User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 8

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

WT:MOSNUM#Colons in times?[edit]

FWIW. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I would still argue that having both "1 a.m." and "1:00 a.m." in an article would be incorrect not because one is preferred over the other, but because to have both is IMO inconsistent. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil[edit]

There has been a major copyedit in the article about Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil since you reviewed. I'd like to ask you to take a look in it and see if your complains were adressed. Whatever you might find that you regard as wrong, I'd like to ask you to point them out to us in the FAC nomination so that we may correct them. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan to review the article again or not? --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please have some patience, I haven't gotten to it quite yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Astynax has made the changes you suggested. I hope that's enough. I'd like to know if that's ok and whether there is anything else you believe should be improved. --Lecen (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain me why did you revert my edition? I haven't modified no message from anyone. All I did was to make it easier to understand each discussion inside the nomination page. --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lecen. Per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, "nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors". I appreciate your efforts to organize the review page, but capping someone else's comments is not a good idea, and restoring the caps after I objected is a worse one. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011[edit]



This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011[edit]

Query about 'consistency'[edit]

Re your post. I made an edit where I changed, removed or added publishers and locations within refs. Raintheone has challenged me with what has been said to him at FAC. I just found one such FAC, and would like clarification. Am I understanding it correctly that you would expect all instances of publishers or locations to be populated, or none at all? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. What I meant was each type of reference should either have them or not - for example, either all books should include it, or none of them should. References to websites for example tend not to include that information at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My edit removed links from Daily Mail and added '|location=UK', . He objected saying this created inconsistencies, presumably because not all the other newspapers were linked and had the location field. He also seemed to disagree with my rationale that "The location is only really necessary as a disambiguation field, so there is absolutely no need to populate it for many other journals, such as the 'New York Times' or 'San Francisco Chronicle'; the British Daily Mail is not the only one. Also, the consensus is not to link a term or word repeatedly. Daily Mail, only the second-best-selling British tabloid, is already linked to in the body of the text, and linking five times in the refs section is wholly unnecessary." What's your view? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. I hadn't thought of the location-as-disambiguation argument - that's a good point, and probably a good rationale for including a location for that paper. The linking issue is a bit more complex. My personal view is that WP:OVERLINK applies to article text, not to reference sections, and that authors therefore have three options to maintain consistency: to link a certain element in the reference section (in this case, the title of a newspaper) on first occurrence, always, or never. I prefer never; however, I think that any of those three options would make sense from a consistency standpoint. From your rationale, you apply overlink to references as well - in that case, would you allow linking of every newspaper title on first occurrence in the references, or would you argue that anything linked in the article text should not be linked in references? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the consistency argument, especially for FAs. I prefer no wikilinks at all in that piece of screen real estate. Seeing that most news sources/references are fungible, and thus are of no direct relevance to the article, I tend to argue for and actually systematically unlink most newspapers. I have seen many articles where each of The New York Times, The Washington Post, USAToday or The Guardian are linked upwards of twenty times, and find that unacceptable, and I have never received complaints for unlinking those instances. Not all editors are as binary as you or me: I think many editors do want the option of linking the first occurrence, and I usually respect that.

    Substituting with a location is often necessary as removal of the link would also remove clues to a journal's location (where the context isn't sufficiently strong, or where there is no url to follow). This would be particularly true of journals such as The Telegraph, and The Times; in particular The Nation is often linked to the wrong article. There are other 'Daily Mail's, and although possibility of ambiguity isn't enormous, I added the UK because it is not immediately obvious from the journal name; also it resides on the same line of script that adds location dabs for The Telegraph. I generally only unlink major newspapers in each territory. As the refs are never read independently of the body, one link usually suffices. For the article in question, Daily Mail already appeared in the body text. It was also linked repeatedly in the refs section; the publisher field in each occurrence was populated with Associated Newspapers. I see the latter as being largely unnecessary because The Mail so well known, and Associated constitutes a 'chain link' when adjacent to the Daily Mail. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • May I shove in here? The correct "location" for newspapers and magazines is the *city* of publication, so for the Daily Mail it is "London", not "UK" (not least because there are other Daily Mails in other UK cities). In my view, location should always be stated for any publication where the city of publication is not included in the name of the organ (which it often is in the USA but mostly isn't in the UK) -- so obviously not needed for The New York Times, but certainly required for The Times and The Guardian, of which the ones in London are each only one of several around the world respectively.
However, I am less certain about whether the same rule applies to broadcast sources. I added "(Bonn)" to Deutsche Welle in the Germany article and I see that you (Nikkimaria) have just deleted it, so I assume you think it doesn't. Likewise people occasionally put "London" for BBC references but mostly don't: perhaps everyone in the world knows that the BBC is in London.
The documentation for the "publisher" parameter in "cite news" makes clear that it is provided only for those cases where a small local paper belongs to a wider group. It is certainly superfluous to put "Associated Newspapers" for the Daily Mail (London). I rather wish that parameter were not there, as people tend to think they have to fill it in, and often mistake its purpose and put the title of the organ there instead of under "newspaper" or "work", which matters because then it doesn't come out in italics as convention requires.
I completely agree with you about not constantly wikilinking the titles of publications where mainstream "respectable" newspapers and magazines are concerned. As long as the newspaper is identified by its city of publication there should be no reason to read a Wikipedia article about it in order to know what to think about it, and certainly not more than once on the same page. -- Alarics (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed note the {{citation}} template says we should put city and not country as location. My view is that this is unnecessary precise. The reality is that trademark laws make the existence of two journals of the same name in one country extremely unlikely. I would contend that your remark that are other Daily Mails in other UK cities is slightly imprecise: there may be an Eastern Daily Mail, Western Daily Mail, Peterborough Daily Mail (actually, I'm just guessing), but only one Daily Mail. That being so, simply putting "UK" will do the job. It is on this basis that I populate location fields. Yes, strictly speaking, we ought to put in a location by default except in the cases you describe, but there are others, such as Time, Newsweek, BBC, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Financial Times, Vogue, Billboard, that need neither location, publisher nor linking.

As I said above, I do not believe in the necessity of linking journal names, nor of populating publishers fields in the majority of cases. You have remarked on the existence of the publisher field (which I would only really want to see used for books), and the propensity of editors to populate these in some anal-retentive fashion, or do so in the misguided belief that it is required by FAC or GAN, or simply "because it's there". Most of the time, use of these is unnecessary – the sources we tend to use tend to be tier-one. As to linking, I frequently come across articles where The New York Times is linked in excess of twenty, thirty, forty times. Go figure. I already use a script to ensure consistent formatting of titles by ensuring website names of traditional journals (e.g. Guardian Unlimited) are rendered as the traditional name (e.g. The Guardian). I also ensure the correct field name is used to give the italicisation, while taking out links to such articles. I have been building the list of journals as I go along. It is here. Your feedback would be most welcome. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YB Music / record labels[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria thanks for your help :) figuring out how to solve the issues that put the article YB Music labeled as "listed for deletion".. Since Nov 2010 several improvements were made, but no feedback was given since then. YB Music is the label that's releasing the new independent brazilian music for 10 years. Best 2010 Album by brazilian Rolling Stone magazine; 2 out of 10 Best of 2009 albums, also by Rolling Stone magazine. I understand it is a company, but companies related and creating culture definitely should have their space in Wikipedia; labels as Mute, Warp, Ninja Tunes are all there, and with good reason any suggestions on how to make this work? Unfortunately, lots of the references may be in portuguese; but surely some first page reviews in main newspapers in Sao Paulo and Rio... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2sambabom (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese-language references are allowed so long as they are reliable sources. Your best option is to create a sourced article that demonstrates notability and is written neutrally - stuff that reads like an advertisement often ends up getting deleted. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misstbird[edit]

I have chosen to work on Winters v. U.S. for my main Wiki project. I am suggested to ask for your comments on this choice and article. 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misstbird (talk • contribs)

Macdonald[edit]

I think we're all OK except the one ref I commented on, on the FAC page. Perhaps one way of dealing with that is deleting the template and doing it as a normal reference. Let me know what you think, there. I appreciate all your work, and am sorry I left so much work for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Eridani[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

I was wondering if you could take a look at my replies to your review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epsilon Eridani/archive1? There's a few points that I'd appreciate if you could clarify. Thank you.

Regards, RJH (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I've tried to address your concerns about the technical terms, but I'm not sure if I was fully successful.—RJH (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosendale trestle images[edit]

Could you please revisit your comments on images in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosendale trestle/archive1? I believe your image review may be the only remaining issue on that FAC. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netball FAC: Thank you for the review[edit]

Thank you for helping to review Netball. I've never been through the FAC process and I found your edits and comments regarding what needed fixing to be extremely helpful. While the article may have failed, the feedback was insightful, on point and offers a clear route to addressing issues in the article. Speaking for myself and other regular contributors, we'll definetely be addressing the problems raised so that at some point in the future we can renominate it and get it passed. Thanks again for the assistance! --LauraHale (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)/archive2[edit]

Thank you so much for finding out the issues Nikkimaria. I belive I've fixed the issues, and have left replies. Once again, thank you. Novice7 (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to mentor a small group of students[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I'm trying to find mentors for each of the groups in the Energy Economics and Policy course. Would you be willing to mentor this group? If so, please sign up on the course page and introduce yourself to the students in the group. If not, let me know so I can find someone else. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011[edit]

Christianity in Japan[edit]

Please see "Japan"'s discussion page about Christianity Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flowing Hair dollar[edit]

Hi Nikki. I've addressed your image review at the FAC for Flowing Hair dollar. I did have a question for you, though, because I'm not sure which copyright tag to use on the Spanish dollar picture. Thanks for the review!-RHM22 (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosendale trestle reply[edit]

Just wanted to let you know I responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosendale trestle/archive1. Also, I added another image to the article (File:Close up of engineer on Rosendale trestle.jpg) after its OTRS was filled. I hope I've provided good enough answers for a support, and I'd like to thank you for reviewing so far. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to support - not because I don't think it's a good article, but simply because I don't feel I know enough about the topic to know that it fulfills all the criteria. Images look okay. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of commons images[edit]

Hi,
you've recently added categories to a bunch of Commons images, and those file description pages were now marked for speedy deletion.
Typically, categories that are not specific to enWP should be added at Commons, not at the locale file description page. Since they are presumably all collected in Commons:Category:Wikipe-tan I'm going to delete those pages here.
I do agree that it would be very useful to see the commons categorization here on enWP, and there already is a bugzilla issue somewhere asking for that. But duplicating the categorization on all MediaWiki projects is in my opinion not a useful workaround.
Cheers, Amalthea 11:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry about that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. :) Amalthea 13:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Croft images[edit]

Hi. I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lara Croft/archive2, and was hoping you'd provide further input. I also wanted to let you know that I added another free image to the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

FYI- I replied again. Thanks for the input. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Image/source review for Zoo TV Tour FAC[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I responded to your source concerns with the Zoo TV Tour FAC. If you could please respond, I would appreciate it. I'm also looking for someone to do an image review, so if you could also provide that, that'd be great. Thank you! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've responded to your concerns, and if you could reply in the nomination page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the offending Trabant image. There are still outstanding issues regarding images and sourcing that I haven't seen replies for, so if you could address those at your earliest convenience, I would appreciate it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've addressed everything that's outstanding. If you could please complete your review, both of all the images in the article and the sources, I'd appreciate it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of town at the moment, it likely won't get done until Monday at the earliest unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have any other comments to make about the article's referencing? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment for 2010 G-20 Toronto summit[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2010 G-20 Toronto summit has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Locock[edit]

Heh. I had Charles Locock on a list of articles to create. Looks like I was too slow. :-) May try and add more later. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review at Fantastic Adventures FAC[edit]

Hi -- would you mind revisiting the Fantastic Adventures FAC and letting me know if there's anything else I need to fix? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC revisit for Villa Park[edit]

Thank you very much for your detailed comments on the FAC for Villa Park. I think all the issues have been dealt with now. Would it be possible for you to revisit when you have the time? Thanks. Woody (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask for another revisit when you have the time. Are there any further MOS issues that you can see? Thanks for your time so far, Woody (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Evolution[edit]

Greetings. The article was not promoted after 8 days on the FA list. Not sure why the quick trigger; the students were in the process of addressing the issues. Rather than resubmit; I request that you allow us to address your concerns "off the record" and please inform when it meets your satisfaction. At such time the students will resubmit for FA.(Note: we skipped peer review since the article ((with the exception of Genetic Drift)) is the FA version from the past that went through enormous amount of scrutiny.) Not surprising all the the concerns raised in this FA attempt centered around that section. --JimmyButler (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better Than Today peer review.[edit]

Hello. If you have spare time, could you peer review a good article aiming for featured article status? It is about the song "Better Than Today". I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Clarke FAR[edit]

Hi Nikki - I know that the FAR for Rebecca Clarke has been a bit of a long haul, but it looks to be nearing the end. Brianboulton has left a few comments on the review, and I am hoping that you might have some time to address them. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to it the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011[edit]

FAC[edit]

You kindly contributed to the recent peer review of Thomas Beecham, following which I have nominated the article at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Beecham/archive1). Any views you might perhaps wish to add there would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your helpful comments at FAC. They are greatly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flowing Hair dollar FAC[edit]

Hi Nikki. Your comments are greatly appreciated, and I have addressed them all at the FAC for Flowing Hair dollar. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support on Flowing Hair. There's not a lot of interest in this article, so all comments (positive or negative) are really appreciated.-RHM22 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose at SS Edmund Fitzgerald article[edit]

The close on the recent FAC was that we should re-work the prose and come back in a few weeks. After that we sought help at the WP Guild of Copy Editors, and they made extensive copy edit / prose improvements on the article. We (think we) are ready to to re-submit it. Since you were the main reviewer regarding prose concerns, would you take a quick look at it and give any preliminary impressions before we resubmit it? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better than it did. There are still some things that could do with fixing, though. Check out WP:LEAD and WP:Checklist, and try reading the article out loud to look for awkward or unclear phrasing. I can offer a more detailed review early next week, if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, we would appreciate that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We created a checklist with your specific and general feedback items from here and the article talk page. It's at [[1]]. We believe that we have completed those items. We welcome any additional feedback.North8000 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi. I am Jivesh. I come from Mauritius. I edit mainly pages related to Beyonce on Wikipedia. I have been amazed by the amazing contributions you make here and you have a nice understanding about prose which is my weak point. I was wondering if you could review an article for after i submit it for a peer review. Feel free to refuse. I won't mind. Thanks. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can, but not until Monday - out of town at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter. Thank you very much for replying. Please leave me a message on my talk-page when you are free. Thank you once again. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is "Ring the Alarm". But first could you please tell me from a quick look (i mean without going into details) whether Beyonce Knowles discography looks good? I have nominated it for FL. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not as familiar with the requirements of FLC as I am FAC, but from a glance the discography seems fairly well-done. The lead's a bit on the long side - per WP:LEAD, should be no more than 4 paragraphs - but beyond that I have no real prose concerns (did a bit of copy-editing, feel free to revert). As to "Ring the Alarm", are you planning on putting it up for WP:PR, or would you prefer I left comments on the talk page?
Thank you so much. You are amazing. Yes, i will nominate it for a PR.

Already nominated. Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Schenn FAC[edit]

Thank you for your comments the FAC for Schenn. It has been / will be shortly be archived due to a lack of supports, but I was hoping you could clarify for me where yuo were going with your comments about the Leafs logo? Or, point me in the direction of someone who can? As I said, I was just following previous hockey FAs which use action pictures featuring logos - I'd appreciate any guidance on this as I try to polish things up a bit further. Thanks! Canada Hky (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of town at the moment - suggest asking one of the image experts (Jappalang and Elcobbola are good choices). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you! Canada Hky (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Fringe theory
Round Mountain (volcano)
Plinth Peak
Patriation Reference
Trigeneration
Caffé d'orzo
Yang Hyong-sop
Lambert Lombard
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences
Mount Sacagawea
James Deen
Pemberton Volcanic Belt
Glencraig
Pylon Peak
Ezhamkulam
Maguari Stork
Pyroclastic Peak
Barbari bread
Cameahwait
Cleanup
Obsolete denominations of United States currency
Molten chocolate cake
United States dollar
Merge
Mango
Air India
Malnutrition in India
Add Sources
Gaston Means
Energy management system
Netherlands
Wikify
Eh, Cumpari!
Kho kho
Trial of Trebonius
Expand
Japanese colonialism
Index of India-related articles
Challenge of Champions

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I know you edit at FAC and comment on reliable sources and the like. I'm being bullied down by a group of self confessed fan boys of GI Joe. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/1, Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#G.I._Joe:_A_Real_American_Hero_.28Marvel_Comics.29 and Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics). There has been a long running discussion on reliable sources. More information on where the sources were contested and deemed no reliable is available in those topics. Anyway I know you are an admin so I thought it was best to seek assistance on what has turned into a dispute. I recently edited G.I. Joe: Resolute (ref tidy, added reliable sources for a reception section, removed weasel wording, cut plot down and so forth) - I was under the impression, well I know, that my edits were contructive. The editor Jake laughed at my edits and ordered me to edit the more known series. No is helping there atm, they are trying to argue. It's worked, I ended up calling one editor a bully, so it is time if you could take a look.Rain the 1 BAM 03:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for agreeing to look into this, it is long winded but I looked over a few admins and decided your knowledge of sources at FAC spoke volumes.. The editor has left you a question on the talk page.Rain the 1 BAM 03:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I thought I'd let you know you know that I asked another editor of GAR to look over it with you. I think it is perhaps wise if I no longer add to discussion as it seems to produce nothing towards helping the article. I did make a personal apology on Jake's talk page too, it is a shame we couldn't work together in the end. But at the end of the day like you said, it is about the article and not our personality clashes. Do you think that is wise? Thankyou for listening too.Rain the 1 BAM 04:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in addition to that - When I asked you to help and Siltork (because he does work on GA reassment), I stated that we both seem to be at fault. That outside eyes are better. I didn't think that was canvassing. Have you seen these? This, [2] and this. Ever likley user Boz was quick to assume I had a vendetta, he was told so. I asked uninvolved people from a far, they are going in between themselves.Rain the 1 BAM 04:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Ruhrfisch is the most recent Peer Reviewer on the article in question - I think his input would be useful given that he's the most recent admin to do a thorough review of the article's content (March 30/31), which is even more recent than the original GA nomination (March 1/2). As for BOZ, he's had plenty of opportunity to observe first-hand statements made by Raintheone, here [3] and here [4] - so he doesn't need me to feed him anything, he's already seen Rain's behaviour first hand. He also has considerable experience editing comic book articles, which I believe to be pertinent to this discussion. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assume a vendetta on Rain's part, because I believe he believes he is legitimately trying to help. I wrote my response at the GAR before reading much more than a sentence or two of Jake's note to me on my talk page. I have observed some of the interactions between WP:FC and WP:GIJOE members since that situation began here, in late February. You can see some assumption of bad faith there by Rain, right off the bat, before he had spoken much to these editors. You see another editor suggesting he might engage in "a moment of harsh deletionism and a bit of spite", to which I cautioned further discussion rather than rash actions. At first, I don't think the GIJoe editors really knew much about the issues, so they may have responded slowly or not at all, but when they realized what needed to happen, then they got to it. I don't know exactly what Rain was hoping for, but like I said before, I think he was impatient with them and demanded (faster) action with persistent aggressiveness, and when he didn't get what he wanted to see I think he felt the need to take on a self-appointed supervisory role and jump into things like an ill-advised AFD on Zartan and now this GAR. Now, that is my semi-involved opinion, but this is what I have observed. I don't think he is wrong in his opinions, but I think taking a step back and letting them get some work done is a good idea. This is a volunteer project, and they are not his employees. I think for what they have done so far and continue to do, they should be commended and not condemned. BOZ (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011[edit]

FAC[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'd like to make a comment about the recent "crisis", if you don't mind. Although I complained in the FAC talk page about having assigned you to close the FAC nomination, I want you to know that it's nothing against you, personally. My complains were about how the FAC nominations are handled. I hope you can understand it. --Lecen (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken; as I said on your talk page, I knew that it was somewhat irregular for me to close it, but I was hoping to minimize the drama and stress. I see it's been restored, and I have no objection to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headley[edit]

I think I got all your sourcing concerns. I don't know if you normally revisit, so just letting you know and thanks for the review. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the images for this article so they should be better now. I'd appreciate it if you could have a look. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger FAC[edit]

Thanks for the comments. Sorry I was late in getting back to you, but I am currently on vacation. I believe I responded to your concerns. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True at First Light[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria - just checking in to see whether any further action re sources is necessary at the True at First Light FAC. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria for your source review on True at First Light. I wish I had your keen eyes! Also, congratulations on your becoming FAR delegate - it's well deserved. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far delegate appointment[edit]

See this. Raul654 (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously doing something right and I'm obviously doing something wrong, but FAR is the winner. Congratulations. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're writing articles - obviously you're in the "write" ;-). Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gratz from me too. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Wood FAC[edit]

I've been told this image File:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg is incorrectly licensed. However, the reviewer who told me so refuses to elaborate why. Could you please explain in order that I could fix the problem. Thank you. -Red marquis (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Home-Made Barnstar
For re-wording the section on Rules in the article O Canada so it was no longer a copywrite problem and was able to stay. I think you deserve this, thank you. Oddbodz (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Do you think I should be taking a break or the person who initiated the personal attacks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you note any personal attacks before this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me get back to you later. I have to finish my taxes, but I don't believe that if someone said that about you you would not consider it a personal attack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would depend whether it was true or not. The only part of that statement that could be construed as a personal attack would be the second sentence, which taken with the third seems to me to be the editor's feeling/opinion as opposed to simple name-calling. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing[edit]

We'd like to put a column in our monthly Milhist newsletter encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it'd be helpful for someone to do spotchecks for copyvio/plagiarism and to do image licensing checks, but those are both things that newer reviewers tend not to be comfortable with (or, in most cases, good at). Personally, I started at FAC with two main reviewing tasks: dab/deadlink checking (using the tools at the top of the FAC page, takes only a couple minutes to do and isn't too daunting) and offering random comments on stuff I didn't understand in the article. The latter of these is particularly helpful now because it (usually) represents non-specialist review and a clarity check, and it can flag an article for review by a more experienced prose reviewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've put all the responses together here; feel free to add or subtract. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text requirement[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

Per your FAC comment that, "Note: alt text is not currently part of the FA criteria", I have to respectfully disagree. Item 2 of the FA criteria says it follows the style guidelines. The last bullet of MOS:IMAGES states, "Images should have an alt attribute added...". This indicates that Alt text is still required. If this is not the case, then the FA criteria should be making a list of such exceptions available to the editor community.

Regards, RJH (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJH. Alt text was for a time specifically mentioned in the FA criteria, but was removed (you can read the whole saga here if you've got a lot of time on your hands). To make a long story short, it was decided that alt text would not be discouraged, but would also not be mandated, and that so long as any alt text present wasn't clearly wrong (the example given at the time IIRC was "it says an apple is an orange") it wouldn't be discussed or debated at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I want to thank you for your review of Egyptian temple for FA status. I also want to thank you for FAC reviewing in general—I did it out of a sense of obligation while Egyptian temple was at FAC, and I hated it. Kudos to everybody who keeps the system working. A. Parrot (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I also feel obligated sometimes, but I really don't much like it either. Copyediting is alright, but when it comes to reviewing against the MOS and checkings refs and images, that is really boring.-RHM22 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does make it easier to do so on your own articles, though. I'm not very good at image checking, but MOS and refs I don't mind. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course I don't mind going over my own articles! I suppose it's a little like cleaning a toilet. Wouldn't like doing it unless it's your own.-RHM22 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even then you wouldn't really like it. At least I hope not.-RHM22 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fantasy[edit]

I just wanted to say thank you for the source reviews and image reviews that you do. You're always efficient, good humoured and reasonable, and it's work that needs doing. It's very much appreciated. I also need to apologize for committing the same errors over and over again; in my current FAC you've pointed out mistakes that you've pointed out at least two or three times before. I keep thinking that by copying my references from a previous FA I will have a clean copy, but there's always something new or I mistakenly tweak something. I promise that in future I will go back to my prior FACs and look at the source comments and try to do a pass to be sure I'm not repeat-offending. Anyway, I've replied at the FAC, and there's a question about the images, so if you could let me know the right way to handle that I'd appreciate it. Thanks again! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - your source reviews are fairly straightforward. At least we've determined that Westport is in Connecticut ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trade dollar[edit]

Hi Nikki. Thanks for your comments and reviews at the FAC for Trade dollar (United States coin). I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fixed the reflist to make it two columns. Just out of curiousity, what does it look like with two columns? I'm picturing two even, vertical rows of references stacked next to each other, but I'm not sure. I use IE, which apparently is not support by the "reflist2" template, so it looks the same as usual to me. Thanks for the support in my RfA by the way.-RHM22 (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like 2 columns, 1 to 19 in the left, the remainder in the right. Looks fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I wonder if they'll ever fix it so IE users can view it as such.-RHM22 (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toxic (song)/archive1[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. The above nomination has been around for almost a month. But the nominator is not a significant contributor of the article. Is there a way to close the nomination, like archiving or deleting? Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-delegates can only archive or delete a nom under very specific circumstances, usually when the nominator has requested withdrawal. For cases like this one, ping User:SandyGeorgia. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Nikki. Novice7 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News references[edit]

Hello, in Germany I had been completing some incomplete references. In news citations, the city of publication of a newspaper or magazine should be included if it is not already part of the name of the publication. I see that you have removed "London" from The Guardian and "New Delhi" from The Times of India, undoing my work and making the article not conform to either general practice or WP rules. I have put them back again and I hope you will not do this any more. Thank you -- Alarics (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the case. Locations for newspapers are required for disambiguation, and in both of the cases you mention no disambiguation is necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes it is. There is a The Guardian in Dar es Salaam, for instance, which happens to be one of the most important newspapers in Tanzania. Even were that not the case, it is standard practice in life generally, and amongst researchers and people in the media business itself, as well as under WP rules, to identify newspapers by their city of publication, without having to find out whether or not there is another one of the same name somewhere else. The only exception is where the city name is part of the name of the organ, as in The New York Times. -- Alarics (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is far from the only exception, and I would avoid broad generalizations like "standard practice in life". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having been dealing with just such matters for 45 years, it's a generalisation I feel confident about making. -- Alarics (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know your personal background, but whether it's in publishing, academia, or journalism it's still more narrow than "life". However, this is quickly becoming a semantic argument. I have amended the Guardian location to "UK". As to Times of India, I would still prefer to remove the location entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Guardian (UK)" does disambiguate it from the one in Tanzania, but not from many local newspapers in the UK called Warrington Guardian, Beverley Guardian, etc. which are often known informally in their local areas as "The Guardian". More importantly, it is inconsistent with normal usage, and indeed with other examples in the same article, where a newspaper is identified by its city of publication, never by country. Also: "York University" needs "location: Toronto" because there is a famous York University in the UK, which indeed I would have assumed this one was, had I not looked it up. Furthermore, St Petersburg Times needs "Florida" in case anyone thinks it based in Russia. -- Alarics (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no York University in the UK. There is a University of York, which is quite different. In any event, I've wikilinked both that and St Petersburg Times in case anyone else gets confused. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But everybody calls it York University and many would not know its official name is different. To say that it is "quite different" is absurd. Wikilinking doesn't solve the problem in such cases, because it wouldn't occur to the reader to click on the link in the first place, if they thought it was York in the UK, or St Petersburg in Russia. -- Alarics (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be relevant here, but Wikipedia:Citing sources recommends listing the newspaper's location if not already in the title.-RHM22 (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC sources reviewing[edit]

I am full of admiration for your industry in this area; recently, each time I have been to the FAC page prepared to help out with a few sources reviews, I find you have got there before me. No complaint, of course, but please feel free to take the odd break from this tedious chore should you feel like it. I am always prepared to stand in for a while. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian! Actually, could you grab SS Edmund Fitzgerald and Dragon Quest? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do both of these Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to do Mothers of the Disappeared? Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did it last time; is everything you brought up fixed? Would you prefer having a second opinion on anything? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd forgotten that! I've looked again; there is the odd minor issue but all is generally well. I will report accordingly. Belated congratulations on your appointment re FAR (an area of the encyclopedia I have scarcely penetrated as yet). If this means less time for sources reviewing, do ping me as the need arises. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll probably take you up on that at some point. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011[edit]

Redaction[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if "Notice of RfC/U related to a Good Article Reassessment" isn't still improperly characterizing it? Although the GAR may have been the final straw leading to the RfC/U, it's not actually the subject of the RfC/U, but simply one piece of evidence within the RfC/U. Thanks -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added "related" in there - it's not the only relevant issue, but it was the catalytic agent (from what I can tell, anyways). If you feel strongly about it, I'll remove it, or you can ask someone uninvolved to do so if you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can change it - if that is what Jake wants. It might not need to stay there long anyway - I left you a new comment Jake because I want to end this dispute and move on from things. Nikkimaria, you could finish off the GA reassessment right? You have much more exp than I. You could also be the witness - to me agreeing not to edit GI Joe again - for the sake of no more drama and out of repspect to everyone involved. It has gone too far, we are better than this - we both know it.Rain the 1 BAM 04:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "finish it" do you mean take over as requester or close it? I can do the former, the latter's more of a grey area, since I've commented in it and it hasn't actually been open that long. As to your behavioural declaration, I'm glad to hear that and will happily act as a witness (so long as you remember that I do have the technical ability to enforce it should that become necessary). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to both: I'm going offline now, will check back in the morning after I've become less tired. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I'm no longer interested in challenging sources that do not meet WP:RS - in any article to do with comics. Too much hassle. I've never been in a drama like this before, I can see that nothing good will come of it in the end. An apology from Jake for his behaviour yesterday in the GAR and I'll offer my kind words back. Then there would be no need for a request for comment to be in place, because the minute I edit GI Joe, you would be notified and you can hold me to account. I realise this may sound like a bizarre request.Rain the 1 BAM 04:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nikki, I forgot to say also - I'm happy to let you conclude the GAR. I am a person that needs reassuring, so do you think it is best to just forget the whole thing and move on?Rain the 1 BAM 15:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you had a valid concern about the article, but you overreacted a bit in taking it straight to GAR. I also it would be best if you and Jake tried to avoid interacting with each other, particularly on the personal level or heated way in which you have been lately. I can take over the GAR; I can't close the RfC unilaterally without consensus from involved parties (particularly Jake, since he was the filer), and neither I nor you can make Jake apologise. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering Rain's offer right now, and I'm in the middle of drafting a response on the RfC/U talk page -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RAF Northolt/archive1[edit]

Following your review, the problems you have highlighted have been addressed. Would you be able to have a look and see where the article stands now? Harrison49 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the extra links but am unsure what needs to be done with the referencing. Harrison49 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The references now all seem to follow the same style. Could you take a look to check? Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in another peer review?[edit]

Hello there Nikkimaria! I notice you've listed yourself as a possible peer-reviewer for articles related to literature. I've been working on the article for Eveline Hańska, wife of the French novelist Honoré de Balzac, and I'd like to nominate it soon for FA status. Do you have time for a peer review? Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I'll take a look at it tonight. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make that tomorrow night - sorry, getting caught up in other things. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why Raul trusted you[edit]

You're a pretty incisive reviewer. Whereas I tend to focus on the first problem I see, as evidenced in Frank Buckles' FAC, you sweep rapidly across the board. Maybe one day when I grow up I can be like you. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-). The thing is, I've done very little reviewing at FAR - pretty much the only thing I've done over there since being appointed is poke people on an inactive review (unsuccessfully, I might add), as well as continue to argue about the same things over and over again. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up on FAR some time ago I'm sorry to say, but I won't bore you with the details. Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need - I'm not so uninvolved as to have missed that, and all the mess that surrounded it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That still rankles with me. I don't forgive easily, or even at all; forgiveness is for God. Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank_Buckles_Army_Ribbons.PNG[edit]

I got a bit of a problem with this one. This is a creation of three seperate images (proper sourcing in the file summary) that I created myself. It essentially made it easier (and with less code) to have them on the page. I, of course, can't say that the image is US Army property, since I made it. So I am confused on how to give it proper licensing and still have the image. Can you help? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the three source images are US Army and thus PD, correct? Depending on whether you think it took enough effort to combine them to justify granting you copyright, you can either personally release the image as PD or CC-BY or whatever you like, or you can list it as PD-USArmy and just throw on a retouched template. Either way, it's definitely not fair-use. Keep the file summary intact, though, for sourcing purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if NH were to say in the licensing area, "To the extent this work represents an original creation it is released as follows" and then put in your creative commons tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad to release the image (I tend to go {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}), I just didn't know I could do that with the images that were previously by the US Army and didn't want to be accused of copyright violations, so I took the high road. :) I will release it CC-BY-SA-3.0 momentarily with Wehwalt's recommendation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, User:Anythingyouwant (aka: AYW) is still tinkering with the article and I have updated all the sections you requested. If you have further suggestions, please do let me know and I will take care of them posthaste. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further edits have been made, please let us know if anything else needs to be tinkered with. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Regardless of whether you change your "oppose", thanks for the good comments. I guess you're the only reviewer now who hasn't recused, so please let us know whether to give up or be optimistic. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just lighting this and the section above up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria! I've replied to your comments on the above article. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki. I was wondering if this is against WP:CANVASS? I posted this two days ago, but now am a bit doubtful. Novice7 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably okay, but it's always good practice to note when you've pinged someone on the FAC page with a diff, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. This is particularly important if they choose to support without leaving any comments or suggestions, as that can look questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Thank you so much for explaining Nikki. I've provided the diffs. Novice7 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's why I'm scared. I wish I hadn't done that. Maybe six people? Four commented (three supported) I should have waited.. I'm really scared. Novice7 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that might be an issue - the messages I checked were neutral enough, and I don't think anyone could accuse you of acting in bad faith, but it quite possibly could affect the FAC. My suggestion at this point would be to continue providing diffs if the other two comment, be as up-front as possible about your actions, and do not ping anyone else, at least not anytime soon. I'll keep an eye on things for now, see how it goes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for consoling me. I've provided diffs near comments notified users. As for User:Petergriffin9901 and User:Ending-start, they commented on their own. I promise I won't notify anyone else. Thanks again Nikki. Novice7 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011[edit]



This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Your Protection of Shakespeare Authorship Question[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I guess all of us who made substantial contributions to the SAQ article now have something to be proud of (in addition to any other of our respective accomplishments), and that very much includes you. But that is not why I am writing here. I am puzzled. I noticed that here you protected that page, expiring April 25. And yet, here, an IP editor was able to make a change. How is this possible? What does "protection" really mean in this case? Or am I missing something? And shouldn't there be a protection tag on the page? Regards, Alan W (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't protect the page from editing, per WP:NOPRO. However, because it's TFA I protected it from being moved by a non-admin - in the past there have been vandals who moved article on the main page to ridiculous titles, so this prevents that from happening (and there's really no reason to move an FA without discussion anyways). As for the protection tag, it's not essential since editing is still allowed, so I didn't bother, although you're welcome to if you so choose ({{pp-move}}). You can also check out the relevant discussion on the talk page, under "History". Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does help. As a non-admin, I am a bit fuzzy about such things. Now I know. And from what you say, it doesn't look like adding the template now would do more than add confusion (I was confused enough when I saw in the history that you had "protected" the article). So I am inclined to leave well enough alone. Thanks for explaining. --Alan W (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calabozos[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I wanted to let you know that Calabozos is back at FAC. Your comments at the previous FAC were rather insightful, and so I'd appreciate it if you could make more suggestions for the article's benefit. The current FAC is here. Thanks, ceranthor 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I implemented them, except for the copyedit. ceranthor 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to get them whenever you have time; I've asked GrahamColm to copyedit the one paragraph that needs work. ceranthor 11:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Shakespear[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria - no rush, but when you have time, I think the issues you raised at source review issues for the Olivia Shakespear FAC have been resolved. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS New Ironsides/archive1[edit]

If you have time, revisiting this FAC would be appreciated to see if your concerns have been adequately addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Buckles/archive1[edit]

I see you are online and back from the IRL stuff. I was wondering if you could take a look at the Frank Buckles FAC (linked above) and see if the concerns you had have been taken care of by AYW and myself (among others). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mawson's plane.jpg[edit]

Hi Nikki. Regarding this image from the Air-tractor sledge article (which is at FAC), I think it's going to be very hard to source as you suggest. I have found another image (which is also of a poorer quality) here, which could be uploaded in its place. Because it was published in the UK before 1923, my understanding is that it's best uploaded on Wikipedia (rather than Commons) with a PD-US tag. Is this the case? Thanks, Apterygial talk 22:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PD-US would work for that image. As to Wikipedia versus Commons, it would depend on its copyright status in the UK - do you know it? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image is marked Flight (the name of the magazine), which would mean it was published with a collective author, rather than a single one. Would this count as "unknown" (by the terms of the license), or would I have to email Flight to establish that fact (I doubt they would be willing to play ball)? Otherwise PD-US on Wikipedia seems fine. Apterygial talk 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to contact Flight to fulfill the "effort to determine authorship" requirement; even if they don't respond, you can still say that you made an effort, but it's likely easier to just go PD-US. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded to Wikipedia, so it can always be transferred to Commons at a later date if anything else comes up. Thanks, Apterygial talk 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry.com/Frank Buckles[edit]

Due to the Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival going on in my county, the local libraries (all run by one entity) are closed today and will be this weekend as well. I will go to the library for the direct Census sources on Monday. I apologize for this delay. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Broadband Network[edit]

Since your FA review of National Broadband Network, the article went through main changes. Is there a chance you can revisit your review to provide more feedback? Thanks. — [d'oh] 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Irresistible"[edit]

Hi Nikki! I've tried my best to remove any close paraphrasing. I was wondering if you could revisit it and post any remaining comments. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left replies. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the issues are fixed. Novice7 (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers and organization of references[edit]

Nikkimaria, I would like you opinion on how to handle page numbers in citations. I notice that in you source reviews on the FAC page you comment "Multi-page PDFs need page numbers". Normally for journal articles I specify the first and last pages while for books I specify the actual page. I believe this is standard practice. As books are often cited multiple times I usually create a "References" section where I give the full details of the books and a "Notes" section with a "Reflist" and generate notes using the sfn or harv templates.(I'm aware that a template is not required) I then have a choice as to how to handle journal references: I can either create the full reference in the Notes section or I can add then to the References and then use a template to generate an entry for the Notes. I'm uncertain as which is the better system. Journal articles can be very long so just specifying the first and last page of the article is not very precise. By putting the full specification of a journal article in the References I can specify the actual page in the Notes section. Is this what you meant by your comments on the FAC page? Many thanks Aa77zz (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, usually when we see multi-page PDFs they tend to be some kind of report, so only have self-contained page numbers (ie they're not a page range from a larger work). These reports can be literally hundreds of pages, so I ask that they provide page numbers for verification (much the same way as you would for a book). The situation you describe with journals is a bit different, and I've seen it handled different ways. IMO either method of handling journal citations would be acceptable. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update ...[edit]

... on our FAC editorial in the Bugle, including your comments, here. The idea for this editorial was to give a lot of brief statements by a lot of people to convey the idea that there's broad support for the idea that anyone can (and more should) review at FAC. After we see if the editorial has any effect, we can try to do something less scattershot in another editorial. Please let me know if you are (or aren't) happy with any effect this might have at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011[edit]

UPLB campus[edit]

I am not sure if you've already read my responses. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños/archive1. Thanks. Moray An Par (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/RAF_Northolt/archive1, part 2[edit]

Have you done the spotchecks on this one? Not asking you to do them, just asking what it means that you didn't say one way or the other. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, haven't done them - in this case because I opposed outright and only partially on sourcing. In general, though, I've been really slacking on spotchecks lately - it's the one part of source reviews that I dislike. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked a few people to do these in Milhist's A-class review, since we often have people who have access to the sources. I'll let you know how that goes. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just occurred to me ... I never use a sarcastic tone of voice on-wiki, so when I said that it was amazing that you spotted a mistake so quickly, I meant I was impressed. Some use a different tone of voice, particularly at FAC, so I need to remember to be straightforward. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draped Bust dollar[edit]

Hi Nikki. I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your source review at the FAC for Draped Bust dollar. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing bassoon[edit]

I really appreciate it :) Aar☢n BruceTalk/Contribs 15:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing or deleting premature FAC noms[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I was just wondering when it is appropriate to delete FAC noms that are premature or haven't consulted significant contributors. Is it only articles that are clearly premature that get deleted (ie nomming a stub etc). Thanks, Woody (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the sense I get from previous closures is that it's all about whether we've already given the nominator a chance before. With this one, we did. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, good to know. Thanks, Woody (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This recently deleted aborted nom may shed light. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This and this give some hints, although AFAIK there's no hard-and-fast rule. Noms that don't follow FAC instructions (no consultation, too early, etc) tend to get deleted whether or not the nominator has made a similar mistake before, although not always. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remembered the Madrid one (and half of the ones before that) and that part of the reason why I wondered why the ACW wasn't deleted. Taking them as they come seems to be the standard which is fair enough. FAC doesn't seem to be getting that many these days anyway. Woody (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It still could be deleted, but that's Sandy's call, not mine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for all your help. Woody (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ... I was wrong then. Thx Nikki. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Taro socks, I'm leaving them there instead of deleting them, hoping some friendly admin will come along and do the honors :) User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Real_Madrid. Sometimes I'm just outtatime to deal with the socks, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for everything, Nikkimaria-- I seem to be the only delegate at FAC nowadays ... I'm going to be very busy all weekend, so I hope you can keep an eye on that Guy Fawkes situation. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (again)[edit]

Hi Nikki! I'd like to withdraw my nomination of "Irresistible" this time too. I'll ask someone to ce the article and will renominate again. How long should I wait before next nomination? Novice7 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Courcelles beat me to it on withdrawing. You should still wait 2 weeks or get delegate permission to renominate earlier, per the FAC instructions - since there were valid opposes on the page, it counts in articlehistory as a fail. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Courcelles! It's okay if it registers as a fail Nikki. I was wondering if you could comment on the article if I nominate it for a PR? You are very good in catching prose issues, so if you could... Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just link it here when it's up. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Novice7 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging Flume[edit]

Thanks much for the article - I need to get my printer hooked up to get it to print to see if there is more we can add. I've added in some other bits from a tourist driving guide, which adds a bit more "non-technical" information. Also added pics, but feel free to move the info around, fiddle with the pics, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria/Archive 8,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a review of Anna of East Anglia[edit]

I know you already do a lot of source reviews at FAC, but if you have time, could you take a look at Anna of East Anglia and give it a FAC-level source review? The editor working on it would like to take it to FAC. I am helping them with content, but I'll never catch all the possible source issues. (Though I have checked to see if there are any references to Connecticut as CN.) Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Janusz K. Zawodny
I Got That
Hermann Dorner
Chad Hamre
Alexandre Chkheidze
Federal judge
Joel Aguilar
Lin Homer
Peter Lougheed Centre
Shock Trauma Air Rescue Society
Paul Cavallini
François Gourd
Precancerous condition
Who's Who
Fnatic
8 Days of Christmas (song)
Leh Palace
Chairman of the NATO Military Committee
Ian Dench
Cleanup
European Union
Soldier (Destiny's Child song)
1804 silver dollar
Merge
Speak My Mind
Chlorosis (medicine)
Xiengkeo Palace
Add Sources
Mathew Knowles
South Africa
Crime in Canada
Wikify
CStone
Krampfer Palace
Bertielliasis
Expand
As the Palaces Burn
3D television
Illegal drug trade

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine FAC[edit]

Hi there, Nikkimaria! You've left several comments on the page and shown the opposition to promotion. I believe now I've addressed your comments. I'm just feeling pretty nervous about my first FAC, so it could be pleasant from you to proceed to the FAC page. Thanks, R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homicide (Season 1)[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I just wanted to let you know I responded to your comments at the Homicide (season 1) FAC. Please let me know if this takes care of your concerns. Also, if you get a chance to review the rest of the article, I'd much appreciate it, as not many others have weighed in yet. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work you do![edit]

The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
To Nikkimaria for diligently reviewing sources for featured article candidate. Thank you particularly for reviewing True at First Light and Olivia Shakespear and catching my mistakes! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covent Garden FAC[edit]

Hi there, I had a crack at making the refs consistent at the Covent Garden article and I was wondering if you could have another look (FAC link). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/RAF_Northolt/archive1, part 3[edit]

I haven't looked myself, but folks who have a lot of experience with images and refs have now checked those, and I've checked the prose and MOS. Can you have another look sometime before Sandy goes through again? - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sandy will probably look at this one tomorrow night. You left a lot of questions, and the nominator and I went through them a while ago. For any other reviewer, I would just leave a note saying "please look again", but you already do so much that I'm uncomfortable asking you to do more ... if you'd prefer that I go through all your points and report back to you on any potential problems left over, I'll be happy to. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo blog[edit]

Nikki, I understand where your oppose is coming in regard to Yahoo blogs. I have raised a discussion at WP:RSN regarding this, would you like to give your view point on this? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We R Who We R[edit]

Just so you dont have to re-read everything, i believe all your concerns have been addressed excluding WP:HYPHEN as im still trying to figure out where ive violated it. Hopefully you can cap/strike your concerns. Thanks in advance. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good revert[edit]

Appreciate, little Nikki! [Bishzilla graciously stuffs little Nikkimaria in pocket for safekeeping. ] bishzilla ROARR!! 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_8&oldid=1142479308"