanted to email me with the citation you're interested in I can see about passing on a copy. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FA review of Ketogenic diet[edit]

I believe I have followed the guidelines for requesting a FA review. I have done this on the talk page of the article. The major editor/contributor initially wrote that he would address my concerns regarding the references in the article. No progress has been done to address my concerns and I, with no malice, want to proceed with the process of a review of its FA status. The major problems are: the references are quite outdated. I have posted other references and left this information on the talk page. I would have edited and inserted the updated references myself but I do not feel as if I have the expertise or familiarity with the topic to do so or I would have fixed it myself. Another significant problem is that the references do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. The references in medical articles should be academic journal review articles, systematic review articles, governmental websites and policies and medical textbooks. I could find none of these as sources (there might one and I might have missed it). My review is not perfect but in good faith, I am optimistic that with the right sources, this article can retain its FA status. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bfpage, that's fine - if you want to proceed with an FAR, go ahead with step 2 and on of the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. Hopefully your concerns will be addressed over the course of the formal review. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed step two. You can see the discussion on the talk page. BTW, I don't like doing this. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to cancel and remove my request to review the FA article Ketogenic diet. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, noted, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrow Road[edit]

Thanks for your view at the FAC. I've subsequently added the photo from 1979 - could you please just check you're happy with it? --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, that image looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smashing, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

Image question[edit]

Hi Nikki, do you happen to have an OTRS account? I have an article at ACR and am just a little leery of the supposed origin of the lead image (File:PollardRG1963.2.jpg) as described on the Commons page so was hoping to get it checked... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I don't, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, I'll leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I came across this...[edit]

I'm not really sure anything is pertinent to the Halifax Explosion article, but it is fascinating to read about how close history came to repeating itself during the Second World War: [5]. Resolute 00:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C1cada[edit]

Hi Nikki,

I am the user [c1cada for whom you arranged a subscription to Hein online.

Unfortunately I have been blocked and you should therefore cancel the subscription. I am not able to appeal my block for privacy concerns. I'm already in serious shit with my employers over it, on several counts.

It's a pity because I had wanted to make substantial contributions to a number of ongoing cases involving privacy and internet surveillance, but I simply cannot if I risk my identity becoming known.

It goes on and on this saga of mob rule by a privileged self-appointed "elite" on Wikipedia. I see no hope for your project if it not rooted out.

Thank you for your pleasant interactions. 128.90.116.188 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC) (c1cada)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, c1cada. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi- I got your email back in December 2015 inquiring about my Hein online subscription. I have been using it and thank you for setting it up for me! SteamWiki (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A326[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria

Sure , I can volunteer to set up small branch on Somalia wikipedia --A326 20:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks A326, could you please send me an email so we can talk about that? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Nikkimaria

I just wanna make sure if up emailed me. thanks A326 talk)--A326 16:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A326, thanks, I'll be following up with that this week or next. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. 450 Sqn FAC[edit]

Hi Nikki, are you able to follow up on the image discussion here? Also would you mind conducting a source review for formatting? (AC has spotchecked for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing.) cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Underwater Love (Smoke City song)[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to take a look at this one when you get the chance? There were significant issues with an earlier version, some involving overquoting and similarity to source material, and while I think much of that material has been excised, I'd like a check on the issues you specialize in. (I have noted what the minimum 5x expansion number is, though ostensibly DYKcheck is satisfied that it currently meets that requirement.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, I don't see any overly close paraphrasing in the current version. There is a rather unusual problem with regards to quoting, though: because the text of FN5 is so short, the quoted excerpt represents essentially the entire review, which is problematic in terms of fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC

vi:Wikipedia:Thảo luận/Wikipedia:Thư viện Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, I've already subscribed to Science for one year (personally, not through any institutes), but my subscription will expire soon in a couple of weeks. Can I still apply to Wikipedia:AAAS? By the way, I don't have enough 500 edits here, because my main wiki is vietnamese. I would be very appreciated if you give me a slot, so that I can help my wiki :) Na Tra (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Na Tra, yes, you can - just please let us know when your subscription will expire. I will post there about the more general issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Actually my subscription has expired on 15 July, but they have said that I will still be able to receive several more issues of Science as a courtesy, so I don't know when my subscription really ends. Therefore if possible, I would like to apply to Wikipedia:AAAS right away. If you need a confirmation of my subscription, I can email you Na Tra (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've read again recently the rules. Unfortunately my account is only 1 month old :( not enough 6 months. But in that short time I have done in Vietnamese Wikipedia over 1700 edits, extended extensively vi:Acrocanthosaurus and vi:Danh sách khủng long so that they become featured. Will I still be eligible? Or do I have to see you next year :( Na Tra (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Na Tra, you can still apply - we do have the ability to consider special cases. Depending on how many more apply you might have to wait though. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'm applying now. Thank you very much :) Na Tra (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check needed[edit]

I hate to keep asking for favors, but per this thread: User talk:Ian Rose#Chetro Ketl spot check, are you willing to provide a spot check? RO(talk) 15:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikki. Sorry to bother you again, but Ian said once you sign off on the spot check the article will be ready for promotion: ([6]). Is there anything in particular standing in the way? RO(talk) 17:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ibrahim Artan[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria

Ahmed Ibrahim Artan is Somali Politician who is running president in 2016 , and his page has been deleted for several times. I'm looking help if you can restore me that page.Willing helpful thanks--A326 17:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A326 (talk • contribs)

Hi A326, can you give me a sense of what kind of sourcing is available to support an article? Are there offline or Somali-language sources that could be used? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Ahmed is former adviser of the Somali president and there are a lot of source on google this news is one of them take a look http://sirqarsoon.com/2015/07/09/bari-an-arid-region-of-north-east-somalia-declared-itself-an-autonomous-state-in-today-2/ --A326 18:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC) A326 talk

Okay. I see you have a version in your userspace - can you add some representative sourcing to that? I'd like to get a sense of what the article will say and how readily it can be supported. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of sourcing but most of are written Somali language http://www.allcarmo.com/2015/01/09/qoraga-weyn-ahmed-ibrahim-artan-oo-soo-ban-dhigay-buugaag-hor-leh/

http://somali.raxanreeb.com/2015/05/shirka-wadatshiga-puntland-wq-ahmed-haaji-ibrahim-artan-beeldaaje-axmed-xaaji-bakiin/ http://horseedmedia.net/2014/12/01/halaaga-tahriibta-iyo-hadimadiisa/

I hope that will be good sourcing to support that article. Thanks for your helpful A326 talk
That second one looks like a particularly good source...is this the content you want the article to have or are you still working on it? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'll write correct info. Thanks A326 talk — Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected you can restore now thank's for your wonderful help (UTC)A326 talk--A326 21:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria , I have problem with Username Gyrofrog that user trying to delete that article , and I don't why does always needs to delete. please I need your help thanks (UTC)A326 talk --A326 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ], Kiran Segal, Kumkum Lal, Madhavi Mudgal, [[Madhumita Raut]], Manoranjan Pradhan, Meera Das], [[Minati Mishra]], Muralidhar Majhi, [[Nandita Behera]], Natabar Maharana, [[Oopali Operajita]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

Nuckelavee FAC[edit]

Sorry it's taken a while to follow up, Nikki, but were you satisfied with the outcome of your source review here? The discussion did seem to develop a life of its own... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a chance to follow up on the Chetro Ketl spotcheck as well, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, from my perspective Nuckelavee is good to go, Chetro Ketl not quite yet - I've responded on that one there. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article reviewing?[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria! I'm interested in learning to do GA reviews, and I found your name on a list of potential mentors. Would you be willing to guide or oversee my work on my first GA review? I picked your name from the list because I saw you aren't interested in pop culture or sports, and I'm not either, so I thought there might be an article in the GA nominations queue that might interest both of us. However, I see from your user page that you're mostly doing FA reviews now, so maybe you wouldn't want to do GA reviewing. Either way, thanks! valereee (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi valereee, I'd be happy to help - do you have a particular article in the queue that's caught your eye, or a topic area of interest? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thanks so much! Well, I just recently nominated an article under food and agriculture, so although that's one of my main editing interests, I would think I should probably stay away from the category. Psychology is an interest of mine (my undergrad is in Psych) and there is actually an interesting one there: Broken heart. Does that interest you at all? It's not very long and doesn't have large numbers of references, and I'd feel fairly confident in assessing reliability of references and/or any dubious assertions drawn.
One caveat -- I'm actually headed out on a week's trip tomorrow morning and will have limited access, although it's likely I'll be able to get online for about an hour a day, all in one chunk, fingers crossed -- would that be an issue with starting it, do you think? It was nominated in March, so it's not likely someone's going to grab it up before I get back; we could just wait to start.  :)
Thank you very much for your time! I really appreciate your willingness to help. valereee (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi valereee, that article sounds interesting! With regards to timing, it would certainly be possible to complete a review on an hour a day, but at the same time I don't want you to feel like you have to be checking in or spending a lot of time on-wiki under those circumstances. If you would prefer to wait to start, that would be fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, waiting is probably the smart thing to do -- I'd hate to start out badly because I wasn't able to give timely attention to the discussion. Shall I post here when I get back? Should be sometime the 7th. valereee (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, we'll talk more then. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back! Is this still a convenient time for you? valereee (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Valereee, now's fine! You can create the review page and start by checking the quickfail criteria - let me know what you find or if you need help with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does a recent nom for merge make it a quickfail? On skim (that is, I haven't done any actual research to match text for copyvio), everything else looks good for passing quickfail. valereee (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not usually, although later you will want to consider the impact of merging vs not merging on the article's breadth. For copyvio, you don't have to check every sentence and every source, but some degree of spotchecking is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, is there a copyvio checker that you prefer? The ones I've found are pretty annoying due to popups etc. I'm not too worried about this particular article as I think the writing generally shows signs of not being professionally edited, but I'd like to complete the step anyway. valereee (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig's and DupDet are both pretty good, but see also User:Nikkimaria/How_to_spotcheck#Copyvio.2Fparaphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks, that's so much better -- and even a tutorial! Jackpot. Okay, so I did find a couple of close paraphrases from two sources. I think it could be a fairly quick fix; does it still require a quick fail, or can I work with the nominator on it? valereee (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it will be easy to fix you can proceed with a full review and include it as a pass requirement there (ie. put on hold until fixed, or fail with full review if you find other problems). Keep in mind that if you only checked a few sources and found problems, it would probably be a good idea to check more to see how pervasive the problem is. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the sources thru Earwig's tool, and those two were the only ones that actually looked concerning. I also checked with search engine results enabled, and one other came up at 93%, but it was a spam site that had clearly copied the article in its entirety at some point. Great, I'll go ahead and talk to the nominator on the review page about this. valereee (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I must add that the longer the article has been up, the more useless earwig's tool is; it grabs mirror sites and flags direct quotations - Nikki, for a great example of the limitations, run California Chrome through it... it flags an article written after we did most of the work on it... someone vaguely threatened to drag me to a drama board over a copyvio because of earwig, luckily nothing came of it. That said, earwig does a good job of highlighting phrases and so at least it's clear what's being flagged... no replacement for eyes-on. Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's why I linked my guide above too (Montana, feel free to add to that if you like). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, the nominator emailed to ask if I'd just fail the article, as another editor who the nominator has had ongoing edit conflicts with has become involved in the review. I went ahead and failed it to the best of my understanding, but if you'd check Talk:Broken heart to make sure I did it correctly, I'd appreciate it. After having done some editing on it myself, I am in agreement that the article was going to take significantly more work than I'd initially thought. There were writing issues and sourcing issues at minimum, and extremely likely at least some organizational issues. Thank you for your help; I'm planning on looking for another article to review. If I have questions, may I bring them to you? valereee (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi valereee, everything seems to be in order. Feel free to bring more questions any time! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria! I've just conducted a GA review at Talk:Three Sisters Tavern/GA1 and I was wondering if you'd give it a quick look. I'm ready to pass it, but I want to just confirm that I'm not passing an article that doesn't meet the critieria w/re: my concerns mentioned in 2b, 3a, and 3b. valereee (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee, 2b should not be a barrier to passing. 3a is a fair point, but if the sourcing doesn't exist...well, GA doesn't require the same level of comprehensiveness as FA, so that's okay as well. With regards to the point you raised in 3b, there's another issue to consider beyond the stylistic one: fair use. In short, we're allowed to quote from sources, but when the quotation becomes extensive and the source is relatively short, you'll want to check that it still meets the fair use criteria. (A rule of thumb that's often seen is no more than 10% of the source can be reproduced - guidance varies). In this case I think it should be acceptable, so feel free to go ahead and pass the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria! Thanks so much! Yes, the longish quotes came from much longer articles, definitely less than ten percent. Great, I appreciate your time and help! valereee (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library mails[edit]

Dear NikkiMaria,

I'm glad that I was approved for SAGE Stats and Taylor & Francis. Have you already sent e-mails to me? If so, they haven't reached me. I'm sorry if I disturbed you and you just haven't sent them yet.--Kopiersperre (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kopiersperre, yes, I have sent them - if they are not in your spam folder please send me an email and I will forward them to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the mail. I had got one mail about Taylor & Francis on July 15, but nothing more.--17:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopiersperre (talk • contribs)
Hi NikkiMaria, You asked me to say what collection I wanted to use. I am interested in the Arts & Humanities collection. Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions re: MIT Journals[edit]

I think I may remember receiving your email. I'm sorry I didn't respond immediately. Much uproar here! I may have accidently deleted it. I can't seem to locate it. Could you possibly resend? Thank you, either way, for all you continue to do. 205.197.242.154 (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC) [the Ragityman][reply]

Hey Ragityman, I've re-sent that email. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor & Francis[edit]

Hi NikkiMaria. Not a word received so far about the T&F account. While I think about it, is there any news about the re-activation of the BL Newspaper account? It expired a while back and I applied for re-activation. Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apwoolrich, I've re-sent the T&F email. With regards to BNA, we're expecting renewals to be processed any time now - thanks for your patience! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

highbeam[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Why am I faced when signing up with the following message? Wikipedia:HighBeam#Apply_or_renew_your_account Our Apologies An error occurred on the page you were attempting to view. This error has been logged and will be reviewed by our technical staff. We apologize for the inconvenience.--MohandesWiki 15:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohandesWiki (talk • contribs)

Hi MohandesWiki, what is the URL at which you see that message? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Truett[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to please take a look at this article for copyvio and close paraphrasing? The comments section of FN6 was used for a clear copyvio, in my opinion, but running the copyvio detector shows some very disturbing near-identical sections from a few other sources, most of which seem to precede the Wikipedia article.

This article was just the subject of a problematic GA review, which only mentioned some sourcing issues before ostensibly failing it (and since one was the comment section of an otherwise likely article, should have identified the lifted prose), but the failure was also not properly done, leaving the review open. Please do whatever's necessary to the article; I'm on a very busy schedule and can't take more time on this for now. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

Granularity[edit]

A question you had on a composition talk has nothing to do with that article, therefore I come here. You kindly added the performance date in templated form. If you understand why that is superior - saying what this date means and even what the month is, easily translated to whatever date representation is wanted in any language - superior to some date arbitrarily added to the |composer= parameter, I don't have to explain anything else. Then you probably put the catalogue number, which is not part of the common name, to where it belongs: to |catalogue= ;) - More detail, remember, was given on Talk:Mont Juic (suite), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was posted at Mont Juic related to metadata, while you said that your argument had nothing to do with metadata - perhaps that is part of the confusion. But even then I don't understand your argument, as the catalogue parameter does not seem to emit metadata, and cannot change representation the way a multi-part date can (to DMY, MDY, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go Canada[edit]

Emma-Jayne Wilson leads term to win in the UK Shergar Cup: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/33836219 Sounds like an article improvement topic! Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Taylor & Francis[edit]

Hi Nikki, today I filled out the form, I was at Wikimania from july 15-20, and when I returned to my home I had an accident. I am sorry for the delay. Thanks.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BNA[edit]

Sorry to trouble you again, but any news about getting a subscription as i still haven't heard anything from BNA. Thank you (Iantheimp (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Iantheimp, you should have your access already - can you sign into your account and verify that you do not? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry just signed in and yes i have access, i was expecting a mail or something, sorry again for wasting your time.(Iantheimp (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Bernard Stone[edit]

Nikkimaria, the review by Yoninah identified several instances of close paraphrasing (or maybe copyvio) in the nominated article, which was listed as a GA a few days before being nominated (Talk:Bernard Stone/GA1). Can you please check to see just how serious this is, and whether anything needs to be done to the article itself for now? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your image and source reviews of Chetro Ketl, which is now a featured article. It was a long and interesting process, but thanks to a wealth of insights and suggestions the article is now among our best. Thanks for taking time out of your busy editing schedule to help me. RO(talk) 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 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.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 00:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage.
Message added 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MIT access[edit]

Hello, thanks for remaind me my request. I've received the mail and this morning I 've compiled the form. What's next? Thanks again Demostene119 (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Demostene119, I will include you in the next batch of users sent to MIT for processing - they will be activating your account, although it might take some time. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria, I'm here to say that I've got access to Mit press Journals, now I have a big mine to dig for Wikipedia. Thanks a lot.--Demostene119 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier Direct access[edit]

Thanks so much for the acceptance, I'd almost forgotten about my request, eek. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIT[edit]

Hello, thank you for reminding me about activating my email. I keep running into a bug in trying to confirm my email but I'm going to reach out to someone for help. Is there a certain date we have to be set-up by? Asdklf; (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdklf;, please have it done in the next two weeks if at all possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! Asdklf; (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

Nomination of Ahmed Ibrahim Artan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmed Ibrahim Artan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ibrahim Artan (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cantata misericordium[edit]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hello Nikki,

Can you do a source review for me over here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive2. It would be much appreciated. --ceradon (talk • edits) 21:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

spotchecks not done[edit]

Hello, does "spotchecks not done" mean I should request that someone else do them, or that you will do them later? I put a request on Talk FAC but now am not sure that was what you wanted, so I deleted it... tks • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Ling, spotchecks are not required for all FACs, that's just a courtesy of Nikki's so we know to pursue if we think necessary. In this case I'd like to see it (by Nikki if she has time, but others can do it too) and left a note at the review accordingly. You can put the request at the top of WT:FAC, where image and source review requests go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I put a notice atop WT:FAC. Thanks • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Carrow_Road/archive1#Image_review[edit]

Hi. Trying to make sure the FAC delegates have as easy a time as possible. Please could you return to this section and note if you're happy with things? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 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) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | death_place = Copenhagen, Denmark]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another image review request[edit]

Sorry to keep asking you for IRs, but this one should be about as fast and easy as they get: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Perovskia atriplicifolia/archive1. I'll understand if you're too busy. RO(talk) 20:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Fegelein ACR[edit]

Nikki, before I promote, can I just check you're okay with the response here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a case could be made for PD-shape, but if so that tag should be included on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks[edit]

Hello Nikki,

First, thank you for your image and source review at the Battle of Malvern Hill FAC. It's much appreciated. Now, I wonder if you could do a spotcheck review for the Malvern Hill article. I asked Casliber, but he seems to be busy, which is completely understandable. If you're up for it, I can send you the sources (if you don't have them from last time). Thank you, --ceradon 00:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but ... Ian, you know we did this last time, right? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I suppose he just wants to be sure. The article has gone under numerous copyedits. I'd pretty much assume that if there were any close paraphrasing, it would have been copyedited out by now. I suppose a check for verifiability wouldn't hurt though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --ceradon 00:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Have there been any significant additions since last time? I'd probably want to focus on those, if so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much just in the Battle section. Sources in your inbox, by the way. --ceradon 00:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will probably take a look tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thank you. --ceradon 00:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'll admit I'd forgotten we did this last time but OTOH we do have a second nominator this time so just a brief further check would be great. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar[edit]

The Invisible Barnstar
For excellent work copyediting and introducing minor fixes. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters at Heart[edit]

Hi Nikki,

Thank you for all the image reviews you do at FAC. Might you be willing to do one for Sisters at Heart? It's my current FAC. Your thoughts on the images or anything else about the article would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

Broken references[edit]

My URLs highlighted the search terms, which is extremely helpful to anyone wishing to verify content. As for the dashes, I don't really see why they should matter one way or the other, but you can keep them in if you like. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob, take a look at WP:PAGELINK - the page-specific link is the preferred option, not the search with highlighting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style does not trump that which makes verification easier and thus improves the wiki, nor is complete compliance with the manual of style a requirement for anything below featured articles. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't part of the Manual of Style, and going to the specific page being cited is easier for verification purposes than going to a list of search results. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What if multiple pages are cited? What if it's a snippet view and the URL has to be chosen very carefully to show any content at all? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a snippet view you're not supposed to add URLs at all. If there are multiple pages you can either link each individually or just use the first. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any benefits to such a rule; to me it seems that it only serves to make citations harder to verify. Either way, I was under the impression that here was no house citation style and that editors are free to cite their sources in any reasonable manner. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to re-raise the issue at WT:CITE, where that decision was originally made. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref and pg Question[edit]

Nikki, would the preferred style for citing same source-different page be the one suggested here Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: page numbers or the style currently used in United_States_v._Washington for citing Blumm? The latter seems cleaner without the page #s following inline but the list of refs look cluttered. Thank you in advance. Atsme📞📧 18:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atsme, there isn't really a preferred style - as long as the citations include page numbers somewhere and are consistent within the article, they're allowed. See WP:CITEVAR. As you point out, there might be reason to personally prefer one over the other (or to prefer an alternative format, such as a template like {{sfn}} coupled with a complete reference list in a separate section - I tend to use this), but that's not a requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

valid email enabled[edit]

RE:#:{{ping|Aspro}} You don't have a valid email enabled, could you please do so? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 16:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Err whoops... Having received emails from WP & WF I didn’t realizes I hadn’t clicked on Enable email from other users in Preferences. Is this now OK? ping --Aspro (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, for some reason it's now showing that you've chosen not to receive emails. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I did not click save. I which case My Bad. Clicked now.--Aspro (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Success![edit]

I set up my Highbeam access and already found a book review I needed for John J. Robinson. Also, in the interests of "leveraging", would it not make sense to have a template to put on an article, like when we source from the PD Britannica or the Catholic Encyclopedia? MSJapan (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSJapan, you mean templates like {{Catholic}}? These attribution templates are used where we are actually copying text from a PD or freely licensed source. Since HighBeam materials are generally not in that category, we shouldn't be copying from them and thus we shouldn't be using an attribution template. However, we do credit HighBeam in the citation by use of the via= parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Would you mind checking the ref I did add, then, to see if it is correct? I didn't use the citeweb template, but rather the external cite info from Highbeam (with additional access info). MSJapan (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - any citation format that is complete and consistent is permissible, and that one seems to contain everything needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism[edit]

Re; Halifax Explosion page:

I notice that you prefer to use secondary sources. However, in undoing the work of those that have posted primary sources as the basis for the information they present on this page, especially when your secondary sources are incorrect or do not contain the information provided by primary sources, it leaves one wondering why users such as yourself you are motivated to post false and inaccurate information. Not only that, in some instances you have plagiarized the work of one author by crediting it to another. This behaviour is not conducive to people in the know contributing to this or any other page on Wikipedia. It is obvious you do not possess the knowledge to support most of the changes you have made over the past year or so. One would think there would be some oversight to prevent revisionists such as yourself from making these arbitrary decisions and changes. It appears that this is the nature of Wikipedia. Nonetheless, if such behaviour is permitted to proliferate, then every piece of information on the page, true or not, becomes suspect as to its credibility.

dheffernen 99.192.70.73 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are generally preferred wiki-wide - see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Secondary sources by their nature discuss events presented by primary sources, so the simple fact of them not being the original source does not constitute plagiarism. In what specific instances do you feel this is a problem? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeding discussion moved to Talk:Halifax Explosion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scapegoat[edit]

You and your associates have determined thaT the book "Scapegoat" is not a viable resource - and presumably without reading the book - because. and I quote: :Scapegoat has a non-scholarly publisher and an author more noted for his work in music than his history background. Because of that, I would be very reluctant to prioritize that source over Armstrong or others."

I am removing all of my Wilipedia contributions from over the past three years regarding the information contained in this book. You can't have it both ways. So, please refrain from re-posting this information. Some other contributor will have to post information using some other resource.

Revisionism and hypocrisy are out of control on your website. As well, I will no longer be contributing to Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

\dheffernen Dheffernen (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dheffernen, to no longer contribute is of course your decision, but it is based on a miscommunication. I did not say that the source should be excised from Wikipedia entirely. What I said was it needs to be balanced against the weight of scholarly sources that present a different sequence of events. You are always welcome to continue the conversation at Talk:Halifax Explosion to find a way to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past year or so you have revised the Halifax Explosion page and have removed the sources of my contributions (e.g. "Imo vs. Mont Blanc" and "Scapegoat") and have credited the most of my my improvements to this page to sources other than those I had originally posted. Unlike my posts on other pages of Wikipedia, it is impossible for me to expunge my work from this page because of your endless and arbitrary revisions as it would disrupt the flow of this page too much. However, there is one exception I will not abide:
The one particular line regarding the line about the reasons exactly why Le Médec was released on the habeas corpus is credited to Scapegoat. I am the one who posted the information credit. This information is found only in Scapegoat. I no longer wish this information to appear on the page and will continue to remove this single line every time it reappears.
Re; Stella Maris: Consensus based on ignorance does not make that group's views correct; especially when the primary court evidence itself shows otherwise. Now that you won't even repost the information as it appears in Laura's book to be posted, the issue has become tedious and is no longer worth pursuing.
I have no intention of monitoring the other pages (IMO, Mont Blanc, Benjamin Russell, Provincial Court House) any further so if my information is reposted, I will let them stand. The revision history will speak for itself if anyone is interested. dheffernen Dheffernen (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the removal of that line, but I also have no desire to completely exclude that source, as explained above. As I also said above, you are welcome to discuss how to address the issue of conflicting sources regarding sequencing at Talk:Halifax Explosion; I've made a couple of suggestions there. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015[edit]

Removing image size parameters[edit]

Hey, Nikki. I just saw this: [7]. You cited "mos" for deleting the image size parameter -- what's the reasoning? Has someone recently slipped something into MOS that I missed? Very often, the only way to correctly size oddly shaped photos is to specify a different pixel size. In this case, it's a standard parameter for Template:Infobox swimmer. I need to understand what's going on here. Several of us have spent a lot of time imposing consistency on sports infoboxes, and this strikes me as a step backwards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dirtlawyer1 , this isn't a recent change - WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMAGES have long said that a) fixed pixel sizes should be avoided, b) if desired, upright scaling should be used instead, c) "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default", and d) portrait-style images are usually scaled down from the default rather than up (ie. end up with a width less than 220). The image size parameter has recently been removed from a number of infoboxes in favour of upright= scaling - you might consider that solution for swimmers. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EMU FAC[edit]

Thank you for the image review at the Emu FAC. Are you happy that the citations conform to the high standard expected or are there improvements I need to make? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwmhiraeth, it looks like Aa77zz and LittleJerry both did source reviews already. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications not working[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

Note that your edit here did not trigger a notification for me (I saw it in my watchlist). If the notification system is flaking, then the other editors you {{ping}}ed may not necessarily see the messages quickly. Just a FYI. --Xover (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xover, I've raised this issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DynaMed[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, polite reminder, it has been almost two months. I did not get the access yet. Thanks. --178.238.183.125 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, under what username did you apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opss, sorry, --Tarawneh (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarawneh, I sent you login information on 3 August to the email you put down on the form. I've just re-sent it, so please check your inbox and spam folder. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks ago, we started a 5000 medical article creation project at Jordan University. Then we followed that with an engineering articles project four days ago. The DynaMed account proved to be a great tool to help crate content online. Thank you Nikkimaria. --Tarawneh (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, thanks for sharing! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Asdklf;'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Email throttle[edit]

I'm investigating throttling of emails from new users with regard to abuse from LTAs. While searching I noticed a VPT discussion where there was a suggestion that the WP:ACCOUNTCREATOR right would allow WP:TWL/Coordinators to avoid the email throttle. I'm interested in that because any proposal to further restrict emails from new users would need to deal with exceptions. Would you mind outlining what the result of your request was? Is there a way for TWL people to avoid email throttling? Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnuniq, we didn't really pursue the issue beyond that discussion, so we don't currently have a way to avoid the problem. In the longer term, we're building an application system that will (among other benefits) get around this, but it's at least a few months off. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ[edit]

hi, was wondering if there are still subscriptions left I noticed Wikipedia:BMJ there are 2 individuals at the bottom of the list without an answer?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ozzie10aaaa, there are, feel free to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 September 2015[edit]

Another review favour?[edit]

Hi Nikki I have Diamonds Are Forever (novel) currently at FAC. Is there any chance you could do your usual source review magic? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2015[edit]



Headlines


  • UK report: QRpedia AWOL; RSC holds another edit-a-thon
  • Special story: New toolkit on Photo Events documents best practices, strategies and more
  • Open Access report: Wikipedia as an amplyfier; horse face recognition, rhythm perception, fossil rodent teeth
  • Wikidata report: Wikidata this month
  • Calendar: September's GLAM events



Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Username change[edit]

Just FYI, my old username (and my real name) is on my userpage, so it's pretty much as public as can be. Everymorning (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

Hello -- I received an e-mail notice from you, but not the e-mail itself, so you may wish to resend. Best, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorJoeE: Sent, please let me know if you didn't receive it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, and answered. Thanks. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Sevier[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I'm writing a blog post and would love to know for sure. In making decisions about who gets an ES account, are you beholden to either ES or The Wikipedia Library? Do the user's intentions or past record in advancing ES's interests (such as adding numerous links to their content to Wikpedia articles) impact your decisions one way or the other? Feel free to answer on wiki or by email, as you prefer. -Pete (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, the requirements agreed upon between TWL and Elsevier are outlined here: Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect#Requirements - active editors with 500 edits and 6 months of experience who don't otherwise have access. Beyond those basics (and they are flexible), Elsevier has no input in who is or is not accepted, and I don't look at whether people have previously used Elsevier resources to write articles. This is what I look at, from the TWL side - that goes for all partnerships, and I go through that doc with all account coords during onboarding (I'm the volunteer coordinator, and am only covering Elsevier temporarily). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I tried to log into the BMJ with my username and the password I use here on Wikipedia. but it didn't work. When I went here to try to get my password changed, it said there was no record of a user with a subscription under my username. Could you explain how I can access my BMJ subscription? Everymorning (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everymorning, BMJ hasn't activated the current set of accounts yet - you should be receiving an email from them once that's done explaining how to access. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Rod Steiger[edit]

Hi, Nikkki. Dr. Blofeld is trying to put together an FA for Rod Steiger, but we don't have any good pics. Do you know of any that we could use? RO(talk) 23:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RO, the current solution of using a screenshot isn't bad. I don't know of any offhand that aren't already used in the article, but promo shots from that era are generally out of copyright now so you could try exploring that avenue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Ewa Tarsia[edit]

HI, thanks for you edit to Ewa Tarsia. For what it's worth, I have never put much faith in the Canadian Royal Academy of Artists. For one, they have a lot of what I would call bad artists on their list. Second, the nominations are subjective: it's a member's club, where someone is nominated by friend or colleague, and other members vote. In my mind this makes it more like a Facebook "like" club. If it had a jury process I might be convinced otherwise. In any case, just a thought. I'll leave the notability tag off.New Media Theorist (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I would argue that a lot of academies/awards/etc meet that description. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't it the truth.New Media Theorist (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Library[edit]

Thanks for the newspaper archive agreement. Out of curiosity do these archives request a fee for the partnership or is it a pure donation? It does surprise me that a lot of them would agree to it without compensation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dr. B, yep, they are all donations. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld: Chiming in... They get a lot: to help our amazing project, be publicly seen helping our project, have their information shared with the public, be cited on popular pages on Wikipedia, improve their open access strategy (albeit incrementally). Wikipedia provides too much value and knowledge to the world to need to pay for access to information. Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Not that I would object of course to the foundation putting funding into making agreements. I really think the work you're putting into the Library in making such agreements is one of the most important things we can do in the long term. The only drawback is that sometimes we can forget to renew after a year. Can somebody tell me whether I still have Highbeam and Newspapers.com/British newspapers access? I don't think my highbeam account worked the last time I checked, and a year passes so quickly on here! I wonder if there's somewhere we can sign up for "autorenewal" so it can renewed each year if possible without having to keep putting your name down?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should still have all three... Most accounts (except for HighBeam and anything full/closed) get renewal emails sent out as reminders, but it'd be tricky to do autorenewal at the moment (although it might be more possible in future). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Your Newspapers.com account was renewed, and the new expiration date is 11 August 2016. HazelAB (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I just saw the discussion above regarding account renewal. Can you please check the status of my Newspapers.com and JSTOR access, and when the renewals may be due? I have no idea when these accounts are supposed to be renewed. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, it's usually 1 year from when access was granted - looks like Newspapers.com was renewed August 2015 and JSTOR was granted earlier in 2015 (so both will be due in 2016). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay -- thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
access to JSTOR : I do not received email ( or I have removed it with the spam ).--Adam majewski (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
I can't remember when the last time was I rewarded you but given the scope of what you do here in many departments, especially with image reviews at FAC and Wiki Library you really deserve another one! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 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) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Japan[edit]

Hi, there is a sourcing dispute at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of Japan/1. I was wondering if you or User:Brianboulton could do a spot check on some of the sources and see if the problem is really as prevalent as claimed? It's an important article and one which really should be brought up to GA status, but it really does need to be sound of course if it is to be listed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. B, looks like the article is primarily based on book sources - I'm not sure which of those I'll be able to get a hold of, so it'll be at least a couple of days before I could take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Guest on Elsevier[edit]

I get pop-up windows on Elsevier sites to remind me that I now have access as a guest. Yet, regardless of what I do I can't access whole articles. What am I doing wrong?--Aspro (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Aspro, I don't see your username here... Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here: Wikipedia:BMJ I am number 12. I get logged in OK. They also have my personal details if I go to My Account at the top right. I received an email from them on 14 September 2015 20:06:37 giving me my pass-word and an email earlier from you on 31 August 2015 21:42:06 but I still can't access the full articles. Perhaps, because I used to subscribe to the BMJ I am not recognised by my nom de plume of Aspro. I suppose I could walk along to the local medical library and log in on their Athens account but as I write it is just pass 8 in the evening. I can wrap WP around the time I have available but I just can't (for practical reasons) wrap my life around WP. I know you're not to blame for this (in-fact I think your doing a wonderful job) yet, I am frustrated that I can't get good references.--Aspro (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you're having trouble accessing BMJ articles using the login they've sent you? I think you'll likely need to get in touch with their tech-support folks to figure out what's going on there, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok and thanks. It doesn't seem to be a problem from this end.--Aspro (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OUP[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, It seems I can no longer access my accounts at Oxford Music Online or Oxford Art Online. Do you know who I need to contact to ask about the problem? Thanks for help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert.Allen, the accounts were only valid for one year so yours have likely expired. Ocaasi's talking with them about a potential expansion so you're welcome to add yourself to the waitlist for the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we need to add ourselves to the waitlist? Wouldn't it make more sense to just renew those with them already? (Yes, mine died too) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of renewal could happen, but since discussions are ongoing I don't know if it will or not. Either way we're waiting for some conclusion to figure out next steps. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the access was limited to a year, although I don't remember hearing that at the time.Thank you for the information. Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually located their e-mail when they activated the account, and they specifically gave the term as one year. I just forgot about it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert.Allen and Ealdgyth: You'll be getting an email about this shortly, but see Wikipedia talk:OUP#Renewal. (Ealdgyth, wasn't sure if you wanted the same access or something else...). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same is fine. I think I had Grove but I know I had ODNB and the American DNB. The two DNBs are the most useful, but I did use the others, some. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've specified that on the application page, feel free to amend as you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 September 2015[edit]

Requesting a review[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, would you mind reviewing this article that I'm interested in bringing to FAC in the coming weeks? I would like to know if it meets FA standards or if it needs some more tlc to get it there. Best, jona(talk) 00:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2015 – September 2016

In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Barnstar[edit]

The WikiProject Barnstar
In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from September 2014 to September 2015, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers again! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the quick response at that FAC. I keep wanting to abbreviate your name to Nikki, since I've known you for so long. Any objections? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A decade[edit]

I don't know you, but I saw your comment in the refimprove RfC. I noticed that you had your 10-year anniversary of editing last month. Very impressive. Congratulations. Czoal (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland's People[edit]

Hi, I requested permission to access this a few days ago... Have I done it correctly? Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I'll be looking at these today or tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I followed the instructions as outlined and have got an account, but no access to the material that normally requires tokens. Any ideas? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)r[reply]
Yep - TWL accounts have to be activated by the folks at ScotlandsPeople too, and that won't have happened yet. Penny has taken over coordination of that partnership, so she'll be working with them to do that. (It might take a week or two). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thing happen when I got an account--I was excited to give it a spin, but it still had to be activated on their end to work. Let me know if it's still a problem in a week or two.Penny Richards (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks both... I'll just have to be patient! Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ununseptium FAC[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria! Can I ask you to make an image review of ununseptium, a current FAC? You've reviewed it before, and it was fine. It's still the same pictures, and still not too many of them, so it shouldn't be too time-consuming.--R8R (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 13[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_31&oldid=1151039642"