User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 14

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

DYK for Deadman's Island (Nova Scotia)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Steamtown, USA/archive2[edit]

Hi, I have a feeling that you did not get my last message. I have some questions that I left for you on the template. Thanks again for your source review.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for taking the time to do this. I fixed wonky #33. I also went back and restored all the page numbers for all the newspapers (including the two offline). There were some cases in which the newspaper article was transcribed into a webpage (like #4), so no pages were available. In those cases I cited them as if websites. I hope now that you can say there are no source problems so that maybe the rest of the review can proceed.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know how I did the double ISBNs-all taken care of. I am staring at number 43 and I do not see the location. I know I took the city name out of one of them a while ago, because I could not find the city for the other. I am not seeing a city name now. And I do not know what is wrong with page 78. What do you mean? I might be ready to throw in the towel. Thanks for your patience.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't give up yet, you're almost there. FN 43 uses "pp.", but you should use "p." for a single page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

only one "p" now.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you[edit]

Thank you for helping remove a sandbox error from an article page, earlier.Owleye769 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba[edit]

I have brought our dispute to the edit war noticeboard to see if we can get a resolution. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 01:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder[edit]

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
Your contributions at FAC are valued. Thank you for taking time out of your day to check so many nominations. It's always a relief to look at a nomination and see that you've been there. Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andy! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

request[edit]

Hi, I have given the Steamtown, USA citations one more shot per your review. If you are satisfied, could you please mention that on the template. I am afraid no one else will review it if they think that there are unresolved source issues. Thanks--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012[edit]

Cottingley[edit]

Hi Nikki, I'm wondering if in the article about the Cottingley Fairies, the book THE FAIRY RING, OR ELSIE AND FRANCES FOOL THE WORLD could be listed under "further reading"? It's from a major publisher, Candlewick, and has been given starred reviews by The Horn Book and Booklist. It's also a Junior Library Guild Selection. Although it's written for children aged ten and up, it's based entirely on primary sources, including never-before-published letters and documents. I think it would be a valuable source of information for anybody interested in the topic. Thanks!Fireflea55 (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing query[edit]

I wonder if I might trouble you for some advice, if you have a moment? At Pierre Monteux I have included an online reference as one of four bundled references (ref 83) and then in the next reference it occurs again, on its own this time. On its second appearance I have repeated the full publication details but omitted the url and "subscription required". Is that the best approach, do you think, or is there a better? Grateful for your expert view. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My personal inclination would be to incorporate the explanatory note as a parenthetical to avoid the whole issue, but your solution seems fine to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. Tim riley (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OA favour[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria. I've got a favour to ask. One of the UBC students has a reference formatting issue over at Hell's Gate, British Columbia. Here's her message: [1]. I'm really overstretched with RL stuff and other OA requests. Do you have time to field this one, maybe give her some of your ref expertise? If not, no worries, let me know. Hope all is well with your own classes. The Interior (Talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) The Interior (Talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May Revolution[edit]

I have nominated the article May Revolution for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive4. As you made a review of the article in the past, it would be useful if you could check it again, as it is an obscure topic outside of Argentina and previous nominatons did not atract enough reviewers. All comments are welcome. Cambalachero (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Eye101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For stepping into a nasty situation and maintaining a neutral approach. If only all admins were as professional as yourself.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Melville Island (Nova Scotia)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Players of color in the NBA[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Would you look at the possible close paraphrasing concerns I raised at Template:Did you know nominations/Players of color in the NBA and provide a second opinion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Myers[edit]

A 9 times Olympic Champion figure skater with no prior article and nothing in google News? It was marked as test page, and you declined it. I'd have deleted it as hoax. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a nine-time Olympic champ, but she does appear to be an Olympic coach, which is at least notable enough to decline a speedy. It wasn't a test page, either, though there was some stray formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
true: but is there some reason why you did not fix the article to prevent people like me who might not recognize it from deleting it out of hand?. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Group theatre of Kolkata[edit]

Hi, I have suggested an alternative hook for DYK, in response to the comments received. Can you please have a look? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably ask User:BlueMoonset, who raised the issue with the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just suggested an ALT2, but another pair of eyes is useful, since someone independent should check the new hook even if Dwaipayanc likes my new alternative. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there were very close para-phrasing in the article. I have re-written parts of it to remove such very close para-phrasing.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, can you please see whether your plagiarism concerns have been addressed by the above rewrite, and add a note to the DYK nom template? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have access to the cited source right now, so can't check. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you can get access to it in the next couple of days is fine. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air raids on Japan FAC[edit]

Hi Nikki, I've responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Air raids on Japan/archive1, but I couldn't spot the problems with quotations you identified: could you please point these out? Thanks again, Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Leno[edit]

The article on Dan Leno has been nominated for Featured Article consideration here. Leno was a leading star of music hall, Victorian burlesque and pantomime. Since you commented on the Holloway article, I thought you might be willing to look at this one too. We would welcome your comments, if you have time. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, my name is Vernetta .and this is my first time using wikipedia.Tanet23 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Clemson[edit]

Pfancher (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Hola!!Bwchest (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roll Tigers!Pebaile (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiAwc32 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Clemson!Nmathia (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!Clemcar29 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go Tigers!Jwrigh9 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Nikki!!Rlane92 (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria! Glad to have your help!Pbritt (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, and welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hi, Thanks for skyping in today! Pfancher (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hamm9 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for skyping today Andybolin (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki. Thank you so much for taking time out of your day to give my class and I advice on writing our wiki articles. DLAT1001 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for talking to us today in classChuck0210 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for helping. Geneticrebel (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!Aprose793 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki! Tigerpride3 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! thanks for your help! Tsybes (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your help! Ballerina311 (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!Ajdu93 (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi hi! Rajahsrider (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki! Thank you so much for your help with our class! If you wouldn't mind taking a few minutes out of your day to take a look at my edits to a Wikipedia article, I would greatly appreciate it. My main concerns are just that my writing is unbiased and that I'm including notable information. Not all of the writing is mine but the main body part is. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Briggs_Myers Kadamso cu (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! Kmc908 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, Thank you for taking time out of your day to help us with our Wikipedia articles. If you wouldn't mind, please take a look at my sandbox and give me some feedback. I'm new to Wikipedia so I can use all the help I can get. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Awc32/sandbox Awc32 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Nikki! Thanks for you advice today concerning writing our Wikipedia articles. Could you please look at my sandbox article about the Manistique Lakes in Michigan. I would really appreciate any feedback you could provide. Thank you so much! The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clemcar29/sandbox.Clemcar29 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki! Thanks so much for all the help! Ktutts15 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I came across Exogen 4000+ Ultrasound Bone Stimulator via my new page patrol of medicine articles-- a lot of it is unsourced, some seems too closely paraphrased to the sources (but it could be hard to reword). And there are no independent sources-- all sourced to promotional material. I saw the creator had posted to you, not sure of your role here (not paying enough attention lately :), but thought I should consult with you before taking on corrections. WP:MSH always makes me crazy, too :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sandy. She's a student from one of the WP:USEP courses - I did a Q&A session for them via Skype yesterday, which is why they're all posting here right now. I'll take a look at the article and see what can be done with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki-- since you're onboard, I'll unwatch-- ping me if you need anything? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikki! Thanks for chatting with us in class today. You helped out a lot. :) BeNiceMurphy(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome all! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikki. I just wanted to have some feedback on my wikipedia article. I am a newby to this whole editing experience so I just would like a little advice to help in the process. Note that I am far from finished with my editing of my article, but I just want your thoughts of the direction I am going with it. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Iaconelli DLAT1001 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikki. You can assume that I too am asking you the same questions as the others. Can you review my article to see how my writing is going? I could use some advice for knowing how I should edit and actually make the article itself. I greatly appreciate it! Thanks! The actual article I am working on is under wikipedia article. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nmathia/sandbox Nmathia (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikki could you please look over my article and give me some feedback? Thank you!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jport13/sandbox Jport13 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Nikki!! Could you take a few seconds to review my page???? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico_Basin_Ranch) Thanks so much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddin15 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki!Thank you for chatting with us in class on Thursday,it was really helpful! Could you please take a look at the article that i created Clemson Tigers women's tennis? I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions that you may have! Thank you! Ykoroleva (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Nikkin!! I'm so sorry to be adding another to you list but I was wondering if you could look over my article as well. :) Mine is on the feral horses found on Cumberland Island, Georgia. I have a lot more content that I'm planning on adding but I was just wondering if you could give me some pointers on formatting. Thanks! Ruttles (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 3/30/2012[reply]

Hello again Nikki! If you don't mind, I'd really appreciate you looking at my article as well. I'm so sorry there's so many of us, but I hope you're having a great day and thank you for working with us! Here's the link to my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_Fight Rkprinc (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, any articles I haven't gotten to yet I'll try to take a look at tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Kenz21 (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria! I had a question about citing whole paragraphs. Especially in my "Theories" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox . Is it understood that the last citation covers the whole paragraph or would it be better to cite each sentence? Thank you for your help! Pbritt (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Oh, okay. Phew! Thanks for telling me that! I'll change it right away. Pbritt (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a table to my article, but am not sure how to do that. Could you help me please? Thanks Kenz21 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikki. I have one question. I have at least six sources in my article but it continues to say my article needs more reliable sources. Exactly how many do I need? My wikipedia article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Iaconelli DLAT1001 (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Nikki. I don't know if an image I have found is copyrighted or not. It is from a government website, but could you take a look? The image can be found at http://www.nist.gov/mml/surface/polymer-microspheres.cfm Please and thank you for your help! Pbritt (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you![edit]

I wanted to say thank you for your source and image reviews to Stephen_Hawking - thank you very much! The article is all the better for you help :) Fayedizard (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Evancho / President Obama image[edit]

I see that you commented at the Files for deletion proceeding here. Please note that now the proponents have placed a Speedy Delete tag on the image: File:EvanchoPresSanta.jpg. Can you comment, or find anyone that can help us explain that this image satisfies the Non-free content criteria? -- Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Could you find the original source of the YouTube video? But really, the image is the subject of commentary...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Do you mean this video? I'm not sure, but I don't think the image is *from* the video, it's just taken at the same time. See: This and this and this. Or did I misunderstand you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree, the image isn't from the video. Can you strengthen the sourcing/discussion in the article about the significance of this event and image at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a try - see what you think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. The image was a great addition to the article, IMO, but apparently we are too afraid of Getty images. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source question[edit]

Hiya, I've long considered putting Henry Wrigley up for FAC but had an issue with a 20-year gap in his post-military career, namely 1946 to 1966. I've now found an interview conducted by the Australian War Memorial that briefly addresses this gap, however the transcript of the interview is only available on the web at the No. 3 Squadron Association site. I'd not normally consider a squadron association page as reliable for FAC purposes, however the interview certainly exists at the AWM, and the transcription is by an AWM person and not the association (her name appears on a number of transcripts that are available on the AWM site). Presumably the transcript was once on the AWM website and the association downloaded it, or else they ordered a copy of it. Given these circumstances, what do you think of it as an RS at FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's fine - there's no reason to think they'd alter the transcript in any way, and the original source is reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the reality check, Nikki... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review Request[edit]

Hey nikkimaria, I need an expert wikipedian to review my article. I am not sure how to find expert wikipedian's but I reviewed your page, and I feel like you would be able to help me out. I am writing my first wikipedia article for my english class at clemson, and I would appreciate any input you may have on how to improve. My article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Jazz_Flute. Thank you! Raelynn22 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much! I completely agree on the issues you have discussed about my article, and will get right to changing them. I appreciate you overlooking it, and moving it into the right space. I do feel like I need more "jazz" content as opposed to "flute" content. I see what you are saying about overlapping the Flute article...Thank you Again! Raelynn22 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing...I read that you said I'm short on sources...I do feel like I need to find some more reliable ones-but as for how many i'm having a bit of a problem. I'm not sure where to put my source link within the text if a bulk of information comes from that one source. Should I put it after every paragraph, sentence, or after all of the information from that source (which is the way i have it now)? Raelynn22 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Raelynn, usually you can put your citations at the end of the paragraph so long as there's no content from another source in the same paragraph. If you're repeating one source for multiple paragraphs, try using named references. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Much Appreciated! Raelynn22 (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Prostitution among animals[edit]

I have rectified the problem. Please review again. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, this is awaiting your check mark or identification of additional issues. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/R. J. Hackett (steamer)[edit]

The author of the R. J. Hackett (steamer) article has just made changes to address the problems you noted in the review. Can you please check to see whether the article is okay to proceed under DYK? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author isn't interested in adding the quotes you mentioned. Is the article sufficiently improved to be promoted? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article[edit]

HI Nikki,

A student created a new article, but moved it to the wrong place. Here is the article. Wikipedia:Freeman_Store_and_Museum_(Vienna,_Virginia) How do we move this to the main article space of wikipedia?

74.177.126.181 (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Now at Freeman_Store_and_Museum_(Vienna,_Virginia). For future reference, there's a drop-down arrow at the top of the screen, in the same row as the edit button, which has a "move" option - just change the namespace to "(Article)". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! I think a couple of other students did this. So thanks for letting me know how to fix it.

Pfancher (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachia[edit]

Serious scholarship from RS is not likely to be trivia. Somebody passing by stuck on a poorly chosen tag with no justification. It's a serious matter for historians of Appalachia (like me--I work on Kentucky) because the media images have been so hostile for so long in TV, comics, novels, songs, movies (like "Hunger Games") etc. (even their religion gets linked to snake handlers!) Rjensen (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think part of that section should stay, but non-notable mentions, or things sourced to "unofficial guides", really shouldn't - you can make a strong point about views of Appalachia without mentioning everything that's every portrayed the area. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we have 15 items not 15,000 for a major region with millions of people and a great deal of derision in the popular culture. The deletions were not well thought out -- some people just don't like popular culture. OK, but what then are they doing on Wikipedia. the epitome of popular culture? Rjensen (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myers[edit]

Thanks so much for taking a look at my Isabel Briggs Myers article. Yes I am absolutely expanding more. I kind of picked a middle section to start writing on, but will definitely incorporate the early life part. I didn't know how much to write on the MBTI since there is already a page on it. Once again, thank you... I will definitely add more sources! Kadamso cu (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

Could you respond here, please, regarding your reverts? [2] It's not clear what details can be set out first, as you asked, because it's already policy and the words have not been changed. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the issue raised by Jclemens' edit - will respond there shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the issue raised by Jclemens is a separate one. He is talking about policy change, which I agree should be discussed after the deletion review. But I am simply quoting what the deletion policy already says. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012[edit]

Help with info box formatting[edit]

HIHI, a student is working on this page Isabel_Briggs_Myers The info box was fine when she started working on it and now it is showing up as code. Can you help use figure out what is wrong?

Pfancher (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else already took care of it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Macpherson[edit]

I'm sorry, but I feel a little overwhelmed by this whole mess. I've deleted the article, and I'm afraid you'll have to go to DRV if you want it restored. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

consistent quality control
Thank you for consistently checking the quality of articles going to the Main page, for taking your time to preview critical ones for those who are afraid, and for your comments in a delete discussion "the principle that while Wikipedia is not a social network, it also isn't a soulless machine", "useful for community-building, which is an essential aspect of collaboration", and for mentioning "ideal" in the context! Ideal! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Passion: He was despised --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frohe Ostern! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inspired, I wrote Osterbrunnen, and PumpkinSky is working on Easter Egg Tree, the one pictured here. NOW would be the time to publish that ;) I don't want to pass it as my work, I don't want credit for what I didn't create, and I would feel like cheating. Ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a sandbox, for a preview, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you do kinda the same thing with Great Dismal Swamp maroons? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the maroons were in his sandbox before he was blocked, see article history. This Easter egg is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, just looked at the page history. To clarify: is he the original author of that text, or are you? If the former, how did it get there? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is the author of a translation of a German article and responsible for its sourcing. I copied it to his sandbox and will publish it now, while it's still Eastertide, not waiting for a miracle ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just make its provenance clear in the move log or an edit summary. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! On this day the Easter egg tree and my Bach cantata mentioning an approach for peace are featured together on the Main page, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Leno FAC[edit]

Hi Nikki, a delegate has asked for the images to be reviewed on the above and I wondered if you would be in a position to review them? I envisage a quick and problem free review as all issues were ironed out at GAC. If you have the time could you oblige? I would be very appreciative. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I put the PD-old-70-1923 tag on the other images you listed. Is it ok for each of those images? If not, is there a better tag? Otherwise, we could move the images back to en.Wikipedia from commons - at the GA review, the reviewer said that they all should be moved to commons, and someone called Jujutacular moved them, but maybe it would be easier if they were just on en.Wikipedia? Any/all advice appreciated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that tag is the best choice for most of the images assuming that the author died more than 70 years ago - is that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The author has been dead for well over 70 years. -- Cassianto (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Smith[edit]

Hi Nikki! I'm Rosaria. I'm one of Trish Fancher's students at Clemson. I recently submitted my page for review, and they declined it because they said he wasn't a notable person. However, I've gone through and edited it, added a lot more content and sources, and rearranged the lead so that it is more relevant and shows his notability. If you would be willing to vouch for me so that the article might get accepted, I would really appreciate that. You can find it under review here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tanner_Smith_(basketball_player) Thanks! BeNiceMurphy (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ezra Pound[edit]

Extended content

Given how the WP:TPO you point to as justification explicitly states:

How do you justify the deletions? Further, you signed your deletion of my comment, but not Ceoil's---leaving the impression that Ceoil may have deleted his/her own comments, whereas mine appear to have be so disruptive to have needed administrator intervention. Further, you've labeled my comment:

"Truthkeeper, if you are not going to make comments that add to the discussion, then could you please refrain? "I won't stop you *pout pout* but someone else will" is simply embarrassing for the rest of us to read."

as "irrelevent", whereas Ceoil's "Trouble making and vengeful prick" and "Also, your signature is a headace. Go back to editing comics and [3]" were removed without comment.

The comment of mine that was removed may have been impolite, but it was certainly not irrelevant (I was asking TruthKeeper not to clutter the discussion with comments not aimed at moving the discussion forward---you can't deny that, if you go back and reread it), and further removes context from the rest of my comment, which you left. The comment is not irrelevent in the context. If it's irrelevant to the infobox issue itself, then so are the comments that I was responding to, which you left untouched.

If you go back and look at this all in context, I think you'll see why WP:TPO recommends against removing comments. Doing so is only creating a bigger, less comprehensible mess. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I labeled your post because you had previously reverted me when I tried to remove your commentary. If you look at TPO as a whole (not just that bullet point), you might gain some insight into why those particular comments were removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, I don't think you are the right person to remove commentary from that discussion; you had already posted there and were/are not a neutral third person. Also, I find it somewhat curious that you removed everything but Ceoil's sarcastic comment. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 23:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't read that comment as being sarcastic - snippy, perhaps, but acceptable and relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the contrary - Nikkimaria has every right and is correct in removing commentary. That discussion has become a WP:SOAPBOX...Modernist (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and can you give a reason for why you think she is correct in removing said commentary, despite her involvement in the discussion? Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As are you.....and me for that matter - because Nikkimaria understands the situation, and that matters despite technical nonsense. Rather than going on and on - that's my final word...Modernist (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. She may have been correct in removing off-topic commentary, however my beef has been that she has been extremely selective when doing so and, more egregiously, has been shaping the discussion with her edits (whether intentional or not).
  2. "because Nikkimaria understands the situation" is the kind of comment that lacks such a level of understanding that I don't even know where to begin to reply. Should we make the parents of murdered children judges in the murder trial as well? Do you really not understand why it is important for a third party to do these things? I'm flabbergasted that an adult could make such a myopic comment---it's as if you were a troll actually trying to sabotage the very position you purport to support. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have read it as a whole---don't assume I haven't. You'll notice I've reverted nothing this time and chosen instead to talk to you about it. The particular comment was not an attack by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact removing it removes context from my comment---in fact, it removes the point of my comment (as I've explicated above). Please reread it, in context.
Further, "comment removed again" only makes it look like I've been repeatedly reverting it, especially since you've removed your own comment this time, not mine, so what's with the "again"? I think you need to slow down and consider what you're doing before making such edits. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been considering what I'm doing - "don't assume I haven't". I didn't say it was an attack, simply that it was not helpful and not relevant to the article at hand. You pointed out a potential issue with the comment I used, which I've now tried to address. Hyperbole like that you use above isn't helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole? What hyperbole? Please explicate. I'm having trouble comprehending exactly which statement it is you've misinterpreted as hyperbole. Maybe you meant a different word?
If you have been considering what you're doing, then am I to take your distortions as deliberate? I don't think I've actually accused you of ill-will up until this point, and I seriously don't want to have to cross that line.
You haven't come close to addressing the points I've made. Let's reword them:
  1. If you are removing comments you deem irrelevant, then why did you leave TruthKeeper's, the one that I was directly responding to? How did that comment add to the discussion in any way, shape or form?
  2. Why do you insist on adding extra commentary to the text you deleted from my comment and only my comment ("irrelevant", then "again", making it look like I'd repeatedly reverted your removals)? Try reading it from a disinterested reader's perspective and you'll see how badly it distorts what was happening in the discussion.
  3. What makes the one line of mine you removed "irrelevant" when it was, infact, a direct, on-topic response to TruthKeeper's? While it could have been worded more politely (and it definitely didn't cross into uncivil territory), it certainly had an immediate point, of which the rest of the comment was mere elaboration---now only elaboration without a point to elaborate on. You've removed context.
  4. You've accused me of not reading through WP:TPO well enough to understand why you made the deletions. I've read it through several times, and I still see your actions as a violation, and have explicitly stated where. Please show exactly where in the policy that you are justified.
Anyways, as Eisfbnore has pointed out, you have a conflict of interest here and couldn't possibly be a neutral enough party to be qualified to alter the discussion in the way you have. Whatever you think of me or the direction of the discussion, or how strongly you feel about your position, from a purely ethical perspecitve you have to admit you've crossed way over the line. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 06:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Should we make the parents of murdered children judges in the murder trial as well?" I don't see any way to interpret that other than hyperbole. TK's comment was actually talking about the article; yours was talking about her, which is inappropriate. I already explained why I added the extra comment to yours - because you reverted me. I've re-read the discussion, and I still think the context of your comment is preserved; I also don't see why you're accusing me of unfairness, given that I removed commentary from both "sides". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said more than once on this page:
  1. you removed my comment in a way that made it look especially incriminating. Yes, you removed comments from both sides (at no point did I claim otherwise), but you were extremely selective in how you did it, and did so in such a way that it looked like Ceoil may have removed his/her own comments, while mine was clearly removed by an administrator. Strange, given that, while my comment was impolite (but not uncivil, and definitely on-topic), Ceoil's were out-and-out, clear-cut ad hominems.
  2. my comment was about TruthKeeper's commenting behaviour, not about her herself, and was a request to cease that behaviour. That aspect of the comment was removed entirely. Nor was her comment about the article, but about how hard she (and others) had worked on the article (with the implication that the rest of us were ruining all that hard work by trying to add an infobox).
  3. "Should we make the parents of murdered children judges in the murder trial as well?" was:
    1. not directed at you, but at Modernist's total lack of understanding of the point of having neutral third parties deal with sensitive issues
  • Lets be clear - I don't know you and you don't know me and lets keep it that way - before it gets really ridiculous...I've seen absurd and foolish obsessions and WOW this takes the cake, later pal...Modernist (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. not hyperbole, since it's exactly what a large number of "common sense"-types believe. If you haven't run into these types, you're blessed. It's a relief to see that you think it's ridiculous enough a statement to take it as hyperbole.
    2. If that was the comment you were responding to, it would have been far more clear if you had placed your response after that comment, rather than to a comment in a separate thread.
  2. You still haven't shown where WP:TPO justifies your actions
  3. You still haven't addressed the issue of conflict-of-interest
You're letting your biases show. Should I go looking for a neutral third-party myself? I was hoping that talking things out would result in mutually satisfying result. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two things - I'm getting the distinct sense that this has been personalized - in other words CurlyTurkey doesn't want me specifically to add to the Ezra Pound infobox discussion. Second, it's usually nice to notify someone when a conversation is being held about them. That would go for Ceoil too. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you restored my comment. If you'd like me to reword it to be more polite, I could do that. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey, before this goes any further: what exactly would you consider to be a "mutually satisfying result"? I've already attempted to address your concerns at that talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I'm talking about a "mutually satisfying result" regarding your deletions, and not about the infobox. This is why I'm talking about it on your talk page, and not at the Ezra Pound talk page. Have we talked about the Infobox on this page? Nope, not a word. So why would you suggest otherwise?
Also, and this is my fourth request: where in WP:TPO do you find justification for your deletions? And why do you keep dodging the answer to this? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did I suggest anything about the infobox here. Your comment was incivil, off-topic, and did not contribute anything to the discussion...but since it's been restored, this discussion is over. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Pound[edit]

Nikkimaria, I think it's probably time to address the remaining issues on this page and take it to peer review with an eye on FA in distant future. One problem I'm having is reconciling the ref styles, which I think need some tidying. Do you have any comments/feedback regarding the current style? The idea of putting a full bibliographic entry in the notes on first occurrence makes sense to me given the large number of refs here, and then repeat the bib entry in the sources. The cite bundling also seems to work well on large page such as this, but aside from those two points, there are a number of inconsistencies, I think, that need to be addressed. I'd prefer not to make another 1000 edits here and instead go about it as efficiently as possible, so your guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure you need full bib entry in both footnotes and sources. You could do shortened citations (with or without harvlinks, as you choose - there are a couple of harvlinks thrown in right now, but most aren't linked) in footnotes for all sources entries? Cite bundling is fine. You've also got a mix of templated and untemplated citations, and a few different styles in the untemplated. What style would you prefer? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer no templates, so I'll tidy those first. I'm most comfortable with something like what I've done for Bal des Ardents, (untemplated short notes) so I'll go for that and begin by making the untemplated styles consistent and removing the left-over templates. Agree re the bundling, but I think will need tidying. And then work on content. Thanks for the advice. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Nikkimaria. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Canadian Booksellers Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting)/GA1[edit]

Nikkimaria, you were mentoring Fang Aili on this GA Review, but Fang hasn't been back to the review for three weeks, or on Wikipedia at all for two. Is there any chance you can take the review over, since you've already checked Fang's work? It would be a shame to send it back into the reviewer pool to await someone who would be starting from scratch. Thanks for your consideration. I'll be monitoring here and on the review page; let me know either place. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's too bad. I'll take a look in the morning. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update at the Talk:Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting)/GA1: requested c/e and other issues addressed. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, any comments on the above fixes? Just a nudge in case you missed it. Fang Aili still hasn't returned, BTW. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article was promoted last week, unless I'm missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think I was. I had just gotten back after a Wikipedia break and looked at the GA1 page, which was on my watchlist, and saw the Piotrus's update there, but no reply. Didn't think to check the article under the circs. Glad it passed, but shouldn't that review page be updated with the final results or at least an "it passed" comment, for future reference? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3[edit]

You commented at both of the prior FACs, so as a courtesy, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VTB[edit]

Hi. I'm rather puzzled at your declining a speedy deletion for VTB so that VTB Bank may be moved to that page. I'm even more puzzled at the way in which you then changed VTB from a redirect page to a disambiguation page.

VTB is the common name for the VTB Group and the VTB Group is overwhelmingly the primary topic for VTB. Beyond this, "VTB" is not the common name for either the VTB United League basketball league (the common name of which is arguably not even "VTB United League" but simply the "United League") or the VTB Arena (if you asked 1,000 people in Moscow what "VTB" is, I doubt a single one would answer a stadium as opposed to a bank).

There is no good reason why VTB should not follow standard WP policy, and be treated the same as companies such as HSBC (formal name "HSBC Holdings plc"), where there are many other articles prefaced by "HSBC" such as the HSBC Arena (Rio de Janeiro), HSBC Brazil Cup, HSBC Women's World Match Play Championship, as well as multiple HSBC subsidiaries and divisions. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rangoon11. I'm not sure HSBC is correctly titled either, but if you're sure, perhaps WP:RM would be a good venue? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. I'm happy to go via that route but I was really hoping that this could be done more painlessly and quickly as I couldn't imagine that it would be contentious. I would be very grateful if you could have a second thought, and also look at how other major companies such as BMW, BP, Barclays, IBM, General Electric, Philips, Sony, Honda etc are handled. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. Suggest adding a hatnote to the new dab page. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I appreciate it. I will add a hatnote.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected articles[edit]

Butting in is allowed, thank you for doing so. I am aware that I am autoconfirmed. But, I still don't have the smarts to gain access without some direction. Can you help? Thank you. Pendright (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pendright, if the article is only semi-protected you should be able to edit it as you would any other article. Which article is it? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

The Geography Portal - Pendright (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012[edit]

Content removal on They Need To Be Fed[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from They Need To Be Fed. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

PS:Please fill the edit summary with a vaild reason for removal, thanks.;-) Zhaofeng Li (talk|contrib) 02:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, but it was my intention to remove content, and I think I've been welcomed enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Drmies (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, since you're on the clock, can you look at an unblock request, User talk:GorillaContributor? I really don't want to be a meanie. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright then--but the next sweaty scrotum is on you! Drmies (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that's an image I didn't need. What can I say, I'm a softie. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia userspace pages[edit]

Russavia (talk · contribs) didn't request those pages for deletion, did which MZMcBride, therefore it fails U1. See User talk:Russavia#Userpages to be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It looks like Russavia did, with this edit, but as it seems he didn't intend for them to be deleted I guess I'll go undelete them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tak Sun Secondary School[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the fourth WP:CSD on this article and for declining it. Even though the article was written by a WP:COI editor to promote the school I did some digging and discovered that the school is actually notable, mostly for its part in a 2010 financial scandal. Instead of sending it to WP:AFD I rewrote and cleaned it up and added some real refs. I am guessing that the COI person who started it will probably not like the result, but as explained in WP:COI, that is one of the hazards of really wanting to have a Wikipedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Wherry Brass[edit]

Can I ask what you thought the claim of significance was? I almost A7'd it myself but decided that as I'd just done the OTRS thing on it it was probably better to leave that to someone else. There's always going to be admin discretion when it comes to speedies so I'm not suggesting you were mistaken but I would be interested to know your reason. Dpmuk (talk)

National finals of a band contest seems like enough to warrant an AFD instead of a speedy. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought it was probably that. I thought that wasn't enough based on the fact that the contest itself didn't appear to be notable either but as I say I think it was probably within discretion - I've seen things with fewer claims kept and better claims deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Rico[edit]

I'm confused: how can it have been kept at AfD if it was created just a few hours ago?? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Checked the talk page, saw the old AFD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What gives?[edit]

I just saw this, but every article of this editor I've looked at has copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I flagged that article a couple of weeks ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your flagging (at DYK removed) was what brought my attention to that editor, I checked all of his articles and found quite liberal and quite obvious cut and paste, but then I lost track since he seemed to disappear for a while. I guess what I thought might have been a sense of embarrassment, wasn't. Anyway, it's throughout his articles, I'd suggest a CCI is needed, and we know DYK does not want to hear from me on their latest case. Best, 17:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll deal with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to go back through all of his work again to re-locate the outright cut-and-paste I found everywhere: would you need for me to do that? I lost track when I thought he had left, and thought his DYKs wouldn't be passed with copyvio. It was everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Started, feel free to add. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ... you got most of them, but I added two more recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop's Cipher[edit]

FYI. Nageh (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you wrote on my talk page, but cannot find the speedy deletion tab and cannot find the button that let's me contest the speedy deletion. Can you help? -Donald Crease — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Crease (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Leno FAC - please confirm[edit]

Nikki, when you get time, could you just confirm if your happy with the images on Dan's FAC -- Cassianto (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burnham FAR[edit]

Thank you for commenting on my talk page. See responses there about Burnham. PumpkinSky talk 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Unfortunate, but understandable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1740 Batavia massacre[edit]

Greetings Nikkimaria, this is a notice to let you know that 1740 Batavia massacre, which you have previously reviewed or copyedited, has been nominated at FAC. Should you be willing to review the article, feedback is welcome at the nomination page. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deals with the Devil in popular culture[edit]

I was just looking at this article again after ignoring it for several months, and I think you were right back in October when you and I had our disagreement. This article is full of irrelevant, or only vaguely relevant examples, and burdened with excruciating details. Of course, that is the problem with articles of this type: they are easy targets for garbage. Generally, they are created by removing a "blank in popular culture" section from another article, and then the cruft just piles up. Alas... At any rate, I have taken the shears to it a bit, but more needs to be done, if you are interested in working on it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CtrlS[edit]

Hi, I noticed you declined the CSD for the article. On further examination it appears to be lifted from http://www.iba-banktech.com/2009/supportgroup.htm and the author appears to be working for the Marketing Division of CtrlS. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to nominate it for a speedy delete so I nominated it for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CtrlS Gsingh (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's copyvio as-is, at least not from that source, but as you will - I declined it because it has some decent references and might be expandable. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Education Project[edit]

Nikki, the professor at Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Present/Genetics in Everyday Life (Tom Haffie) doesn't seem to be tuned in, I've encountered issues on about half a dozen medical articles now, and at Talk:Brunner syndrome, the students have the impression that because their project has been "approved", they don't need to take on board advice :) Perhaps you can help? They've got an interesting article going at Brunner syndrome, but they're putting it in the wrong article-- they are writing about the broader issues of using genetic defects as a legal defense in criminal cases. Brunner syndrome is but one part of that ... so they need to find the right place to write their text, and then link that as a sub-article of Brunner syndrome. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy, I've been in contact with that prof off-wiki, and he's not the source of the disconnect here - he did point out MEDRS and similar issues to them early in the course, unlike some! I believe their projects are due this weekend, so probably what we're seeing is a last-minute push to try to get stuff done - trying to adapt on top of that seems like too much work for procrastinators. I'll take a look and see what I can do, but I don't anticipate they'll be open to changing their plans, no matter how much good advice they get (and their classes are over, so face-to-face chats with the prof aren't easily workable). By the way, there's an interesting discussion over at WT:Ambassadors, stemming from a psych class trying to submit unprepared articles to DYK - if you've got a moment, you might take a look. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ah ha ... I see ... I'm relieved to know that's the issue, because I get bothered at the notion that profs aren't educating the students. Oh well, what can we do? Will look at that discussion. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. Had a look, but there are some editors on Wikipedia who are best avoided in the interest of sanity. The irony is thick. Not going there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Money where my mouth is[edit]

Nikki, no hurry, but whenever you have time, I was hoping you could check my work. As a vocal critic of poor paraphrasing, I found it very hard to write Donald J. Cohen without extensive use of direct quotes, and I found numerous instances where there's just no other way to state non-creative information. When you have time, could you give it a close paraphrase check, just so I can put my money where my mouth is and see how I'm doing? All sources online except one sentence from one book I have. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy, other than the bit from the book (which I can't access through GBooks, for some reason), everything looks fine. I went a bit deeper than I usually do at DYK, and still had no concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki ... I appreciate you taking the time. Since they were bios, I was concerned about the argument I frequently see that it is difficult to rephrase certain things any differently than a chronological bio would, so I was wondering if I was missing something in the criticism frequently seen at DYK. I'm relieved :) Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Worms[edit]

Per WP:USERG, the subjects own website is not a reliable source, nor can you lend any weight to the pictures of articles on the website, none of which even gives any indication as to where it was supposedly published--Jac16888 Talk 21:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline in this case is WP:SELFPUB, not WP:USERG, and in order for a BLPPROD to be added the article must have no sources - not no high-quality sources, but none at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the section "Sources that are usually not reliable" and I see nothing to suggest this should be an exception, BlPProd states "the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article", and I don't see that this is the case here--Jac16888 Talk 21:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the tag never should have been added at all, because the requirements to add it were never fulfilled. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense at all, the criteria for adding it is the same as the one for removing it, the existence (or not) of a reliable source. Since we're not going to agree on this I'll take it to WP:RSN so we can get a third opinion--Jac16888 Talk 21:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually BLPN made more sense, so Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Marcel Worms‎ if you want to weigh in--Jac16888 Talk 21:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That's not true, look at WP:BLPPROD: "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag.". The subject's website is not a stellar source, but it is a source, and since it was present the tag should never have been added. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Worms[edit]

Hi - please do not replace personal details and promotional claims without specifically clearly referencing it to reliable sources. - Youreallycan 22:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC) As an Administrator, someone that should adhere closely to WP:POLICY - please explain your content addition in this diff - Youreallycan 22:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your trim was over-zealous, and your reversion just bizarre. First, only negative or potentially contentious information is to be removed immediately from BLPs - none of the material you point to is. Second, I'm not seeing the "promotional claims" - those are neutrally-written and relevant details about his career. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My trim was in good faith according to my policy experience - personal details like date of birth etc - and promotional claims such as cd releases need citations - independent ones in possible - please don't replace such details without RS sources - thanks - Youreallycan 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning whether it was in good faith, but simply whether it was warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply find and add the reliable citations and replace whatever you want - Youreallycan 22:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did. You reverted anyways. And you're still missing the point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your uncited personal claim again - please stop replacing and edit warring uncited detail; to a BLP - Pease stop replacing and open a discussion - Youreallycan 01:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012[edit]

April 2012[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Marcel Worms. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. As an Administrator you should know better - please do not replace promotional or personal details without the addition of a WP:RS Youreallycan 22:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'm missing, but the last edit I checked showed a revert by Youreallycan re-introducing grammatical errors corrected by Nikkimaria's copyedit, removing sourced text, and removing a birthdate. I hope this disagreement isn't over just a birthdate, and if it is, I hope other copyedits wouldn't be reverted just to remove a birthdate. PS, OTRR, I know that you really know not to template an admin :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SandyG, Nikkimaria declined a speedy deletion on the article and removed a BLP Prod nomination, so it does look to me like more than a simple copyedit. I looked at this a while ago and was happy to see Nikkimaria let it go - well-sourced facts can always be added later... Franamax (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is all about the birthdate. Sigh. Well, it's out now, so maybe he'll move on. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fyi ani[edit]

I have reported you at ANI - Youreallycan 02:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikichevrons[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the first quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sister cities from Winnipeg, MB[edit]

I don't want to question your honesty, but why did you have to remove the Section "Sister cities" (diff here), under the guise of a minor edit with the following edit summary -- "ce, org". Did you think that no one would notice? I find that rather unusual behavior for a so-called "Administrator". Please respond so I can have a clearer picture of your motives here. It is common practice among experienced editors to provide valid reasons for removing big chunks, like entire sections from an article. --Skol fir (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skol fir, it wasn't a minor edit (and wasn't marked as such) - I was reorganizing the article, which included removing that section. The list seemed excessive in an already long article, particularly as it was difficult to reference well, and the pairings aren't supported by the most recognized source on the subject. If you want to re-add it with better sourcing, you are of course free to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Think this should be removed - it was replaced with many dead links - as per WP:burden it up to the restore to provided references - not just copy and past old stuff. Think I got them now...Moxy (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thanks for the explanation. I didn't mean to put you on the spot. You handled it very well, and I totally understand now, why you removed the section at first. There were numerous dead links, which I noticed after replacing the section, and trying out each one in turn. Your discussion above also clued me in on this matter. Now, with the new reference that I found, and Moxy's contribution in extracting the relevant links from that reference, I think it should work now. I also had to look closely at the Sister Cities International website to find out that they list only the American partnerships with other cities. Apparently Canada still has 24 of them, with Winnipeg left out in the cold, for reasons unknown. I don't even want to speculate on that, although it could be snobbishness on the part of Minneapolis. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Education issues[edit]

Please feel free to edit User:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program for substance issues to improve it, provide a more rounded perspective to give people a better idea of the situation, etc. It is still in draft stage and I've asked a few people already to help draft it. I've also asked a few people involved with support, especially from AfC, for their opinions.--LauraHale (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a most important RFC: I hope someone will copyedit it for coherence, grammar, etc before it goes live, because it's worth getting right, to make sure people will read and understand and sign on-- and the writing is not in the best shape just yet. It's also missing all of the issues and discussions involving medicine articles, psych projects, and the analysis of student editing done by Colin (talk · contribs) and Jmh649 (talk · contribs). It's also got the wrong focus (you can't edit without permission?) and takes the wrong approach to the problems IMO, so I fear as it stands it will be shot down, which will be a huge shame, because something needs to be done about those programs and their issues. Perhaps you, Laura, will consult with others before going live with the RFC? You might consider not only Colin and Jmh649, bringing in Jbmurray (talk · contribs), or even asking Nikkimaria to copyedit. I don't see the issues correctly identified, the RFC is much too long, and some of the proposals on the page now aren't workable, don't address the problems, and aren't likely to pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to ask them. Any and all help improving coherence, fixing grammar, providing documentation of problems, merging similar ideas and making sure alternative solutions are there would be appreciated. Given conversations on the education list, I do not believe community consultation will be done when they re-tool the program. (They don't appear to have done it before.) Some of this has also been discussed User_talk:MathewTownsend#Education_problem_and_DYKs though the end gets whiney on my part. In this case, I don't have problems with users editing on my user space to improve it because I understand the importance of it and it needing to be done right before going live.
As a side note, your and Nikkimaria's opinions are extremely appreciated because you both have done really good work with WP:FAC. You also have a lot of knowledge regarding medical referencing that would be extremely relevant when having discussions about classes involved in writing about medicine. I'm not sure how to write this into the RfC as I want to narrow the focus to assessment related activities as opposed to the whole programme. --LauraHale (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But assessment related issues aren't the biggest problem, and to deal with assessment related issues, you can't hit 'em over the head with the kinds of drastic proposals you've launched. The easiest way to deal with the assessment issues is to either convince the profs to stop offering grades for DYKs, GAs, etc, or just to have the assessment programs stop accepting nominations from these programs. It's no different than TonyTheTiger overwhelming DYK or FAC (FAC had to institute a separate rule to account for his ill-prepared noms), or WIKICUP overwhelming FAC (rules were put in place to deal with them). Reviewers and nominators alike eventually figure out that quick-and-dirty nominations for points in the reward culture aren't going to fly at FAC. None of those students would be going for DYKs and GAs if the professors weren't offering them better grades for doing so, so get the review processes to decide they won't accept them. Period. Short and sweet. That RFC is too long, and most of it won't fly, and the problems with these programs are MUCH bigger than just their effect on content review processes like DYK. Just keeping up with the garbage hitting medical articles has taken over most of my editing time, and I'm barely scratching the surface, and we're getting thousands of articles that are crap and probably aren't even notable. Put restrictions on the *professors*, who are making *us* do their babysitting, work, and grading for them, and it will stop. ANd for gosh sakes, don't say "approved" courses or articles are worth anything: I'm already hearing out there in the trenches that students think their faulty editing is OK because it's part of an "approved" course. Also, why are you focusing only on the USEP? I've had enormous problems all week with four or five Canada courses; one of them has an excellent online ambassador (nikkimaria :) but they can't make students comply, one has an ineffective ambassador, but most of them have *no* ambassador! And the Canada program volume is overwhelming psych articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Canadian psych class last semester (which, I thank my lucky stars, I wasn't involved with) that had 1700 students (only 300 of which ended up making edits, but still). I don't care how good the ambassadors are, unless you have a hundred of them for a class like that you're not going to get anywhere. Now, to be fair, WMF has tried to address this by "mandating" a student-ambassador ratio of 1:15, but a) the efficacy of that is highly dependent on how active the class is and what they're expected to do (one Canadian class only requires that students propose three new sources on talk while another requires thousand-word articles written from scratch - those classes have about the same number of students, but have drastically different support requirements), b) one good luck at the ambassador lists will tell you this requirement isn't being followed, and c) many of the profs/CAs, enthusiastic as they may be, are new to wiki, barely active on-wiki, or both. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WMF is not going to kill the education programme, or fix the other issues with it. Near as I can tell, based on a less than generous assumption regarding motives, WMF has decided the way to fix the editing gap and the expertise gap is to bring in student editors. As they come from prestigious universities, this also helps increase WMF's profile and credibility. Not ONE of the people running the programme appears to have a degree in education in order to set up this programme. WMF's staff is categorically unqualified to run this programme. They don't want to systematically reform it. They want more editors and more credibility. They did not make any substative reforms after India or after last semester. On top of that, WMF is supporting campus ambassadors involved who should be removed for incompetence. They have no process involved for recalling them. There is zero oversight for it. Can we agree on that?
I would love to reform the system and propose major reforms by encouraging non-disruptive editing to related projects, pushing classes to projects OTHER than English Wikipedia where they are better equipped to deal with problems. File:Outreach Oceania Integrating Wikimedia into the Curriculum.pdf was an outline of some lesson plans that did that. (Because I would FUNDAMENTALLY start by asking "What are your learning objectives for the course? How does Wikipedia related to your learning objectives?" while asking "How will this help English Wikipedia?" and asking "What will the community response to this situation be?" WMF is not going to do this, and will continue to support classrooms to be involved where they disrupt Wikipedia, where students are first beholden to their classroom teacher instead of Wikipedia and where the community is not asked about this. I have already been told: Classes are not supposed to requires DYKs and not supposed to required GAs. I can already see this is bullshit as I have been dealing with it. I have faced the fun of putting classroom assignment as more important than Wikipedia. (User:Dominic was not pleased that I moved College athletics to College athletics in the United States and then created a poorly written, incomplete and drafted in a half hour but GLOBALLY SCOPED article... because the student was assigned to work on College athletics and I should be supporting their coursework.)
The students are poorly trained by professors who are not equipped by WMF going into this process. WMf isn't recruiting highly skilled volunteers to help and isn't providing them with oversight. (Which evidenced to me because of FAC requirements for a class but SandyGeorgia and NikkiMaria and Raul were NOT listed as involved in this.) There are multiple levels of fail and it is a question of where to put fingers into the dam to try to stop what WMF has decided to do. That is what this is attempting to do. If you think it needs changing, please feel free to do the massive overhaul of it and I will support what you do. --LauraHale (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, a current class is requiring FA? AFAIK there haven't been any for a couple of semesters.
Okay. We need more skilled volunteers, both from the wiki-side and the education-side. We don't have them. There have been efforts to recruit on the wiki-side, which have been relatively unsuccessful. In fact, we're encouraged to encourage students who have participated in one of these courses to become CAs themselves, and I think they're moving to an online-only training for CAs to facilitate that. The training sessions thus need to be expanded to cover...basically two+ years of wiki experience AND teaching experience, because the recruits tend to have neither.
(Regarding other projects: I'm aware of a couple of Wikiversity-based programs that have had problems, though am unsure of specifics. Smaller projects might be even more overwhelmed than we are, and would require recruitment of project OAs (because not everything transfers). And even then, en-wiki's seen as "the big time", and is the best known). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: two other editors to talk to are Awadewit and Mike Christie - my sense is they might have very good feedback. I'd also have some points to make, but will wait until the RfC is launched (haven't read it all yet ... ) Truthkeeper (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Nikkimaria, Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Personality (William Fleeson) requires Good Article. I have seen at least one course listed on the draft some where that mentioned WP:FAC at some point. My university has had classes doing work on Wikiversity and Wikibooks. There is another class that did work on Wikinews, which is probably the project best equipped to actually handle student work. (That and German Wikipedia with their flagged revisions.) In the case of Wikibooks, they produced featured content. It was set up by an active participant with community support. --LauraHale (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(After multiple ecs) Yea, I know they're not going to kill it-- I know they want quantity not quality, and they don't give a rat's ass what they're putting us through. Yea, I agree with all of your first paragrph. They won't kill it-- it's up to us to put up an RFC that will force them to stop making us miserable and making us do all the work to compensate for the incompetence that abounds (the WMF, some abassadors, the professors, and the students, who are the victims in this incompetent scheme and don't want to be here).

So, again, get the assessment and content review processes to disallow nominations from them, and the profs will be forced to stop offering credit for DYKs, etc. Nowhere did I say get the WMF to kill the program-- they won't. We have to do things to make them stop making us miserable, and *we* (the community) control what we will review in content review processes like DYK, GAN, etc. Many good FAC reviewers refuse to review WIKICUP nominations, because they don't support the reward culture. That's why CUP participants overwhelm other processes like DYK, where they can get easy points and scanty review. The students don't want to be on Wikipedia-- they're forced there for a grade. If the DYK, GAN grade points stop working because we refuse to accept them, that part of the problem is solved at least. There are still boatloads of courses offering credit for DYKs. DYK has it within its power to refuse to accept nominations from class projects, just as FAC had it within its power to flag CUP nominations, and some reviewers won't touch 'em.

And even if the WMF were recruiting better ambassadors, 1) there aren't enough of us, and 2) even excellent editors like Nikkimaria can't make a difference-- students don't always listen, they just want their grade, and they're usually up against a deadline (which is why the last few weeks have been miserable). The ambassador program isn't working. We need to address the bad editing not by hoping we can do something from the top down, with added beaurocracy, but by denying these folks access to processes that will get them a better grade.

To succeed, the RFC has to be short, focused, and has to have a good deal of consensus before it goes live. Lots more talk will be needed ... I stink at writing, Colin is excellent, but the whole thing needs a lot of work so it will be framed in a way that has the best chance of success ... but DYK could nip a lot of the problems in the bud by saying they won't accept nominations from them. But since DYK is change-resistant, I hold out little hope for that happening, so how to improve the assessment and content review process aspect alone ... I dunno. Jbmurray, Colin, others may have ideas ... I'm still in the brainstorming phase on this, but when you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to drain the swamp-- and I've been up to my ass in really bad student articles all week. I may have clearer ideas later on.

Yes on Mike Christie-- I'm not sure Awadewit is engaged enough any more to realize how really bad this has gotten since her WP:FAT initiative (which also caused problems at FAC IMO). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That makes me relieved as I had a moment we weren't exactly on the same page but I feel like while we are not completely reading from the same script, close enough. The number of proposals should be trimmed. I think ultimately, there should be probably four: 1) No changes to the existing structure, 2) All courses to be approved by the community on a case by case basis where instructors are required to include detailed lesson plans and learning objectives related to each assigned student task, 3) Courses are blocked from all assessment processes PERIOD including AfC (and just randomly creating new articles), 4) Courses are allowed to participate in all student assessment processes so long as the instructors have a history of involvement there and are essentially doing QPQ for every student submission. Would more focused proposal with just those four be better? And could you or some one take a stab at improving the purpose? I think the RfC needs as much evidence as possible as I strongly suspect the response back will say "These are isolated incidents." It might need to be a sub page in order to improve quality and flow but for me, that would be acceptable. I really am not fussed so long as it is done right and a solution for the non-school kids community that deals with classes and content is found.--LauraHale (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably move to discussing this on the RFC talk to get out of Nikki's space. I think most editors in the trenches know how bad it is, but yes, an evidence sub-page is a good idea. I could add dozens-- best to get at that while it's fresh, and it's fresh now that all the students are scrambing to get grades, and making crap edits as the term-end approaches. I am not good at wording anything, much less an RFC ... sorry, not my forte ... I try to know my weaknesses, and my prose stinks. On your four proposals: 1) No, something HAS to change; 2) tried that, isn't working now, more bureaucracy won't work; 3) Something like that should be in the mix, but each process can do that in their own way-- if you reach for too much here, you'll get opposition; 4) hits the right idea in terms of ... the problem here is that Jbmurray started this ball rolling, but he knew Wikipedia and was involved in every article and had the entire WP:FAT team and most of Wiki's finest editors working on the articles. Not scalable. No one else has had that. Jbmurray got us in this mess because there's only one Jbmurray and what he did isn't scalable, but the WMF ran with it as a way to increase quantity. But on point 4), yes, we need to be able to make exceptions for the good profs. And that is why you have to let each content review process choose their own procedures, just as FAC found its own way to deal with the CUP and TonyTheTiger. This has to be ground-up ... each process figures out how to get the bad editing out of their hair, while allowing for exceptions. As an example, if Nikkimaria as an online ambassador endorsed that a student project be brought to FAC, FAC would accept it. Ground up rules, individualized to each process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyButler's Croatan High School project seemed to work pretty well, and with the exception of Jbmurray's students (who as you say had an awful lot of help) I've yet to see any of these university students match what those high-school students achieved. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many of them (raw number) and what percentage of them stuck around? Enough benefit to outweigh TCO? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think about 20 or so each year, and so far as I know the only ones who stuck around did so to help those in the year(s) behind them. But who knows, some may come back. The sense of achievement those kids got from GA/FA was palpable, and one of the few things I look back at fondly here. They didn't all do it because they were forced to for a grade, all of those I interacted with did it for the pride in the achievement. Just like we all do here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sandy: Do I like those four proposals and agree with all of them? No. My fear is if/when this is taken to an RfC, it needs to have options for how people can vote instead of a straight up or down "KILL THIS DEAD! PLEASE!" Hence the options. Would in your opinion limiting it from the current seven to those four be better? Do you have a suggestion for better options? And yes, I understand the prose issues. That is not my particular strength either. --LauraHale (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some RFCs have been very long, so maybe the focus on four versus seven isn't as important as getting the RFC tightly worded, well flowing, easy to follow (hello MALLEUS!!), but remember, when an RFC goes live, you have no control over which way it will go and entirely new things could come up. I'm still thinking ... Leaning towards pushing for meatpuppetry options, since that seems to be all we have left, and ways for content processes to show 'em the door while encouraging the well prepared. Brain will be clearer after a bit of thinking on this. I wish we could just shoot em all (I've encountered no good student editing) and go back to the days when editors cared about projects like WP:FAT and didn't attack functioning pages like WP:FAC, but the WMF has done a good job of killing everything, so I'm fresh out of ideas to get the horse back in the barn. Except, Malleus, Nikki, TK-- start copyediting, cuz I can't :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I'm having anything at all to do with any RFC then think again. The WMF got itself into this mess, let it find its own way out. Malleus Fatuorum 04:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But ... but ... after the FAC debacle, I just wanted to go off and edit medical articles in peace. And instead, I have to encounter WMF-inspired bad student edits everywhere on my watchlist. No fun anymore-- it's not a WMF problem, it hits all of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have absolutely no confidence at all in these so-called "community processes". I think they're all a waste of time, as nothing changes here except for the worse. The WMF showed its hand when it blocked the idea that non-autoconfirmed editors ought not to be allowed to create articles, something that had overwhelming support. They've made their bed, now they have to lie in it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Long in what sense? The preface material being pages? Or it takes months to close them? :) My concern is getting it right. I don't necessarily feel like I have a sense of ownership just so long as it gets done right. (And if it looks like I do, this often comes out of lack of competence in picking up when to leave something alone. Just a nudge to stop and that can be fixed.) The meat puppetry thing should probably be a second RfC, which says classes get ONE vote in an AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensional approach to personality disorders‎ where the student, the professor and the ambassador all show up. I think another student might have shown up. Or if meat puppetry is addressed, it should be a two issue. One is how they interact with assessment. Another with voting. (Wasn't there one class talking about having students run for administrators? Or am I imagining that?) --LauraHale (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sandy editing in my areas: They are in mine too. They are editing sport articles with a sport and society class. Those I can actually evaluate. I've just tagged one of their articles College athletics in the United States as having WP:COI. I can't understand WHAT they will be learning by contributing to Wikipedia in this way that will be helpful to Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Wiki-Project_Management_(Jonathan_Obar) (see also User_talk:Jaobar) is the "teaching students to be admins". Not sure of his exact title, but Dr. Obar has some position of authority within the education program. By the way, the CAs for that sports course were the leaders of one of this term's in-person CA orientations. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sport student could just have been an idiotic student putting the assignment off until the last minute. (Not everything is the fault of CAs and WMF.) I've commented on the sport talk page to reference the situation. I wasn't pleased with being accused of being anti-American by saying college athletics as an article is not an American only topic. Sport is a VERY VERY VERY regional specific topic in how it is treated, especially in the cultural field. I've found myself in a need to overly explain WHY I included references to American sport when talking about identity and sport as it pertains to what amounts to the Australian experience. How Australian/British/South African/New Zealand/USAian/Canadian sport is (are?) organised is big. There is no American equivalent to the Australian Institute of Sport. Title IX impacted world sport in the English-speaking world but I have seen little evidence it impacted much of the rest of the world. No one else in the world has the same system as the American college sport system, which is unique. I can probably write an article about world athletic sport with enough interlinking threads between different systems... but not the USA. *babbles* Thus, if they are editing sport articles on a wider level with an American centric view, ARG. This problem was one I'd already cleaned out of Women's basketball which treated the sport like only Americans played it. --LauraHale (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Long in what sense? I meant, look back at some of the RFCs on ArbCom elections-- they were gynormous, but well written (Tony1), and important, so folks trudged through them. The meat puppetry thing should probably be a second RfC, which says classes get ONE vote in an AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensional approach to personality disorders‎ where the student, the professor and the ambassador all show up. Yea, we definitely need to go for the meatpuppetry thing then. You see, WP:FAT caused the same problem for me at FAC-- all of the FAT team showed up to support their articles, one editor lodged a valid oppose, and he took a beating until that issue got sorted, but I had to intervene (and the Oppose was right). Difference with other content review processes is, FAC delegates can weigh factors like that, so I didn't close those FACs until they had independent (non-FAT) review and until issues were resolved. Other processes don't have the benefit of delegate discretion, where it is not a vote, and the delegate can weigh factors. If students are voting en bloc, we need to treat them as coordinated editors and meatpuppets. I've got the same on a merge I proposed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've thought more on this (things come to me in the middle of the night), and what I remembered (memory jogged because of dealing with disruptive editors elsewhere) was an RFC about one of Wikipedia's most disruptive editors that tried to do too much. It included so many wrongs and so many diffs that some people just didn't read it, and the worst of that editor's offenses escaped the attention of participants. The arbs face the same thing: evidence should include the most egregious examples, and be brief, to get folks to read it. I think the RFC needs to be completely reorganized (by issue, not by content review area), with most egregious diffs given, and then the rest of the discussions linked somewhere in a table, since most folks aren't going to read all that stuff at the top and won't get a sense of just what or how big the problem is. I'll add my suggestions for reorganization on the talk page over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is as good a place as any for this comment, I guess. I was favorably impressed with one education project I interacted with -- ironically, one involving pre-university students. The teacher was User:JimmyButler and the project was Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. The project page describes his approach to engaging the students with Wikipedia. The student article that I evaluated for GA had some issues attributable to the student's immaturity, but I eventually passed it (and, to be honest, it was approaching FA quality at that point). I was particularly impressed by the note of thanks I received from the teacher. I think that teacher -- and his approach -- would make an excellent model for other instructors to emulate. --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked him once how many students he had per year, relative to these gynormous out-of-control University projects, and IIRC (I may not), he went off in a huff without answering my question. I suspected that, like Jbmurray, he had far fewer students than these new university courses, and far more involvement with his students and their articles, and thinking that those two professors' experiences would scale is exactly where WMF went wrong. As an AP course in high school, he probably had about 20 students per year-- more easily managed than what we're seeing now-- and let's not forget the factor that some of the parents must have loved it, since they could, ummmm ... help their students to a better grade since the Wikipedia format would lend itself to parental help. We don't know how much parental involvement went into those articles, but in both cases, these profs had resources that can't be duplicated on a larger scale. I guess this point still bugs me, because when FAT was draining most of FAC's resources to produce just a few articles, I could see that kind of work wasn't sustainable and wouldn't scale to larger projects. The ambassadors can't compare to the resources that FAC and GAN brought to the table for Butler and Jbmurray. The newer profs are no longer involved, don't know Wikipedia, and we aren't getting quality. And Wikipedia:Education Working Group is bullroar-- WMF again disregarding it's pool of volunteers in favor of quantity over quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More in response to Orlady , there are several examples where successful projects have been done. The KEY to the success of most of these programs is they have had community support, community awareness and community involvement. One thought for re-organising RfC might be to present case studies where this was done and classes were successful. Then format proposals around this idea: "1) Community support is not key to student success and community integration. No changes to system. 2) Community support is key to student success and community integration with minimum disruption to Wikipedia processes. Changes are required to force classes to pre-plan how to participate in community process which include editing before a class commences. 2a) actual how to implement solution a, 2b) Actual how to implement solution b, 2c) actual how to implement solution c." And then have the disruptive evidence as a sub page. --LauraHale (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyG. The AP Biology did have about 20 students a year, working together in groups of two or three. But it's not really fair to say that JimmyButler went of in a huff, as the school diverted him away from the AP Biology class onto some kind of adult driving thingummyjig – the American education system is a mystery to me. What made it work, and to a lesser extent what made Jbmurray's project work, was the active involvement of the teacher. Would either project scale to thousands or even to hundreds of students? No, very likely not given the declining number of volunteers competent at FA/GA or even DYK level. Does it matter? I guess that depends on what the students are writing about. If it's episodes of The Simpsons or Buffy the Vampire Slayer not much, but if it's some medical or psychiatric condition, then that's a fish of an entirely different colour. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to a very old discussion where I specifically asked him for that data, for comparison, and my recollection is that he took offense and never answered. That was long before he left Wikipedia. I don't recall where that conversation was, only that I never got an answer. Jbmurray on the other hand is aware of the deficiencies in implementation of projects similar to his, and doesn't get offended when one questions or ... pisses, moans, whines and complains about what he launched. Whether medical articles or not, they are draining tons of productive editor time, and generating very little in return. At least Jbmurray and Butler generated worthy content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On "some kind of adult driving thingummyjig", US schools teach driver education, and are often affiliated with community ed, that teaches adult driver education-- stuff you have to take to get a drivers license (unlike other places I've lived, where you just drive with or without license, or pay someone to go get you one). Do you know why some schools only have drivers education training on Monday, Wednesday and Friday? Because on Tuesday and Thursday, the sex education class is using the car. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we've met[edit]

Hi. I don't believe we've met, though you seem to be cropping up all over the place lately. I saw you did the Russavia subpage restores and now you've popped up at User talk:Sven Manguard. Please don't threaten good editors with blocks. It's very poor form. As I said to Sven, an essential part of a collaborative project like this is to be able to communicate effectively with other editors. If he can't do that, he needs to find another project. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MZMcBride. Ideally, no good contributor should be blocked. However, if you insist upon posting repeatedly to his talkpage after being asked to stop, that too is "very poor form". You can hold whatever opinions about his request you please, but you should respect it nevertheless. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I obviously don't want to post in places where I'm not welcome. However, if I need to discuss particular edits of his, his talk page is really the only place. I haven't slain his firstborn or wiki-hounded him or committed some other grave affront for which you might expect the type of reaction he's produced. There's no reason for silly rules and restrictions, particularly if they get in the way of collaborative editing. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kony 2012[edit]

Can you give me some clarification on the close paraphrasing concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. it is pretty bad faith to raise close paraphrasing concerns without notification in the last hour after the nomination has been up for review on T:TDYK for several weeks. It seems like an attempt to do an end around on the agreement to honor the date request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all specifically named problems. I am willing to address all others. Please contact me ASAP to reinsert.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the date request, and it doesn't really matter to me - my actions had nothing to do with it. That happened to be the time I checked that article; had I noticed the problem earlier, I would have flagged it earlier, but I've been rather busy with others things and haven't been checking lately. I'll recheck the article shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You must have eced with some of my edits. One of the things you pointed out was already solved. Please recheck.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remain willing to correct any copyvios that you point out, but I can not find any more and keep getting reverted on ones that I am now finding.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have been quite active today, but have not taken a look at this article. Do you want me to ask someone at DYK talk to look at this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, though I see that Orlady has also raised a concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have lost all of my respect for these, clearly purposefully delaying, actions in regards to the DYK nomination. I'm sad that you would do something as low as this. SilverserenC 02:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? As I said above, I could care less what day it runs on, and have no "purpose" other than making sure that the article is policy-compliant when it runs on the main page. If you need someone to "blame" for the delay, go talk to whoever was doing all the close paraphrasing - it certainly wasn't me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you bring this up on the day it is meant to run, having it be delayed because of that, knowing full well that this date was chosen in advance because it is relevant to the subject. SilverserenC 02:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no - as I said above, I didn't know about the date request until I went to comment on the nomination. I check articles directly from WP:DYK/Q, which means I don't usually look at the nom page unless I find issues; while I try to check articles as early in the preps/queues as possible, I've been busy lately so didn't get to this one until it was in queue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if all the copyvios are fixed, then there's no reason for the article not to be run now. SilverserenC 02:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So go talk to Orlady, as last I checked she was still objecting. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo sapphire[edit]

I've answered all inline questions in this. If you could do a plagiarism check and/or otherwise improve it, I'd really appreciate it. No rush,I know you're busy.PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Many thanks for helping here. As for the Fergus vs Judith Basin county thing, what's going on is the more careless modern sites will say Fergus County because they look at the reports from the early days and just copy that. It may be better to cut out the part about "some guides" and just mention the county boundary/name change. Thoughts? I'll take care of the quote cite thing.PumpkinSky talk 18:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you've got some careless-but-reliable sites that say that, then yes, I'd say cut the bit about the guides. Just started looking through - will probably leave quite a few more comments along the way. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the guide part. More comments are welcome, will work them the best I can.PumpkinSky talk 18:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pls see updates Tim1965 made to the Conchita image, desc and on talk page. Also User_talk:Tim1965#Conchita_image, he doesn't see what else might be needed. Pls advise.PumpkinSky talk 20:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your hidden comment re: aluminium and clay rich shales in the mineralogy/geology section even though I find discussion via such hidden comments rather a cumbersome discussion method. Why is this discussion here and via hidden comments rather than on the article talk page where it belongs? Vsmith (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not intended as a discussion, really, more like notating an article as you read through. But to respond to your points: the source cited in that particular instance does not cover page 423, so while the information may well be on that page it isn't cited properly; while the Wikipedia article on the topic is indeed at the aluminium spelling, as the first sentence of that article notes "aluminum" is the correct spelling in the US, and as this is an American topic one would expect it to use US spellings. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the hyperlink in the ref goes to the Pirsson article (article 45) in that journal issue rather than the Kuna article (44) as the ref tag states - so fixin' needed there. Will address that later if someone else doesn't first (sleep needed now). As for the aluminium bit it seems WP:SULF applies as the discussion regarding aluminium in the article is about the chemistry of the rocks and minerals involved and not some non-chemical usage as aluminum pan or some such. And it's more this discussion that belongs on the article talk rather than on user talk. Vsmith (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on how you define "chemistry-related article". I have to do with Nikki on this one.PumpkinSky talk 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of "misplaced refs" seem to come from copy editing.PumpkinSky talk 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if any of that was my error - it does happen with larger-scale copyedits from time to time. I see you're working on it now, so I'll leave it for tonight and finish tomorrow or the next day. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, let's blame Montanabw, hehe. Done with the current set. Please continue with review. PumpkinSky talk 02:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:-P and noogies. Montanabw(talk) 16:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbar cite template date style[edit]

Just a mention - to you personally, because over at the Policy pump may have been the wrong place. And no one said where is the correct place to address the aggregate cite templates on the toolbar. For me personally, I'll manually insert dates on future edits. That doesn't address all those unknowing editors out there who are just clicking "Insert date" and using the European style. However that works out, it does. But it needs to automatically work for everybody, straight across the board. I've been on WP over 5 years, created hundreds of articles, and done thousand of edits. This has never been addressed before. And I'm an experienced editor. Just think of the newbies on training wheels. Just my opinion of this. Thanks for listening.Maile66 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but making it "automatically" work consistently might be an issue - if there isn't a {{use mdy dates}} or similar, if the style is already inconsistent, etc. Frankly, I'd rather have a wrongly-formatted access date than none at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. I love the feature on the cite templates. I don't have any answers, but if anybody was stickler enough to run a bot on all the wrongly formatted dates, I bet it would be one of the longest-running bots on record. Thanks for your reply.Maile66 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Soldiers Edits[edit]

Hey there Nikkimaria,

Thank you for your help with sorting out the Soldiers in the 18th century page. Your help has been invaluable and I apologise for the lateness in getting it sorted (busy at uni).

Made as many edits as possible, but I'm finding it difficult to find more reliable sources to replace the one's taken from the more 'studenty' websites (I have removed all links to these websites for now and shall add in sources when found). On that note, when it comes to your point about elaborating on the wars that soldiers would have face, I have linked to the relevant page which discusses those wars (Napoleonic, American War of Independence etc). Do I still need to elaborate further?

Thanks once again,

(GemmaHist (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Gemma, I would suggest adding a paragraph or two summarizing those articles as a section of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Suri 100's talk page.
Message added 12:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Suri 100 (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention please[edit]

I'm very close to bringing MZMcBride to AN and asking for a formal interaction ban that includes him not taking potshots at me on the talk pages of my friends (bottom line of the second to bottom box). Since you stepped in the first time that he didn't get the hint that it was time for him to drop it, would you be willing to step in the second time? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an AN thread. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guess we'll see how the AN thread works out, then. Wouldn't hurt to get a few more eyes on the situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo question[edit]

Hi Nikki - I'm hoping that you can help me out with an image question that I'm dealing with on a GAN review... On File:Shangani-memorial-panel-rho.jpg, we have an old postcard for which we know the author name, but not his death date. Do you have any thoughts on the proper licensing (if, in fact, it's free use)? Any help (from you or TPS) would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dana. My understanding is that when the date of death of the author is unknown and cannot be determined through due diligence, the work is considered to be PD 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation in the US - not sure if that applies to foreign works. I also know that some non-US governments consider works where the author's date of death is unknown to be pseudonymous, though I don't know if Zimbabwe is one of those countries. Do we know in what year this postcard was first published? It might qualify under the US pre-1923 rule, or the pre-1978-with-no-copyright rule. Either way, unless it can be demonstrated to be PD in Zimbabwe, someone should probably re-upload it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! We don't have a publication date (still looking though, to see if something will turn up), and we know the author was still active as of at least the 1930s, so it may be post-1923. We're still doing some digging, but at this point it looks like we might not be able to use the image. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KW block[edit]

Hi Nikki, thanks for reducing KW's block last night, I agree 1 months was excessive. Just a quick note though, the consensus ended up at 2 weeks, which was to 7 May 2012, not 6 May 2012. Would you mind sorting that out? Cheers. WormTT · (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over a day? Meh. You can if you want, but I'm not minded to add yet another entry to his block log, and seeing no one at ANI was complaining about it (last I checked), I think I'll leave it as-is. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not touching it, I've got a history with KW, the only reason I mention it is that I believe that's what Demiurge1000 (who I also have a history with) was complaining about when he carried on mentioning the fact that your block was too short even after you increased it. Still, your choice. Thanks for listening! WormTT · (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria[edit]

Why did you edit the work I had done on the Greedy film wikipedia page.I just added a bit of trivia and a tagline for the movie and a bit more plot depth,because there was hardly anything.I,m new to editing wikipedia,so let me know.Thanks.HOTTUBGUY (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)HOTTUBGUY.HOTTUBGUY (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, check out WP:TRIVIA - trivia sections are generally discouraged. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to do "and...and"[edit]

I added the names of the couples to Yogo sapphire, but what is the best way to do this "and...and" thing: "...two local married couples, Lanny and Joy Perry and Chuck and Marie Ridgeway, discovered...". PumpkinSky talk 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the best way if you want to include all the names, otherwise "the Perrys or the Ridgeways". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re Joel Pelletier[edit]

This article's references amount to

  1. a link to his own website
  2. A dead link
  3. an article written by the subject of the WP article (Joel Pelletier)

Surely this does not prove notability? --Greenmaven (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I didn't say it did. What I said was a) the article is not substantially identical to the one deleted earlier, and so does not qualify for G4, and b) better sources are available that do demonstrate notability, but need to be added. The article currently asserts notability, so isn't clearly speedyable, and the existence of sources suggests it would be more beneficial to add them rather than simply deleting the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - thanks. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Thor 2[edit]

I rephrased some of the more general wording. I hope it is enough. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could, please check back over this nomination. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a blank entry when removing a hook in queue or prep[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you please be sure to leave a visible empty hook when you remove a problematic hook? At the moment, Queue 1 shows six hooks, but no sign that there really ought to be eight. It's an important visual cue to people that a new hook needs to be added. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Two reasons: first, I've been explicitly told before not to do that for queues, in case it isn't replaced before the queue hits main page. Second, there's no requirement that a set has eight hooks - seven (or even six) is perfectly acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs passed by Campus Ambassadors[edit]

Are you OK with the Campus Ambassador for students passing their DYKs?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the DYK project's perspective, I believe this was inappropriate. Furthermore, since the campus ambassador's username isn't linked from the course page, the conflict of interest isn't as obvious as it ought to be. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I've raised that at WP:ENB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. IMO it's fine for a CA/OA to fail a nom, or to pass a non-class nom to make up for the class's addition to the backlog, but not to pass a class nom. However, I've also seen at least one person advocating that (with the idea that this limits the class's impact on DYK). At minimum they should be making the COI clear, and based on the state of those articles I think they need a few more eyes on them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo status[edit]

Are any further improvements needed to Yogo sapphire? PumpkinSky talk 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still some inline hidden comments to be addressed, and you might look at this. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, somehow missed the new questions. Now answered. Went through PEER SUGG too. Fixed a few things I found too. One question. Sometimes the article has carats converted to grams using the convert template, sometimes not. It seem like we collectively have done so when mentioning a specific stone but not when saying something like "2 million carats were mined that year". How should we handle this? PumpkinSky talk 11:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps convert it to a larger measurement, like tonnes or kilograms? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Creek, Gulch, and Dike are all three different things, very closely located. Should we change somehow? The dead link has an archive link here, but I don't know what to do with that. Please advise on both. Thank you.PumpkinSky talk 15:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confused: "Yogo Gulch and the corresponding natural features of Yogo Peak (8,625 feet (2,629 m)), Yogo Creek, Yogo Gulch, and the Yogo dike" would seem to imply that there are two Gulches, which doesn't seem to be the case. Can you clarify? As far as the archive, add it as an archivelink plus a subscription-needed tag. Based on the info at that link, though, the date on the ref is wrong and you're missing a page number. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added the archive stuff and subscription tag. Removed the second Gulch. A gulch is a valley formed by erosion, which may or may not have a creek. So the Peak, Creek, Gulch, and Dike are all different, though closely intertwined. Let me know if you more tweaks needed.PumpkinSky talk 17:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fix the GEL Course Page?[edit]

Hi Nikki

The GEL Course page is a little messed, I can't seem to fix it. The Final Exam Popular Articles header has become separated from its following Table. Thanks TomHaffie (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to DYK's[edit]

Hey Nikki,
I have seen you making quality contributions to DYK's by removing the passed DYK's due to many reasons. Tough you are involving yourself in making quality contributions by putting on hold the DYK's, it actually de-motivates the user (of-course this and this did de-motivated me). It would be great if you pick up the pending DYK's list rather than passed one, because once it passed in the early stage, it encourages the contributor to work more and more. Just wanted to let you know what i felt, Thank you. You can reply me here only! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Karthik, look at it another way: if your nom is flagged as having problems, it should motivate you to improve so future noms don't have problems, right? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya it did inspired me after few minutes, I tried to work on the article carefully just thinking about the close-phrasing issues. Its great for me, but if it is any new comer, the user will surely get irritated. So instead of the article which has passed the nomination, which has been already promoted, you can have a look at the pending DYK's which is just reviewed but not promoted (Just an advice if you are dealing with a new comer, otherwise, well it seems fine). Thanks for your quality contributions :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Nikkimaria does not have time to review every single article as soon as it is nominated? What do you think about that?
Also, maybe the people reviewing the articles and hooks should notice and deal with these problems before they promote the hooks? What do you think about that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Demiurge1000. People reviewing the articles and hooks should notice and deal with these problems. Finally I got the actual point I wanted to convey. Can some one get me the tool server link to check the close phrasing, so that I could work on it next time. I review or nominate any article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student still moving[edit]

It's outta control: now we have Personality and life outcomes. ending with a period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012[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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012[edit]

Greetings![edit]

Thanks for the correction on the banner I placed in the text for Till Bronner. I couldn't think of the right one; yet I knew I should somehow put a note there to alert the editors that the text wasn't in WP format. (Mainly, I clean up some articles and add photos.) I noticed that you are familiar with bots and computers-- something I know next to nothing about. Perhaps you can help teach me some things or help me out in the future? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Leahtwosaints, I don't know too much about bots but I'd be happy to help you out as best I can. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:RefimproveMED[edit]

Template:RefimproveMED has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Bility (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Hossam el-Hamalawy[edit]

Nikkimaria, can you please check to see whether your concerns have been addressed on this DYK nom? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More changes have been made. Can you please take another look? Also, no one else has stepped up after changes were made to the following articles that you had problems with, so if you could look at them, too, it would be great. Thanks!
—BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing Hassam el-Hamalawy, and Radley was reviewed by Orlady (and is in queue 4). Is there any chance you can check the final three, though, so see whether the changes made at your request were adequate? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your concerns regarding close paraphrasing in the Hamalawy article. It's basically concentrated in one section which I have copyedited. Could you review it one more time please? Thanks. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major copyvio[edit]

Hi, I think the article on Reliance Infrastructure is a major copyright violation. Please clean it up. It's notable enough, but needs clean up. You can post a message on the talk page of one of the recent contributors and ask them for help. 59.161.254.21 (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for helping me clean up Reliance Infrastructure. I was wondering where to start and you just made things easier. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Also, should the sections on Toll Road be the same? Should all of them be listed  ? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same as what? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, all the Toll Roads are listed. Should they remain so? If yes, I'll reformat it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They can, it's up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okie, thanks for all the help. I'll just figure out a way to keep it good looking. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Selected anniversaries/May 12[edit]

Hi. I picked you out as one of the people who've edited the page and who presumably knows how it works. Could you possibly check to make sure that I put the bicentenary of the birth of Edward Lear in the right place on the page (i.e. in the Staging area, which I read somewhere is transcluded from somewhere else - but where? - sounds alarming!). In passing, an awful lot of WP lists of instructions are quite difficult to follow (how I've wrestled with DYK instructions), perhaps because they're written by computer people for computer people. And also while you're there, do you think that the Lear article is reasonably up to scratch for a possible listing on the Main Page? If not, I could make some time to titivate it - all suggestions gratefully received. Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Given that it's the bicentary, I moved it into the area that actually appears on the main page. The only requirement for listing in OTD is that the article has no active cleanup tags and is in reasonable condition - the Lear article looks fine in that respect. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Boom Boom Boom. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Censorship, Nikkimaria: you are preventing mankind from properly understanding "Girl your booty is so round..." Your desysop is in the mail. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Drmies, for man-kind any discussion of round booties is pure original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where I'm sitting right now (a session on teaching Writing Across the Curriculum taught by an education person) I see little more than blockheads. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education[edit]

You may want to read and comment on User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. It proposes amongst other things creating a body that is parallel but does not compete with ArbCom. --LauraHale (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A special gift[edit]

for a special review
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks a lot for the source review at the recent (successful) FAC for 1740 Batavia massacre; I know you do it all the time, in addition to great work with paraphrasing checks at DYK, but I don't think you get nearly enough recognition. In thanks, I'm giving you a collectible kris. The blade is iron with gold leaf and it has a twin naga design. Hopefully you don't have one yet! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012[edit]

University of Western Ontario[edit]

Hi, twice today (May 7, 2012) you reversed multiple informative, reasonable, and referenced edits to the lead section of this article without discussion and only an edit summary of "cleanup" or "fmt". Perhaps you made a mistake and meant to reverse a different edit or a different article? Thanks and I'll keep an eye on this article. Facts707 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, that was the edit I meant to make. I'm confused as to why you're making edits like this, though, which serve only to mess up the formatting. Could you explain? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Russell Burnham FAR[edit]

Hi Nikki - The Frederick Russell Burnham FAR is still ongoing and hasn't had any comments in the FARC section. Would you have a chance to drop by and give your thoughts? Also, there are a couple on the page (Azerbaijani people, Free will) that are up to you to close, as I'm involved, just FYI, although I'm sure you probably already knew :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering why the essay WP:BRIGHTLINE was deleted?[edit]

Wondering why the essay WP:BRIGHTLINE was deleted? Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. That redirect was deleted, but the essay itself can be found here (though the original author has since blanked most of it - you'd have to ask him why). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, strange! Well then, why was the redirect deleted? It was in use in several places. Or maybe more important, was its original creation against policy? Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It seems the principle contributor moved the material to Jimbo's discussion. Woz2 (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I marked the essay as outdated. You can still look at the history for all the original content, of course. The more recent work at User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ seemed the most relevant place to point users to. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dank#FAC Copyeditor[edit]

BlueBonnet is offering help with a couple of FAC reviews, and I'm giving feedback on the copyediting parts. I'm not sure how to evaluate most comments on sourcing, though ... perhaps you'll have a minute to look. It's the last comment in the linked thread. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up[edit]

Perhaps you could respond to the updates on Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal and Template:Did you know nominations/Wyman-Gordon. Give them a tick or say what else needs changing. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a shot at Template:Did you know nominations/Wyman-Gordon. Perhaps you could point out the next set of problems. Still waiting for your response on Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check[edit]

Hi Nikki, can I just confirm you did a full image check here and you're satisfied with the result? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it looks like Brian raised additional concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems so. I'll have a look myself and if, like you, I don't see an issue then I'll put it bed. Just wanted to check... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Thor 2[edit]

At the moment, this is waiting on your approval of the changes made to mitigate the close paraphrasing you found. I expect the recent addition of a complaint of hook dullness will be much easier to address, and am happy to look into that once the paraphrasing issue is cleared up. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Peer Review[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria: I noticed that you volunteer to do Canadian History peer reviews. I was wondering if I could get your feedback on the Alexa McDonough article. I've listed this article for peer review because the article is stable, seems to be stuck at B-level, and I would like to get it to at least a Good-level article, in preparation for a Feature-level article. Looking for comments on tone, style, and anything else that needs fixing. Thanks, Abebenjoe (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, it was definitely what I was looking for. Take care.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_14&oldid=1142538669"