User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 34

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

O ewiges Feuer, o Ursprung der Liebe, BWV 34 has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. O ewiges Feuer, o Ursprung der Liebe, BWV 34, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 17:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norodom Sihanouk/archive1[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I have reworked the article, Norodom Sihanouk over the past week and also replied to the FAC talk page. Barring one point, I hope all issues are sufficiently addressed, and I hope you can reconsider your "oppose" stand as we work though this down the road. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for O ewiges Feuer, o Ursprung der Liebe, BWV 34[edit]

On 15 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article O ewiges Feuer, o Ursprung der Liebe, BWV 34, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bach's O ewiges Feuer, o Ursprung der Liebe (O eternal fire, o source of love) was a wedding cantata before he adapted it for Pentecost (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/O ewiges Feuer, o Ursprung der Liebe, BWV 34. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, O ewiges Feuer, o Ursprung der Liebe, BWV 34), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources query[edit]

Hi Nikki, hope you're well. I've often used unit histories and personnel records digitised by the National Archives as sources in GA/A/FA articles (e.g. this), usually for relatively uncontroversial info like posting dates or staff/aircraft numbers when such info wasn't available in the secondary sources. The fact that these primary sources are available online has always, I think, overcome any question about them counting as reliable, "published" sources. I now have an instance where a useful piece of info concerning No. 91 Wing in Korea has come to my attention through the RAAF Historical Section sending me a snapshot from a unit history that's not digitised by the Archives as yet, and therefore not publicly available, or at least not as easily available as the digitised records. Would you say there's any issue using the info (properly cited of course) from this particular unit history in a potential FA? Happy to give more context if you'd like it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, yes, would need a bit more context about the source. Is it generally available to the public? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the public can certainly check that the unit history exists and request a copy (see record at NAA). The RAAF Historical Section was kind enough to scan the first couple of pages and send to me as a TIF file, and it revealed that RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) was formed under the control of No. 91 Wing, which hasn't been explicitly mentioned in any secondary source I've seen, though I'd assumed it was the case. Citing this record would allow me to not only give a more complete picture of Transport Flight (Japan), but also No. 91 Wing, which I want to take to FAC shortly (and GTC eventually, with, now, the Transport Flight as one of the sub-articles). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then yes you should be able to use it, with the usual proviso about care with primary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but can you take a look at RexxS's recent edits to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? Are they legitimate? Can editors seriously do that? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CT, are you talking about this edit, or something else? He's allowed to object to your framing of the RFC, and to request you change it (and you shouldn't remove that objection/request, even if you disagree). That particular edit though was not good practice because he moved your comment without permission in a way that changed its meaning (it's no longer clear what "in this way" refers to). I'd suggest as the best way to move forward that you move it back, but keep the "Background" header and add a neutral and succinct question above "Background". I also suggest to both of you that the thing most likely to derail the discussion is personalized back-and-forth - we should instead focus on the issues at play, and take the personal stuff to another forum if needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about that edit, but also the edits in that section that are focused on derailing the whole discussion, especially accompanied with comments about alleged "tricks" I'm playing. I have no idea how to disengage from him---he's obviously hunting for a fight and isn't going to leave me alone there. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey, shouldn't this section be more neutrally named? CassiantoTalk 13:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better? By the way, a ping won't function if you add it or fix it without re-signing (~~~~). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a little more complicated than that. You also have to add a new line of text. Izkala (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I know it won't work; but I figured you'd be watching the page anyway so I couldn't be arsed to fix it. And no, Izkala, I think CT is correct. I remember deleting an old signature and replacing it with a new one in order to make a ping work to The Rambling Man, and when he was asked if it worked, he stated that it had. I'm sure it was him, but the place escapes me. Anyway, pray continue, and sorry to intrude. CassiantoTalk 15:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might wish to update the documentation then. Izkala (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to as I'm not an expert in these matters. I can only go by what I've been told, and nothing else; hence my use of the word "think". CassiantoTalk 15:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I was probably being a little passive-aggressive there. Izkala (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you can't control what other editors do or how they choose to approach things. I think the key here will be to stick to the issues under discussion (as dispassionately as possible), ignore any personal commentary, and don't fall into fighting. We want more light and less heat. I also think someone (whether you or someone else) needs to clearly outline what the different options are. If what you presented in the intro is what's been termed "opt-out", we should make explicit what "opt-in" is, and what if any other options exist. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Elsevier ScienceDirect application[edit]

Hi, sorry to be a bother, but I'm afraid I still haven't received any e-mails from Elsevier, and it's been quite I while since they should've activated an account. I might have given them a wrong e-mail by accident (but I doubt it, though since so much time has passed I'm a bit uncertain). So, may I ask for your help in this matter? :) --Helixitta (t.) 18:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helixitta, I've sent a message to the email I have, please reply if you get it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've received and answered to your e-mail, so it's that question resolved. Unfortunately, I still haven't heard from the team about an account --Helixitta (t.) 20:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent them an email query. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nikkimaria! Was there any response from them by any chance? Maybe I actually should apply once again? --Helixitta (t.) 15:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No response, but no, don't apply again - I'll keep trying. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Church of England churches in Wales[edit]

Nikkimaria, The C of E has made an addition to the article with the duplicated material. Can you please check again, and if it is still short on original material, can you give an additional character count that needs to be met? Thanks, and sorry to have to bother you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

From a perspective of WP:Plagiarism, it's important not to lose this sort of template from articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194 has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 13:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Science direct and Baylor[edit]

Hey, I filled out the google form for having access to "Science direct and Baylor" but I have not received any account information yet. Mhhossein (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baylor is delayed because of a publisher-side issue but should be ready soon; will check on ScienceDirect. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for ScienceDirect's access info. Mhhossein (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194[edit]

On 22 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bach used the cantata Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194, written for the inauguration of the church and organ in Störmthal (pictured), several times for Trinity Sunday? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Questia is feeling unloved.[edit]

Wikipedia:Questia is feeling a little unloved.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

En stjerne til deg![edit]

The No Spam Barnstar
Thank you! AmalieJohnsen (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothomyrmecia image review backup[edit]

Hi! I saw your image reviews on various FACs and tried to do the same for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nothomyrmecia/archive1 (basically stole your job, heheh..). Can you take a quick look at it? I haven't checked ALT texts, and do not even know if they are required. jonkerz ♠talk 17:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jonkerz. Alt text isn't required, but when it's present (as it is here), it's good to check that it's compatible with WP:ALT. You should also check compliance with MOS:IMAGES - I see a couple with small fixed image sizes that should use scaling instead - and other aspects of MOS (eg. several captions need copyediting). Licensing looks fine though. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I made some tweaks myself despite that I'm the reviewer. As for copyediting, I passed that on to the nominator. jonkerz ♠talk 17:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, I'm open for any suggestion. Feel free to initiate any double checks to my changes. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harmathèque[edit]

Hi, I believe this was one of the people we made an agreement with through the wiki library and I saw it was a red link when the agreement was made. Notable enough and I believe it was a red link. Can you see to it that the tag is removed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. B, I think you're thinking of L'Harmattan? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that might be it. I think the site hosted related content by L'Harmattan.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so you might want to take out the bit about Wikipedia. Either way though, not relevant to the tagging - that should be addressed as on any other article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned here. Google translated it says "Most of the 2300 annual publications are also available as e-book. L'Harmattan has also opened a place dedicated to this new type of book, Harmathèque, where today more than 27,000 digitized titles are available along with some 400 films of the Harmattan Video produces and distributes every year a hundred films (documentaries, fictions, "theatrical recordings" 9.5). In many digital books in French Catalogue in 2010, L'Harmattan is just behind Fnac, and just ahead Numilog, second in the ranking".♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the site is the host for the published material by L'Harmattan see here, so I was right to claim that French wikipedia had a subscription to it. Never mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue[edit]

Hi Nikki. I am working on Essex Wildlife Trust and there are photos of most of the sites as someone did a Geograph project photographing EWT sites. However, he often included EWT noticeboards in photos, and I am not sure whether this will be an issue as FLC. Can you advise please. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dudley Miles. The UK has an incidental exception, which would allow photographs that include noticeboards as background elements not essential to the image. That line can be a bit difficult to draw, and I think there are some cases - eg. File:Lexden_Gathering_Ground_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1060638.jpg - where we've come down on the wrong side of it, and assuming those noticeboards have copyrighted graphics we likely would not be able to include them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(page stalker): Geograph is particularly bad for putting photographs of copyrighted 2D material up, and sadly they've often been uploaded in bulk batches without the editor having checked them. The sorts of questions you'd usually see asked around de minimis (the principle Nikki's mentioned) might include: what really appears to be the artistic focus of the photograph? How much of the photograph is taken up with the copyrighted material? What's physically in focus in the image? If you removed the copyrighted material, what's actually left? What's the title of the photograph? Can you read or view the text and images on the board easily? Was it obvious that the copyrighted material could have been excluded by simply shifting the camera slightly? etc. But it is usually a judgement call. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Nikki and Hchc. I have taken out the Lexden photo, which is the only one where the noticeboard seems dominant. Can you suggest any others which it might be safer to take out? So far as I can see he included the noticeboard with the name of the site visible to prove he was really there, but not with the text of the notice legible. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very much a judgement call. Others that I might query: File:Oxley_Meadow_-_geograph.org.uk_-_150006.jpg, File:Thorndon_Countryside_Centre_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1390049.jpg, File:Tile_Wood_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1363074.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Nikki. I assume is OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mahavira redux[edit]

Nikkimaria, this is still stalled three weeks after I posted here before, primarily due to the Talk:Mahavira discussion, which you posted to immediately thereafter. Does the article still have close paraphrasing issues, or have they been settled? This is now one of the oldest DYK nominations (a trio from April 4/5), and I'd like to get it either moving again or closed. Thanks as always for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor states that the sources at issue are PD, and archive.org agrees. I don't understand why a couple of them would be, as they're definitely more recent publications, but that's where we're at. Given the amount of mirroring involved, it's going to be very hard to find any sources beyond those cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the two sources from Vijay K. Jain on Google books, and both of them have the following on their "copyright" pages: "Non-Copyright: This work may be reproduced, translated and published in any language without any special permission, provided that it is true to the original and that a mention is made of the source." The other two sources, 1930 and 1939 by C. R. Jain, have CC public domain notices on their archive.org download pages, as you note above. It sounds to me like you're saying that there are no known issues assuming these sources can be used; if that's the case, then I should call for a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the archive.org notices are correct - including the Zimmer one, from the 1950s - then there are no known issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Zimmer one is going to be the problem—thanks for pointing it out. The original copyright was in 1951, and the renewal was in 1979, meaning it's still under copyright. I've pointed this out on the article talk page. The two C. R. Jain sources, if life of author plus 70 comes into play, would be public domain in that case since he died in 1942. There's no sign that they were copyrighted in the U.S. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaine Morin[edit]

Why did you delete my entire Adelaine Morin page, you edit Wikipedia pages but you delete my entire work, it took me 4 hours, you are rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella.im (talk • contribs)

Hi Bella.im, welcome to Wikipedia. Your article was scaled down for a couple of reasons. First Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion - articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and should include only material that is verifiable and encyclopedic. Second, because that article is about a living person, we have to be especially careful about making sure content is supported by reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brill[edit]

I activated my yahoo emailadress. Thanks for mentioning it. Happytravels (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for all the messages but I decided to give someone else the opportunity to use a Brill-account. In the next half year I will be way too busy outside Wikipedia to make enough use of it. It would be selfish of me if I kept the account for myself. Sorry for that! Kindest regards, Happytravels (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:160 folklorama 090330.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:160 folklorama 090330.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revising format and links in "List of Songs About Oklahoma"[edit]

Your edits of the article "List of songs about Oklahoma" have taught me a lot, but I'm still learning. Thanks to your massive overhaul of the article last fall, when you removed all external links from the body of the article, per Wikipedia guidelines, I've been redoing things correctly (I hope), slowly placing those links where they more appropriately belong, in the footnotes. On May 23, you removed three of those links, and I think I know why, but I wanted to check with you to verify. All three were links to 90-second song clips on play.google.com; the page WP:SAMPLE presents reasons why these were inappropriate. Today I have created links to clips of the three songs that are 10% of the length of each full song, with the audio downgraded to 64 kbps, per the restrictions listed in WP:SAMPLE. I hope that this takes care of the problem that led you to remove these links. I'll look forward to hearing from you.

Trikiwiki (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trikiwiki. You'd want to make sure we have a reason for including a clip. If we included one for every single song on the list, we'd be into WP:NOT territory, not to mention creating all kinds of fair use issues. Yes, it's nice to be able to hear what the song sounds like, but if we're not learning anything beyond what the lyrics are, it's harder to justify. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eega/archive1[edit]

I have opened this FAC yesterday. I wish that a proper source review at this stage would be very helpful. If you are interested and are free, can you please provide a source review? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Did you see my reply at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blast Corps/archive1? Would you have time to finish the image review? I'd appreciate it. czar 22:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CCI format[edit]

I just left a note with @Moonriddengirl:, but I think the problem is caused by your edit. I haven't yet figured out how to fix it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sphilbrick, you're welcome to change my formatting if you need to, but I'm not seeing the problem you mention so I don't know what to do about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On my computer, the right side of the page, roughly half, is not visible, and I have to use the scroll bar to see it. Is that not true for you? (I'll try other browsers)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, looks fine in Mozilla, but not in Chrome.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reported here--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Of course, you didn't have much of a chance to find it, as it wasn't your edit it was the prior one by MER-C, sorry)--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016[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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brill sign-up[edit]

I was very excited to get a Google form about this on 21 May, but have heard nothing since. Is there any news about it? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andreas, we're waiting on a couple more people to fill out the form before the list is sent to Brill for login generation. Shouldn't be too long now, thanks for your patience. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, We appreciate your work! I got Wikipedia email notification but not the actual email for Brill. Might this be a hang-up with Wikipedia email generation? Thanks again, BlueMist (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BlueMist, I've re-sent, please respond ASAP. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thank you! BlueMist (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for your work on the WP Lib. You notified me on the last 20 May that I will get a Brill account, I sent the google form I received few days later, but I have never had any news from Brill up to now. Is there any reason ? Thanks for your answer !Mel22 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel22, the form response was sent to Brill for them to generate a login for you, so we're just waiting on them for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any news? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas, could you send me an email? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Wikipedia Library[edit]

Hi,

I have two accounts that need renewal-Questia and Project MUSE. The Questia page especially is getting sort of full with requests for accounts or renewals. The Questia coordinator hasn't checked into WP for about 2 months. Is it possible for someone to temporarily step in and take care of some of this? Thanks, We hope (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi We hope, I've asked another coord to take over there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope all's well with Chris! We hope (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/J. R. Kealoha[edit]

Let me know if you can possibly finish the image review on this. There is no image of the subject. Is there any suggested additional image I can use or is the one of Armstrong enough? I am trying to get it eventually to feature article status as a very short featured articles. Thank you!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kealoha was buried at Oʻahu Cemetery
I've added this image. Would this be acceptable under US copyright law as a building or is considered a sculpture? If it is not needed, I rather not include it though.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KAVEBEAR, the official definition of "building" for the purpose of freedom of panorama in the US is "permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy" - I don't think that image would qualify. Is the issue that there is no image at all, or just no free image? You could use a non-free one under {{non-free biog-pic}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grave marker of J. R. Kealoha. Adorned with sacred maile lei, a koa branch and other offerings after the consecration ceremony
This is all there is of any relevance to the subject. But it won't be allow per the no-panorama rule since it was made in 2014 by Honor Life Memorials. Should I upload this under here in English Wikipedia under {{non-free biog-pic}} or change the licensing on the commons picture?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the gravestone itself is insufficiently original to garner its own copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I am bit confused since I've been following your review from before: Since the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, you'll need to explicitly account for the licensing status of the works pictured in File:Pitman_family_marker,_Mount_Auburn_Cemetery_(4402353191).jpg, File:Henry_Pitman_Grave_1.jpg, and File:Honolulu-memorial-Hawaiisonsofthecivilwar.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC). Should I put the gravestone back then?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In each of those three images, there was some aspect of graphical or sculptural design; here, the gravestone itself is pure text. It's not an exact science, but in my opinion those memorials meet the threshold of originality and this one does not. You can seek a second opinion at WP:MCQ though. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that is fine by me. I want to reinclude the image anyway. Let me know if you do another image review in the review page base on these recent changes. Thanks for the help and advice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will still need a copyright tag for the gravestone, since it isn't covered by the CC tag - would suggest {{PD-text}} or {{PD-ineligible}}, something along those lines. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2016[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.

birth_name vs. (common) name?[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if there is any reason you keep overwriting birth_name in Template:Infobox person of several of my edits? Take James Cuthbert Smith for example, you have edited this page to remove the (common) "name = Jim Smith". Although his "birth_name = James Cuthbert Smith" people refer to him by his (common) name = "Jim Smith". Most people don't use their full birth name as their common nameTwo Lost Souls Swimming In A Fishbowl (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Two Lost Souls Swimming In A Fishbowl, the article title should be the common name of the subject - in this case, since the article is James Cuthbert Smith, it makes sense for |name= to also be "James Cuthbert Smith". More broadly, the issue of full names and their correct placement has long been disputed at Template talk:Infobox person, and there's not really a consensus to use |birth name= to represent them - see for example Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_10#Use_birth_name_field_only_when_current_name_is_different_from_birth_name_-_no_matter_what_the_middle_name_is, but there are many other instances of the issue being raised in the archives. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Hungama[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria, I need a little as an unfamiliar question regarding the usage of the photographs released by BH has been put up at the FAC at Kalki Koechlin. As far as I know these images have been used in practically every Bollywood related article. As you have been around and have yourself been part of several Bollywood related FACs I thought you might be able to provide a better insight here. Thank you. NumerounovedantTalk 18:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Numerounovedant, SV is correct that Bollywood Hungama can only release photos to which they own the copyright to begin with. To give you an analogy, if I create {{CC Nikkimaria image}} which says all of my photos are under a CC license, I can't upload a photo by you under that license because you are the copyright holder and only you can decide what license that photo has. Does that make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that helps. So I ask them for the license? NumerounovedantTalk 20:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask them for the image source - if it's their image then you can use the BollywoodHungama tag, if it's not then you'll need to ask the original source for the license. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, one last thing, most of these photographs have a Bollywood Hungama watermark on them. Does is not mean that they own them? NumerounovedantTalk 05:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that means they published it on their site but not necessarily that they were the original source or copyright holder. Take a look at File:10_Squadron_RAF_Halifax_crew_AWM_P02953.001.jpg: it has a watermark, but it is not copyrighted by the organization whose watermark it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 17[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

  • New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
  • Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
  • New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to oblige?[edit]

Hi Mikkimaria, I wonder if you could oblige with a source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dr. No (novel)/archive1, if you have time? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Cuthbert Smith,[edit]

Hello thanks for your edits to James Cuthbert Smith, I'm wondering why you keep deleting his picture and have removed the birth_name property from his wikidata entry? Duncan.Hull (talk)

Hi Duncan.Hull, I've restored the picture - that was an error on my part. As for |birth_name=, it is identical to |name= and so per the documentation for that property should not be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I'm curious to know why the Template:Infobox person/Wikidata was removed. The picture didn't need adding manually, it was as is already in wikidata d:Q19664103 (under image), following the general engineering principle of Don't repeat yourself. The same is true for the "employer", "alma_mater" and "awards" properties. All the information you are adding is already in wikidata (and consequently the Knowledge Graph), so your edits are needlessly duplicating information (and potentially introducing errors and discrepancies between the different sources) Duncan.Hull (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan.Hull, that change was explained on the talk page before it was ever made, and there were no objections expressed. It is in fact your edit that has introduced errors, discrepancies, and duplication into the article. If you disagree with the change, I suggest you join the discussion there, but in the interim I'm going to restore the less-problematic option. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I wasn't talking about the "birth_name" in Template:Infobox scientist but the birth name property in wikidata d:Property:P1477, which you deleted from d:Q19664103 (his wikidata entry). If the information you are needlessly adding disagrees with the information that is already in wikidata, how are people to know which version is correct? Also, can you give a specific example of an error or duplication that has been introduced?
As was I: if you look at the documentation for that property, it makes it clear that just as for the parameter locally, it should only be included when different from the name. For examples, I refer you to the discussion on the talk page, with the addition of the |birth_name= issue which you reintroduced. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK thats fine, but if your personal taste for birth_name differs from what is already there (and there doesn't seem to be any consensus on this) you can just put "birth_name = *blank*" in the infobox rather than delete the information from wikidata completely. I believe my wider point about needlessly duplicating information (e.g. alma_mater, employer, spouse etc) still stands, but I don't think you're willing or able to see it and no amount arguing on my part seems to be able to convince you otherwise?Duncan.Hull (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my "personal taste" - the documentation on Wikidata makes it clear that it should not be included when it is the same as "name", because that is "needlessly duplicating information". I've also explained on the talk page why supplying the values locally makes more sense in this case, and nothing you've said so far speaks against those specific points. Again, you're welcome to engage there if you disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, I've only just spotted your comments at Talk:James_Cuthbert_Smith I should have looked earlier. Will post discussion over there rather than here. Duncan.Hull (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Covent Garden[edit]

The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150 has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria, I currently have an article over at FAC and would appreciate it if you left a comment or even review the article in question. I am afraid it may be archived due to lack of activity, but if you're too busy, then please disregard this request. Thanks – jona ✉ 15:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150[edit]

On 23 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some Bach scholars believe that Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, is his earliest extant church cantata? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TWL question[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, do you have any corrections/anything to add to this? -Thibbs (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thibbs, looks like a great response. The one thing I would add for you is that if there are requests for specific things to pursue, make sure Sam hears about them or that they're otherwise tracked for when partnership discussions take place. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

You were totally in the right over on The Year of the Runaways; I had in fact missed that there was a single winner of the Man Booker Prize. Sorry about the misunderstanding and thank you for your fine editing! CawheeTalk 03:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Canada Day[edit]

Any plans for next year's sesquicentennial? - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Not yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain I agree with this edit[edit]

I'm not sure I agree with this edit, which removed unreliable sources -- but which sources had been tagged with {{Better source}} template -- from Human Top (Bruce Bravelle). I'm not sure. So I've reverted the edit for now and opened a thread on the matter here: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#What part does the "Better source" template play in rendering an unacceptable source usable, at least for the present?. Herostratus (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Sessions[edit]

Hi, I am the creator of the Tiffany Sessions article. I was just wondering why did you remove one of the references that I had left?

Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidgoodheart, I'd suggest having a read through our reliable sources guideline - user-generated sources like blogs, wikis, etc generally aren't considered appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I fell this is an acceptable source, since the profile is well verified, even if it is a wiki, so I would like to keep it on there. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidgoodheart, if it is well verified surely there are better sources available? You're welcome to seek a second opinion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you like, but until we get consensus that it is an acceptable source we have to assume it isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, if you have a better source then please add it. If you can't find another source then I will re-add it. Also can you please fix the link that says Tiffany's mom writes book about her daughter, since my edit button isn't working right now? Thanks User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidgoodheart, literally the very next source given in the article has that fact in it. I don't know which link you're talking about to fix. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Baer (art dealer)[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was hoping I could ask you to take a look at this DYK nomination, where there have been some close paraphrasing concerns expressed, including sequence of ideas. Since this is related to issues you've identified in past DYK nominations, I figured that if there is an issue here, you will say so (and if not, say there isn't). Thanks for any help you can give here; this has been stalled for a couple of weeks now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Edwardx has done some further work on rephrasing; can you please check again? (If there are still issues, then giving one example—or mentioning the one remaining if that's all there is—would help a lot.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016[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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question on edit[edit]

Hi there, please can you educate me on what the following shorthand means, please: rm non-RS

Regards Keith H99 (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith H99, it refers to the removal of a source that does not meet our reliable sources guideline. Just FYI, you might find WP:ESL helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having take the time to explain. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR Signup[edit]

Hi, I signed for JSTOR login on the 19th of May, and it said somewhere on the page, that would take around 27 days to come through. I was approved and got the initial email, but have been waiting patiently for some email conformation, but not heard anything, and I think we are well past the 27 day limit. Any news. Thanks. scope_creep 20:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, you should have received it around 1 July - check your spam folder, and if it's not there I will follow up. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria, I checked the spam folder, unfortunately it only ranges back to the 3rd. Can you please expidite, and I'll look out for it this time. Thanks. scope_creep 20:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2016[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.

Brill (Reference works service)[edit]

As a Wikipedia content developer I highly need to have access to services such as 'Brill reference works.' For example look at Assassination of Ali where a large portion of the article is based on the sources found in Brill reference works. Is there anyway to get access to that? Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Samwalton9 has put in a request for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: Yep, I asked about a week ago; will post at WT:Brill when I hear anything. Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Nice to hear that and thanks so much for putting in the request. How much the procedure will take do you think? --Mhhossein (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: not sure! I asked at the beginning of July, didn't hear anything back, so I've just sent a reminder email. Sam Walton (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what was wrong with mentioning Carl W. Stalling?[edit]

That edit was impeccably sourced, and absolutely unequovically true--many many more people have heard this song via Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies cartoons than ever have or ever will see Hard to Get, or listen to any of the recordings you mentioned. I simply stated that many people are familiar with the song that way, but I could have justly said that most people have.

The absence of any mention of this in the article is glaring--and silly.

Please explain.Xfpisher (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xfpisher, it wasn't impeccably sourced: open wikis are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. There may well be other entries there that ought to be removed - I wasn't the one who added them, and you're welcome to discuss inclusion criteria on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You acknowledge there's nothing at all in that edit that isn't 100% factual, right? So we have to go through a long rigamarole over whether to include something that unquestionably should be included? It's ridiculous that the article doesn't mention the Warner Brothers cartoons. I have to go to a library, find a book that mentions this, then cite it--knowing that the reader (and you) will not be able to click on a link and learn more? I could make up a passage in an existing book, cite it, and you'd never bother to check to see if I was citing a real source. I repeat. It's silly. Wikipedia IS an open wiki. Anybody can register and edit articles here. There's a process whereby questionable edits can be reviewed. Shall we invoke that process? Do you feel like defending your edit? Because I certainly feel like defending mine.Xfpisher (talk)
I don't know whether the edit is factual or not, because no reliable source supporting it has been provided, and even if it were 100% factual that doesn't mean it "unquestionably should be included". "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".
There are several processes for reviewing questionable edits. One is WP:BRD: your edit was bold, I reverted, now we're discussing. The underlying policy, though, is WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The edit 100% factual. I included a link this time to IMDb, which is unquestionably an accepted source here. The purpose of an article like this is to inform the reader of the song's cultural significance--the fact that it was constantly used in some of the most famous films ever made in any format is culturally significant. The talk page, in my experience, never ever leads to resolution--but please note, somebody kept reverting an edit of mine using IMDb as a source, we went to conflict resolution, and I was upheld. We can do that here. Could you please explain why you selectively revert this edit?Xfpisher (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, IMDb is not "unquestionably an accepted source here" - see WP:RS/IMDB. Second, even if it were, it doesn't support the content you're adding. You haven't provided a reliable source to support your proposed content nor do you have consensus for it, therefore you cannot keep restoring it. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR Access[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

You approved me for JSTOR access over at Wikipedia:JSTOR back on 20 May, but I haven't heard anything since. I'm wondering if an email went into my spam folder and I didn't notice. Is there any chance whatever was sent could be resent? Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa:  Done Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 28 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Many thanks for the image review on the catherine Zeta-Jones FAC. Would you be able to review the sources too? Before you make your decision, there was some discussion at the first FAC about some of those used, which were deemed unreliable. Since that first review, there was significant work undertaken to strengthen the sources used, and all those of a dubious nature have now been replaced. Many thanks if you feel able to take this on too. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Talk:Tina Fontaine.
Message added 16:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Linguist 111 Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message as a courtesy 16:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

JSTOR[edit]

Hey, Nikkimaria, really sorry to bother you on your talk page, but I've tried pinging you. Would you mind reviewing my JSTOR request? Again, sorry for the bother and thanks in advance. MediaKill13 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MediaKill, I saw your request, but I really need to make sure we have an account to give you before I (potentially) approve you - as indicated on the page, right now the applications are waitlisted. The partnership is pending renewal; if/when that happens I'd be happy to review your request. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Sorry. Thanks so much anyway! MediaKill13 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British Newspaper Archive[edit]

Hi, was approved for this archive back in April but have not been given free access, please advise Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Atlantic306: Unfortunately we're having troubles communicating with BNA at the moment. We're trying to see what can be done; we really want to be able to distribute access again! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, also tried contacting them without success. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR Access[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I've still not received my JSTOR sign in. I've been checking my email twice a day including the spam folder since we last spoke but no sign of it. Any ideas? scope_creep (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep - last I heard there was some kind of technical problem with your account. I will follow up and see if there is any update. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colio, I think the Fates are against me. Thanks Nikkimaria scope_creep (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mass reverting[edit]

Please do no engage in mass reverts that clobber minor copyediting along with whatever substantive change you object to or have questions about, and open a discussion about what those issues might be. Other editors cannot read your mind, and firehosing all changes to get at one particular thing is apt to be taken as WP:FILIBUSTER, and is frustrating for others, who don't even know what issue you might have, or with what.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's your responsibility to propose your changes on the talk page, not to restore them undiscussed. Per your request, I've restored the changes that were unproblematic copyedits. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016[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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chhinnamasta: Wikipedia:Peer review/Chhinnamasta/archive1[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria.. I hope you are doing well ... It is been a long time since you helped in Ahalya's journey to a FA. The article Chinnamasta was recently expanded for a potential FAC. Like Ahalya, Chinnamasta will benefit from your review. Chinnamasta is a self-decapitated Hindu goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria for the review. I have addressed your concerns. Kindly take a look again.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Avi (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR...[edit]

Did we lose access again? I seem to be without any access... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost access too. SarahSV (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Through, I was approved and got the initial email,asking me to fill a Google form which I received and sent on July 4th itself but have been waiting patiently for some email conformation, but have not heard anything since (including the Spam folder). It is over a month over the normal 27 day limit.Any Updates ? Thank you.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh of the Wizards, you should have received an account directly from JSTOR on 15 July - I will check why that didn't happen. Ealdgyth, SarahSV, Avraham and anyone else with an older account, there's a partnership renewal pending but the initial accounts may have expired in the interim. We're hoping to get things back up and running ASAP but it will likely be at least a couple of weeks until renewals/new requests can be processed. For the moment, you can post requests to WP:RX. (Pinging also The Interior and Samwalton9). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost access too. Is everyone expected to add their name to the list for the renewal process? I've was one of the original 100, though I can understand that makes no difference. Also if Sam shows up here, still nothing re Questia. So now I'm basically without access to sources. Victoria (tk) 01:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria, last time there was a bulk auto-renewal, I don't know what will happen this time yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been waiting for a reply from JSTOR for a month or two now, and have pinged them a couple of times in that period. Last email I sent was just the other day, hopefully I'll hear something back. As for Questia @Victoriaearle: I've asked again, didn't get a response from the last email I sent about this. Will see what I can do! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update, Nikkimaria. Hopefully this will be resolved soon. -- Avi (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the update and prompt response.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have got back access as part of the original 100 accounts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2016[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.

Image check at PR?[edit]

Hi Nikki, I've recently been working on a biography of a fascinating and important figure, Josephine Butler. The lady is now at PR for comment and consideration. As I like to have the (to me) problematic problem of images as sorted as possible before getting to FAC, would you be able to have a look at this aspect for me? Many thanks if you have the time. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


JSTOR 2[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria, what is the latest of Jstor access? I read the above article. scope_creep 12:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The above is the latest, unfortunately - several people are having access issues, not sure when that will be resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headache with images[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I think I've put the right copyright information on the File:The Foundling Hospital, Holborn, London; a view of the court Wellcome V0013456.jpg, based on the Wellcome Trust's bibliographic record. Can you have look and see if I've got anything wrong please? WormTT(talk) 18:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WTT - technically given the info on that link {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} would be more correct, but the general PD-US tag is good enough. Thanks for fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR 3[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria, what is the latest of Jstor access? That is another 5 days. I think it is more than 2 months since I requested. Is it ever going to arrive. Scope creep (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not hear anything back from the previous email, but it may have gotten lost with the bigger group of editors losing access. I will follow up again. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Operation Infinite Reach[edit]

I've found a slightly different version of the same photo, which would be public domain as a work of the federal government. How would we go about taking down the old, improperly sourced photo and replacing it with the new, properly licensed one? I'm no expert on copyright and image policy, so I appreciate your help. Best, GABgab 01:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB, you should simply be able to go to the Commons version and click on the "Upload a new version" link. That being said, the fact that this admittedly poorer-quality version is PD suggests that the original may be PD as well... might be worth a bit more investigation on that front. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the current version was edited to remove the caption at the top, and I am fairly sure it is PD; out of an abundance of caution, I'll upload the explicitly PD one, if you believe that is best. Do you think we could reasonably keep the current, better version, since it's clear it's just an edit of the original (even if the source was wrong?) Thanks, GABgab 01:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I say no only because it's not clear from the linked source that the original was a creation of the US government. If we had any other source that said so explicitly, that would be different. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll upload the explicitly PD one now. GABgab 02:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Press Journals[edit]

@Nikkimaria:, is there any reason for the long delay in approving my request for access to OUP Journals?Davidbena (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Sorry, had missed your reply. Will revisit now. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR 4[edit]

@Nikkimaria: Any updates on my JStor access. This is out of order. Why is it taking so long. Am I ever going to get it. Scope creep (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I don't know, unfortunately - I've followed up on that several times and haven't heard anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: You should now have received your access. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine Military History task force[edit]

As an incubator tier task force, we reached 4 active members and 1 sporadic, with one that is retired but may return, I followed the instructions of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and made all of the necessary categories, an infobox and the templates, I was wondering who I should ask to include us in the talk page template, I have already added the baseline of |Roman= to the template, but have not touched the underlying code to make it work. Thanks. Iazyges (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank You
Thanks for leaving a comment/review on my FAC. The article passed and I just wanted to stop by and say thanks. – jona ✉ 19:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAR close paraphrasing query[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was hoping you could help me.

Three years ago, Orlady opened two individual GA reassessments: Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA2 and Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2. One of the major concerns in each was close paraphrasing; the National Register nomination material was cited for both, and I didn't get a sense from reading the reassessment pages that the close paraphrasing was ultimately dealt with. However, there were a lot of edits subsequent to Orlady's last postings, so it could have been.

Can I ask you to please check these two articles for close paraphrasing, and post a comment to each reassessment when you're done? I didn't want to just close the reassessments—even with their extreme age—if significant issues still remained, and close paraphrasing is a major concern if it remains. I will be mentioning on each that I'm asking you for assistance. Thank you very much for any help you can give. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: For some reason the NRHP links which were of concern are not working for me at the moment, and don't appear to be available via archive.org. I will revisit this tomorrow to see if this is a temporary problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying, Nikkimaria. I hope you have better luck tomorrow. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now the PDF loads but is entirely blank. Not sure what's going on... Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Sorry, still not able to access these sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme[edit]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for signing up. The response from would-be mentors has been most encouraging. Schemes like this are often slow to take off, and it may be a while before we know if it's working. But with this level of support, including that of many of our most experienced FA editors, I think it has every chance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hey @Nikkimaria: - I saw you removed my comments at WT:FAR to Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal. The article really shouldn't be featured in this state. Let me know if you recommend a place for me to recommend its delisting as an FA. Thanks, -Darouet (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, nevermind, I see it now. -Darouet (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: Not sure if you've already found out, but: you can nominate the article for review according to the instructions at the top of WP:FAR after a week or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 18[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo voyageur.gif[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo voyageur.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR 5[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria: Yippee, I finally got the JSTOR access ;). It was a bit of an anticlimax , but the first time I searched the archive, I found 8 references which were perfect for what I needed. Shows you much information there is in these archives. I guess at some point all the data will be coming to us anyway, but very surprising how quick it was. It would have taken me weeks, or months to track this stuff down. Thanks for all your help. Scope creep (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Butler follow up[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, many thanks for your thoughts at the Josephine Butler PR. The lady is now at FAC for consideration. Would you be able to check my changes to I me image licences and do the source review? Many thanks! – Gavin (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: I'm of course happy to look at it, but I don't see it at WP:FAC? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops.... Opened it a week ago and forgot to take the final step! Cheers - now added. – Gavin (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with image licenses for Tycho Brahe[edit]

An editor has posted some queries about the licensing for images at Tycho Brahe at Talk:Tycho Brahe/GA2. I don't completely understand the issues, and some of them are quite surprising to me - for example it seems that they are saying that works uploaded by wikipedians as "own work" require attribution to the uploaders legal name not wikipedia username, and that attribution should be given in the caption, and also that additional specific licenses are required for scans of 16th century documents to show that they are also in the public domain in the US. I am not completely sure how to solve these problems, so any assistance you may have time to provide would be greatly appreciated, especially fixing any licensing issues with the files that can be easily amended.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus: The only one that's going to be a major problem to deal with is File:Brahe_notebook.jpg. Do we know when and where it was first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may not ever have been published, does that mean that whoever scans the documents gets the copyright?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we can confirm that it was never published before 2003, then {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply. The problem is, we know it was published at some point, because it appeared on the source website; was that the first publication, or did they get it from somewhere else? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, tht tiwll be quite difficult. Maybe it is better to just remove it and see if I can find another picture from his notebooks that is easier to source. Thank you eversomuch for your help!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the ten FAC image reviews and two source reviews you did during August. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final article[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm departing from WP in a couple of months, and have "my" final article on the Burke and Hare murders going through PR at the moment. Would you be able to have a look at the images before we go to FAC? Many thanks - Gavin (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gavin: Done, though I do hope this doesn't end up being your final article - you will be missed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria: it's very kind of you to say so. Sadly it will be the final one: the endless grind from a couple of small groups of editors—and harassment from one charming little editor—have sucked the final bits of joy from editing. It's been fun while it lasted and I've had a great time with a lot of great people, but it's time to call it a day (once Burke and Hare is finally sorted out!) Cheers – Gavin (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, The article has now moved on to FAC. If you are able to cover the image and source reviews again, I'd be most grateful. I think I've managed to cover all the licence problems you highlighted in the PR (mostly by swapping out some of the images with more solid ones). Cheers - Gavin (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in a list format[edit]

"This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this article to prose". Only the timeline is a bulleted list, if it was in prose, it would be the article itself. Are timelines banned? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answering on article talk to avoid duplication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016[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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave[edit]

If you are going to remove Findagrave as a reference you have to remove all instances in the article, by removing the main citation you orphan all the dependent references leaving "citation errors" in your destructive wake. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brodie[edit]

You deleted my list of film appearances because it "lacked reliable sources." Each one was linked to its respective Wikipedia page. You're not inferring that Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source, are you?  :-O

Kindest regards, Mike Schlesinger aka Cadavra8Cadavra8 (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what do I have to do? Add links to their IMDb pages? This is not a frivolous addition. Cadavra8Cadavra8 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to add reliable secondary sources that support your proposed addition; neither IMDb nor Wikipedia meet that standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, we're getting into Kafka territory here. Frankly, I'm too old and too tired to start rummaging through cyberspace looking for and creating links to sources until I finally find one that Wikipedia deems "reliable," so I'm just going to let this go. God, I was just trying to be helpful... Cadavra8Cadavra8 (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you're trying to be helpful. You might want to have a look at our page on reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave[edit]

Can you show me the where the discussion was for your removal of Findagrave as a reference? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because the information on FindAGrave is added by anyone and not backed by reliable sources. Essentially it's a violation of RS and V. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 02:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Further, it's been discussed at RSN on several occasions, and found to be not reliable (or in some cases linkvio). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a link to the discussion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a recent example. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have something more substantial, after all you are removing links that are used to identify death dates and spouses names. In one case the information was from the text from a posted obituary, no different than how Wikipedia derives its own information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, it's been discussed on several occasions, that's just a recent example. It shouldn't be used to identify death dates or spouse names since it isn't a reliable source. And if it does indeed include the text of a posted obituary, that is very likely to be linkvio and so inappropriate to link. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point me to the discussion where it was decided to delete instances of FAG as a reference. I shouldn't have to ask so many times. There was nothing in your previous link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My previous link, and other discussions in the archives of RSN, concludes that it is not a reliable source to be used as a reference - and so, like other unreliable sources, it is subject to removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a conversation between three people in your link, two say they do not like the links. I will assume there is no definitive !wikilaw demanding that the links be removed, and I will restore some of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is consensus, established in that conversation and others like it, that it is not a reliable source, and therefore such restorations would be pointy and disruptive. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three people having a discussion, where two of them take one side, does not make a consensus. Enforcing it as !wikilaw is pointy and disruptive. You wrote: "that is very likely to be linkvio and so inappropriate to link", however I see no renewal notice, and to be a "linkvio " it would have to be under copyright in the United States. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That says: "Almost never. It should never be cited if it is a circular reference to Wikipedia." "Almost never" is not a synonym for "never" or "must be removed". The policy statement is more about circular referencing, than removing links to Findagrave. But, thank you for citing the actual policy, I linked to it from the Findagrave article. I would be happy if you checked Wikidata to make sure the FAG number is there before you delete them from Wikipedia. They are not all migrated over yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question re citing a source[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I've got a question re citing a source and I'd love to get help from you. I want to reference a Russian translation of a book that was originally published in German in English Wikipedia (I'd want to just cite something in English instead but I can't find anything). If I get it right, I should use the Russian name as the |title= parameter in {{cite book}} and the English name as |trans-title=. Is that right? Does the original German title belong anywhere?--R8R (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R8R, that's right - the template isn't designed to handle a complicated case like this one. If you wanted to include the details of the original book, you could do something like {cite book|...Russian details...} Translation of {cite book|...German details...} or similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! This sounds reasonable.--R8R (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2016[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.

Earl Hines & Find-a-Grave[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria:- Re Earl Hines' grave and nice grave-stone [inc photo of it] you wrote, 'See WP:SPS - if there's no reliable published source that has commented on this, it isn't needed'. I've read WP:SPS, carefully I think, and have also noted that Find-a-Grave seems to be ref'd at least 500 times elsewhere on Wiki [have I understood correctly?]. Whatever, I feel we should be very careful about what seems to me like making a good article a little bit less-good and less complete - I think it is 'needed', to use your word. Upon reflection, what do you - and others - think about your Hines edit? 86.131.132.48 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I stand by the original edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord elections[edit]

I'll miss seeing you around WT:MHC, Nikki. I hope you enjoyed this year's tour, and look forward to seeing you re-up in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Dank - I'll probably still be hanging around. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Canyon Dam FAC[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria; I've responded to your comments and done a solid run through of the remaining references; could you give it another look? Thanks, Shannon 04:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Images from Evita (soundtrack[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I'm currently reviewing Evita (soundtrack) for GA, and I'm still not confident with image copyrights, so I thought you might be able to give a little advice.

Firstly, File:Evita OST Madonna.png. It's FUR requires an explanation of why there is no possible free replacement, correct? (I am happy that there is a good reason that that is true, but that's not the point; we need to explicitly explain that under WP policy, no?)

Secondly, File:Tim Rice - 1981.jpg. This discussion, linked from that page, appears to suggest that the reasoning given for that photograph being in the public domain only applies up to 1978, while that photograph comes from 1981. Am I reading that right?

Thirdly, all of the other photographs look superficially OK to me, but if you had a moment and didn't mind, I'd be grateful if you'd check those too just to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Thanks! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caeciliusinhorto. The first image you mention needs the "n.a" parameters filled in. The second, on a quick look, seems okay with the current tag. File:2008-11-15_Эндрю_Ллойд_Уэббер.jpeg has two different tags on it and should really only have one or the other - the source link is dead so I can't tell which. File:YouMustLoveSample.ogg would appear not to meet the <10% rule outlined at WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such a prompt response! I found the Lloyd Webber photo archived here; looks like it should be the CC3.0 license to me?
Re: the sample of You Must Love Me, the song is 2.50 long, and the sample is 17 seconds, which by my calculations is exactly 10% (2.50 = 170 seconds). As I'm reading WP:SAMPLE that should be OK, no? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The file description page says it's 22 seconds - if it's only 17, that should be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Orange High School edits[edit]

This latest edit removes parameters that are essential components of Template:Infobox school. I've tried to make edits to address your concerns and I'm unsure what the issue is here. In the absence of policy changes to support your claim, and in the absence of consensus to change the template, I think it's time to follow WP:BRD to get consensus for your changes. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alansohn, as I've already mentioned, that's a MOS:LINK issue - specifically, "avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link" and instead either omit one (which would be suboptimal in this case, as non-US readers might struggle with US postal abbreviations) or use a single specific link. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS is a guideline; it's not a policy. You're overapplying a rule that specifically indicates that you must be applying common sense. In any template that has an address, by definition, the city and state will end up next to each other. This isn't a bug; it's a design feature in all such templates and impacts thousands upon thousands of articles. I can "solve" the problem by hardcoding / recasting the details as "city, zip, state", which would address your issue in utterly nonsensical fashion. Either way, WP:BRD applies here. I will restore the status quo ante and hope that you will seek consensus on the article's talk page to support your position that no article can have a template that displays city and state next to each other. Alansohn (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A "feature" that negatively impacts the experience of a majority of readers sure sounds like a bug. Nevertheless, I've resolved the issue in a different way, using the parameters that you want to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia EDP Sciences access[edit]

Hi, please put Category:Wikipedia EDP Sciences access in a more suitable parent category. It's currently inside itself, which isn't encouraged - it makes a category loop. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Harris Referencing Question[edit]

Hello NikkiMaria, and thank you for replying to my peer review request for Cecil E. Harris. I've tried to purge all of the non-template citations (the ones with <ref>[]) in favor of {{cite book/magazine/web}}, and to make uniform certain aspects of the references, e.g. last=|first= for author name rather than author=. I think this is a good first step. However, I am looking for input regarding the overall organization of citations/references/notes into different categories. More than most other pages on Wiki, this one uses primary source materials to develop the narrative of Harris's wartime career. Would it be of benefit to sort out the various sources into primary, book and web reference sections? A scheme like that would make the ref list much more readable on its own. I've thought about pulling just book references into "References" and leaving the rest in "Notes," but that still looks relatively messy. Let me know if you have any other suggestions or if you think it's fine the way it is. Thank you very much and best regards, Finktron (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finktron, are you imagining using something like {{sfn}} in the footnotes themselves, leading to a separate section with sources split out by type? That's a formatting I've seen before, for example in John Diefenbaker. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try Shortened footnotes. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift[edit]

Hi, would you like to conduct a source and/or image review for Taylor Swift at its FAC (I am only asking because not a long time ago you were involved in a discussion at its talk)? If not, then ignore/revert or whatever you'd like to do with this message. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 24 September[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, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is RE:The Wikipedia Library coordination.
Message added 23:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/The Word for World Is Forest[edit]

Nikkimaria, this article was mentioned as having close paraphrasing in a review a couple of weeks ago. The editor has completed a revision that was supposed to take care of this, but the original reviewer has not returned in the past fortnight. Can you please check to see whether any close paraphrasing remains? Thank you very much. I hope all is well with you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OUP email[edit]

Hi - I got approval back in early September, but no email has arrived. Is there a backlog? NealeFamily (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NealeFamily, a login was sent to the email entered on the form - if you didn't receive it (check your spam mail), please email me. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YGM[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
-sorry, similar query as above! Muffled Pocketed 14:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Replied. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester Page[edit]

Hi NM - are you not happy with the content I placed on this page? / You deleted it earlier.

I felt it to be highly relevant to Greater Manchester, if you feel it should be placed in a different part of the page let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulverton (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bulverton, the issue is that it needs reliable sourcing to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks NM, the page I linked to Parliament of the United Kingdom Relocation is cites its information carefully - did you have a chance to look at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulverton (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bulverton, even if the information is cited in a linked article, we still need to include the citations in this article too. See WP:CIRCULAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Nikkimaria - I have just added a link under SEE ALSO which I hope you find a reasonable compromise at this point, Alex Salmond has today released a long statement on his view that parliament should move north (Manchester was mentioned) - its a growing issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulverton (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Access[edit]

Hi Nikki,

Thanks for your message on my UrWiki talkpage. I didn't get any further update on the issue. Please have a look. Thanks again in advance. --Muzammil (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Muzammil (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the three FAC reviews and sixteen image/source reviews you did during September. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

APA Access[edit]

Hi Nikki. Thanks again for Edinburgh Access. But I didn't get any email regard APA which was also approved. Please look into that. Thanks in advance. --Muzammil (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki. I filled in the Google form for APA access the very next day of your email. I didn't get any update on the access details. Please help. --Muzammil (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It will take a week or two for APA to process the request - thanks for your patience. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I didn't get response till date.--Muzammil (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent a follow-up email, but as this is a holiday in the US I wouldn't expect to hear anything until next week. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vel Lewis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Contemporary jazz and Overbrook High School. 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) 11:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PD-US[edit]

Hello Nikki, I was wondering does images tagged with PD-US (images created before 1923) meet feature article restrictions even if a. the creator died less than 70 years ago or b. we do not know when the creator died. Thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KAVEBEAR, assuming that (a) it was published, not just created, before 1923, and (b) it is hosted locally or is of US origin, that should be fine. Do you have a particular image in mind? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Liliuokalani in 1917.jpg. The bit about the copyright holder was added by another user and I can't corroborate it or research much about him in particular.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The issue with that one in particular is going to be when or even if it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: I Am... Sasha Fierece[edit]

Hi. Would you mind weighing in on this RfC, which involves whether this statement should be removed: "I Am... Sasha Fierce received generally mediocre reviews from critics"?; "mediocre" was paraphrased from "lukewarm", verified by these sources: 1, 2, 3. Dan56 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, except to note that Daily Mail and co are generally not good sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Jul to Sep 16[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 29 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 2016[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 Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Carritt edit[edit]

I note you removed material from David Carritt as "non-RS". I flicked over this while it was in the DYK queue, saw the statement and googled it to check -- it's also covered in this 2014 biography [1], which is used as a source in our featured article on the topic. Would you consider this adequate to reinstate the information? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict, if that book supports the statement (I don't have access to it), then sure, that would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll restore with the new ref. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

elsevier[edit]

By coincidence, I just now retreated to WP:RX, having abandoned all hope for Elsevier access... But I may get it soon elsewhere anyhow so I guess it doesn't matter. But just FYI.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ce[edit]

Your edit summaries say "ce" what does that mean? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Copyedit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): More at WP:ESL#Copy edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library/Partners[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, sometime back I volunteered to help with Donor outreach at the Wikipedia library. I never heard back again. Do we still needs hands with this tasks? Thanks —M@sssly✉ 18:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masssly, sorry to hear that - Sam, could you coordinate with him? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail Masssly :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviews[edit]

Nikki, I am very much impressed with your image reviews for the FAC and A-class reviews of MILHIS. Actually I have a bit a good knowledge about image licensing on Wiki. But I am not completely aware of image policies and guidelines. Could please guide me to get a good knowledge of image licensing, and so that I can help in reviewing images for such nominations? Please let me know if you are comfortable in training me. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KCV, sure. I'd suggest starting by reading the two FCDWs linked from here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You, I'll get back to you once I complete the study. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor and Francis[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for the quick response. Scope creep (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for your offer. I would be very happy to accept it and I am very interested. Thanks, --Alexander Tendler (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, hi, and thanks for helping with Taylor & Francis approval! Just one question: did you send more than one Email to me? I had two separate notifications, but only received one Email. loupgarous (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, should only be one from me. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I am one of the editors that got granted JSTOR access. I remember trying to get access right away and being told that I would be contacted with an update; this did not occur (unless I messed it up on my end and didn't notice it, which I definitely do not rule out :). Is it still possible to access JSTOR through the program? Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did find an email from JSTOR and will again try to access. To try and resolve this should we wait and have me get back to you after I get a response? Rybkovich (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rybkovich, if you have an email from JSTOR that means you should have access - if that isn't working, I'd suggest contacting their customer support. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
thanks for helping with my access to Taylor and Francis - it'll really help with those thorny references hiding behind pay walls... loupgarous (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T&F[edit]

Hi Nikki, sorry to trouble you but I don't seem to have received an email about the Taylor and Francis subscription. It hasn't been eaten by my spam filters either. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ, I've re-sent it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Nikki. Safely received this time. Thanks for all you had work on this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SR[edit]

Hi, sorry to trouble you but would you be able to provide a source review for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bradley_Cooper/archive1 (with enough commentary and support, I think it's nearing closure but the sources need to be checked for formatting/reliability)? I will be really grateful for your help. – Liebe99 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 19[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

  • New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
  • New Library Card Platform and Conference news
  • Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter



19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review of List of National Defence Academy alumni[edit]

I have nominated List of National Defence Academy alumni for A-class about almost 3 months ago. It has gained three supports and also Rupert has done some review on images. I don't know whether it is a complete image review or not. Could please give the list an image review, so that it could be promoted to A-class and eventually to FL — A-class review on MILHIS. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the ten FAC image reviews and two source reviews you did during October. . Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try again[edit]

I did not obliterate that womsn's name that template accidentally. Before you revert me again honey, you do some work. Update her BLP with all of her remarkable accomplishments here. Oh, she is talented and motivated and full of visionary leadship, but that does not count. If you think about it, her failure to accomplish anything here says a lot more about this place that it does about her. I wish her well and I expect that she did let the door hit her sweet behind as she left.--Judtojud (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever "that woman" accomplished or didn't, former WMF EDs should be in the template. If you disagree, suggest you post to its talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, you know, uhm, for some reason you forgot to add the ED names Sue Gardner and Katherine Maher. Why do you suppose that is?--172.56.0.58 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this was appropriate? Done anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who talks like that? Drmies (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'50s throwbacks, mostly. Hard to believe they're still around. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Madame: Defend yourself. Template talk:Wikipedia#Do all WMF Executive Directors belong on this template. I prefer my victories to be accompanied with some sort of challenge.--172.56.32.146 (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP: I don't care to engage with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion blocked 172.56.0.58 and 172.56.32.48, so wouldn't 172.56.32.146 be evading a block? Re Judtojud (talk · contribs), see the diffs at my talk. Clearly a returned user is having fun. I don't know whether to revert them as an unidentified banned user, or ignore them (both would be good). Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me apologize. I made a mistake. I did not check the list of Wikipedisns by FA before I switched to my "Taming of the Shrew" mode. What can I say? My lady: you were out-of-uniform. You do not have even one gold star in the upper right-hand corner of your userpage. True, I should treat all people kindly, but as you yourself expressed in your edit comment my Lady: my initial action was in good faith. Sigh. We should all refer to m:immediatism and all take pause for a moment and develop the habit to stay our hand for perchance a day.--172.56.32.203 (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T&F[edit]

Still not received any email regarding above. scope_creep (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, send me an email. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016[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) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing Underwater diving for FA[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, If you can find the time and inclination to look at and comment on the references and images in Underwater diving it would be appreciated. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: October 2016[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.

T & F[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I know it must be as frustrating for you getting these emails but it has been a week since I sent in the Google Docs T & F signing, that you sent me personally. Any ideas whats happening. I'm checking my email about five times a day. scope_creep (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're waiting for them to set up the logins - I will check in again on Monday. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor & Francis and Newspaperarchive.com[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. I was wondering. What is the process on my application for the Taylor & Francis and Newspaperarchive.com accounts. I remember you sending me an email about them and I've filled out the google forms.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For T&F, we're waiting for them to create the logins. For Newspaperarchive, @Iazyges: is now coordinating so would have more info. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Affairs subscription[edit]

I've been granted access to Foreign Affairs journal as part of referencing work aid. My application was approved on the centralised page, but I have been emailed no response or any other relevant details from any concerned party. The link always gives me a server error, and I do not know whom to approach to resolve this problem. Can you kindly let me know how do I get access to Foreign Affairs journal online? EthicallyYours! 16:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should get an email from Foreign Affairs once they've set up your account, which I expect will happen in the upcoming week. What did you click on to get the server error link? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tamannaah filmography/archive1[edit]

Interested in doing an image/source review? Let me know. :) Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T & F login[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, as regards email. I couldn't get into T & F. I suspect I'd forgotten my password. I requested a new password dialog but it's not arrived. So I sent an email to T & F support, and I'll see in the morning. scope_creep (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Chamber pop[edit]

Nikkimaria, this recently approved GA was nominated for DYK and was brought to WT:DYK when someone saw it in prep and discovered some plagiarism in the lead (and tagged it). I pulled it from prep, and was wondering whether you would be able to check the article to see whether it has any plagiarism, close paraphrasing, or copyvio. Thank you very much for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_34&oldid=1089849266"