Thanks very much -- Ian Rose and Sasata have also expressed an interest though I don't know if they'll actually want to do some of the reading; if they do there is probably enough to share. I will post some more notes on the article talk page tomorrow, but you can get an outline of what the most relevant articles are likely to be about by looking at this and this. New Worlds was where New Wave science fiction got started, and was also a key moment in the careers of several writers, most notably J.G. Ballard, Brian Aldiss, and Michael Moorcock. I think the influence section needs to give a summary of the academic position on New Worlds importance to the New Wave, to the genre overall, and to the writers whose career it launched.
More tomorrow; it's past my bedtime. Thanks again for your offer -- I don't collaborate much so I look forward to having the chance to work with someone. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 04:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Would you be able to strike resolved concerns at
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive2 so I can understand how I am progressing.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
08:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Please not three concerns without responses above.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Ahalya failed the FAC, where you had pointed imperfections in references. Please help improve the article by providing your constructive criticism at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I think they've all been addressed. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I'm watching, but I disagree with several of the things that were done in the previous edit that RexxS seems so arrogant and uncivil about. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I've requested a peer review for the above article, a television programme, because I'd like to nominate it for promotion to G.A. status. If you have the time and the inclination could you please look over the article and leave some comments here? I have contacted one other editor, though whether s/he'll take part is uncertain. Thank you, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 04:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw my aunt a few weekends ago and see is not doing to well. I have taken the time to fixup her article. Was wondering if you could read it over. She is coming to Ottawa for a ceremony and I believe this will be her last public appearance. Barbara Ann Scott. Moxy ( talk) 04:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Nikki. Can you please tell me whether you do spotchecks? The one for "Halo" has been pending for days now. Sandy even left a note on the page again. Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 05:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Two completely unrelated comments, but bundling them together here.
Not much else to add, but hope the first comment helps and the second is of some interest. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I unwatched. The whole stupid arguments show no concept of the encyclopedia and it was just making my blood boil. The article's degenerated, honestly, and it's always been a flashpoint. The fact that the current edit war is from folks supporting the "historically correct" side just makes it worse. It's not worth the blood pressure rise it was causing me. Sorry to abandon you... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there :-) Can you please leave some comments? I would like to bring the article to FA status. I already received one feedback from one user on the talk page which I already fixed. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 21:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
For your continuous hard work, I Jona, am pleased to award you this barnstar. Thanks for all you have done and for the review I requested. Hope you have a great weekday ahead. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
Congratulations for being nominated as one of the military historians of the year for 2011 in recognition of your major contributions to reviewing articles within this project's scope (especially FACs), as well as other contributions to the project. I am pleased to award you the WikiChevrons in recognition of this achievement. For the Coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
*****************The Beyoncé Knowles WikiProject Thanks You***************** | |
I, Jivesh, thank you wholeheartedly for your comments on the FAC " Halo", which has now passed. May God bless both you and the day I came across a kind and helpful person like you on Wikipedia. |
Hello Nikki! How are you? Hope you are doing great. I have one question for you. I want " Unfaithful" to be my second FAC, but there is one source that maybe could be questioned. Is Artistdirect reliable for FA, in particular this article. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
On the page " Teletubbies," why did you remove a bit info about some stuff about Teletubbies in popular culture (e.g. a Jeep commercial from 2007, etc) in the "popular culture" section? Is it for a tidy up? Is it trivia while it equals grammar while it's not what Wikipedia is about? I don't know why. It needs to be restored because I know they already have references to them.
68.224.119.202 ( talk) 04:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw your update and I was thinking it was really weird because I did the update last night. I had found a few new articles, and had everything ready to go ... except I must not have submitted the changes. How annoying. — howcheng { chat} 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Argolin ( talk) 04:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you please do a source spotcheck for the giraffe article? LittleJerry ( talk) 14:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
When an FAC fails, do you have to wait 2 weeks to re-nominate just that article, or can you nominate a different article before the 2 weeks is up? Aaron • You Da One 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. Can you please tell me whether alt texts are compulsory? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 11:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
HI Nikki, I want to thank you again for serving as the Online Ambassador for my English class last semester at Clemson University. Do you have time to be my OA again this semester? I'm trying to get a second OA, so hopefully you will have fewer student this semester. What do you think? Have you already been assigned to a class?
Also, I would love your feedback from last semester. What can I do to improve the quality of the student's experience and the quality of the student's work? Thanks again for your help.
Here is my course page for this semester Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Eng_103:_Rhetoric_and_Composition_(Patricia_Fancher)
trish Pfancher ( talk) 18:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for accepting me into the Online Ambassadors program. Currently I am mostly looking at the Canadian programs, but will be willing to help with a few American courses, if necessary. Can you confirm which courses currently need ambassadors, especially based on editor experience, and the full process for ambassadoring the program? Will I need to sign a MOU? I have created my profile, so please outline any further steps I need to take at this point to get involved, and the timelines for realtime student editor participation. Thanks! ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for taking care of most of the technical stuff at the FAC of Nyon Conference, which has been promoted.Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
As the FAC is still open and you did the image review, I am letting you know I added this image to the article. You may wish to add a note to your image review for delegate convenience. The copyright should not be an issue, but let me know of course if you see something. Thank you.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Since we so often see resistance to understanding when the structure of a source is copied, I pinged MRG on this one. What do you think? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You asked for 2 details to be cited in Christmas Gift Evans House, they are in this montanahistorywiki.pbworks.com source. Can it be used to support the details (nothing else), or should they be dropped? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
That looks great; thanks! I am knee deep in an off-wiki project at the moment but will try to find time to come back to the article this week; I've done a bit of tweaking off and on and I think the main thing left now is to write the lead and do a prose pass. I think I can get that done late this week. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have time to perform a source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1? I know you are busy, so any help at all would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 02:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that you pulled this nomination from the queue after it had been approved: fair enough, I accept that the initial error was mine. Can you now review the article following the changes I have made? Incidentally, in future, could you bring such concerns to the attention of the nominator by use of the {{DYKproblem}} template? Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 05:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria; Thanks for your hints on getting started with my class. I am sure they will be in touch as we (most of whom are neophytes) get started in the Wikipedia world. I have asked them as a start, to post a note to your talk page.
Thanks, Milligancl ( talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Howdy, I hope that you do not feel that I am being pushy by drawing your attention to my response to comments that you made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Tod/archive1. No rush for a response, obviously, but I am a bit stuck with some of the issues that you raised and would appreciate some advice/clarification when you do have a moment or five. Particularly the issue of how best to organise anonymous works. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I responded to your questions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Radzymin (1920)/archive1. // Halibu tt 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I placed a request for using the AutoWikiBrowser on the AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage many days ago, but since then I haven't got approved to use the application. If you need the link to the Request for Permissions for using the AutoWikiBroswer here is the link: AWB/CheckPage#Requests for registration. Can you help out to take a look at my request, since I've been waiting for a long time. Hope you can help me and have a great day, Wikih101 ( talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Yndamiro Restano Díaz, I tried to answer, but am not sure I understood the question. - Different topic: in the PumpkinSky CCI a reviewer observed that
hi, Nikkimaria
can you have a look at the economy, culture and landmarks sections, if you able to do so. could some of the information in these sections be simplied or cut back? that's what i'm not sure. as well as this, what else do you think i need to work on the article as a whole, before i begin to consider putting the article forward for FAC. recently, i have recieved help from brianboulton who has done a partial copy-edit of the first three sections, history, governance and geopgraphy for me. Kilnburn ( talk) 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
that's interesting. agree with the second paragraph in economy; looking at the section, i could just about remove most of the first paragraph, for the exception of the opening sentence. i also agree with the removal of some info about the town centre; too much info on the regeneration works on the High Street and expansion plans for The Mercat. the problem with adding more statistical details for Kdy is i don't think the information has been produced or can be found easily. i do know that i can't find information for the no. of employees in any of Kdy's main employers.
strangely enough i was looking at cutting back some info on the Kdy War Memorial in the landmarks section. as a matter of fact, do you think i should add information on the no. of listed buildings in the town here? Kilnburn ( talk) 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Let me know if you get threatened with a topic ban from DYK. I just saw Hawkeye's proposal to topic-ban Sandy from DYK. Unbelievable!
Keep up the good work!
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved from Sandy's talk |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I need to have logged off 10 minutes ago, can Sandy or a TPS please take a look at [ [1]]? Fast. I'll try to follow up in a few hours. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I would sell my soul to see Jenna on the main page. No reason why not, per all the previous discussions. But then I am a liberal fool. Much less offensive than a lane in London or a cartoon episode....
The Rambling Man (
talk)
I'd be happy to help either scrutinising old FAs for plagiarism or preparing some mint ones ready for emergencies. Just let me know. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
The DYK-closed banner reads, "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page." Why did you re-open it without following these guidelines? — Eustress talk 23:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. On January 23 you gave my Mark Satin FAC a brief source spotcheck and found two errors. Since then, I have corrected the errors, and I went on to check for similar pagination and paraphrasing errors among the 70 sources where I felt I might have possibly committed them. (Details on my FAC page, still hanging in there at 7th from the bottom of the FAC list.) As you may recall, I am new at this, and I would like to know if I have handled the aftermath of your spotcheck to your satisfaction. - Babel41 ( talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I believe I have addressed your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Hill Cumorah Pageant. If so, please change your vote to support. Thank you. — Eustress talk 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, thanks for pointing out the close paraphrasing. I have removed those, rephrased and checked properly. Now can you please check if it is ready and close the discussion. Thank You :) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 18:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Nikki. A nomination of mine hasn't been reviewed on sources and images yet, and you're the first person I thought of asking. I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance, Auree ★ ★ 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Melville Island (Nova Scotia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Wentworth ( 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) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've double-checked all the ODNB references in Edna Clarke Hall after you raised concerns. While I did find a couple of similarities (really just a couple of words here and there) that I have addressed, I didn't see that many (perhaps because it's my own writing, an outsider might see others). Please could you have another look and see what you think. Have also commented on DYK nom so if you could follow up I'd appreciate it. Thanks so much. Mabalu ( talk) 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Did my answer here satisfy your concerns about those Nintendo sources? « ₣M₣ » 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikki!
I am excited to learn how to edit wikipedia pages.
( GavynBackus4 ( talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC))
Hello, I am a fourth year student part of Dr. Louise Milligan's Seminar class and I would just like to introduce myself, so that in the future I can discuss and contribute to Wikipedia with your help. Thank you! Kegseminar ( talk) 16:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm one of the students in Dr.Milligan's Seminar class as well! I'm excited to learn how to contribute to wikipedia! Jboogaar ( talk) 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm also a student in Dr. Milligan's Seminar class, just wanted to introduce myself. ( Lbrozic ( talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC))
Hi! Ddiadamo ( talk) 19:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Your talk page is intense! I'm from Professor Milligan's class and you are our ambassador, I don't know what I am doing. ( Vschurter ( talk) 15:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC))
![]() |
The Helping Hands Barnstar | |
Dear Dank, Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, Ed, Jimfbleak, Nikkimaria, and Noleander, - I could not have brought the Mark Satin bio up to Featured Article status without the unique contributions (not to mention tact and patience) of each of you. I am probably two to three times your age, and not at home with this technology. But working with you gave me a glimpse of a beautiful 21st century world in which individual initiative, collectively honed, can produce socially (in)valuable work that is also first-rate. God bless! - Babel41 ( talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Have your concerns been addressed on this DYK nomination by recent edits? The original reviewer was involved in the edits to correct close paraphrasing problems, so someone else has to say whether the article is now okay, and as the person who raised the issue, you're best to give the verdict. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I got all your points. The only one I'm not sure on was the wikilinking consistency: not too sure what you mean here, I think my brain may be going soft! Also, would it be possible for you to do an image review on the article? If not, no problem. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm leaving you a message because I saw you make an edit to the DYK page. I've nominated an article which I've written, and received some feedback that I've tried to address. However I think that the editor I was conversing with may have lost interest in the process, or perhaps has missed my response. I would appreciate if you could grant a quick look at the discussion so that it does not become stale. Thank you, Aslbsl ( talk) 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your edit summary "tr" means, but the IPC tag is obviously still appropriate on this article. The article is little more than a listing of occurrences in popular culture. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I see now that you have switched to "rm". I assume that means "remove". Yes, you removed something. I could see that without the summary. The question is why you did what you did, not what did you do. The article contains numerous minor/trivial mentions. The article should explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply list appearances. The items included would have us add every novel, movie tagline, TV episode, song and album that mentions or alludes to "God" to the article God, resulting in a long, pointless list. That this topic has fewer entries merely means that the pointless list isn't as long. It's still a pointless list of trivia. - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm writing this as you have tagged some articles mostly written by me as CV or close paraphrasing. I have though for long time since joining Wikipedia nine months ago that copying and pasting was fine as long as you mentioned the source and that it's only copyright violation if you didn't include the source. Thus I will be doing a review on my edits where I have used copy-paste style (I know where to look), but as you know you're only given one week to make changes or the article (or part of it) will be deleted. So, I'm gently asking you not to tag more articles for deletion, because this could result in reduced activity for me at Wikipedia and probably still leaving copyright violations that are hard to find by others. Bahraini Activist Talk to me 19:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
right, i have removed some excess information on the economy section. this includes the majority of the first paragraph; High Street regeneration and the Mercat extension plans. can you have a look at the section for a copy-edit? Kilnburn ( talk) 23:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, I've noticed that this GAN has been open for nearly two months now -- could you do something about it? Given that there are outstanding issues still unresolved, I think a fail is required here. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 23:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
reviewing eyes |
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky, you did a lot to clarify! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
It's over, thanks also to you! 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, re this FAC: shall I continue my prose review below or above your image review? I'm still pretty new to FAC, you see. :) Eisfbnore talk 14:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
|
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]
10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be a nuisance! You did a source and image review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Len Hutton/archive1; just to clarify for the sake of another reviewer, was everything OK with the source and image fixes? Thanks again. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Nikki, does your oppose at WP:Featured article candidates/Missouri River/archive4 still stand? Thanks, Ucucha ( talk) 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments on this FAC. I think I addressed all of your points. Would you care to take a look again and provide support or further opposition? Thanks, Axem Titanium ( talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Should be ok now, but let me know if more needs to be done. I also wonder if you might do me a small favour if this happens again by highlighting any problem sentences. I use a screen magnifier which can make pinpointing the information a bit of a slow process, so it would be very helpful if I could have more detail on what needs to be fixed. Thanks. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
How is violating BRD not a convincing rationale? The initial removal did not gain proper consensus, please self revert. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 14:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, your concern with Monmouth Cap was a good one and has been fixed. However it is about to miss the bus for St Davids Day... could you assist if you have time as you will be able to spot immediately that your issue has been thoroughly dealt with Victuallers ( talk) 10:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Maple syrup". Thank you. -- Dougweller ( talk) 10:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Billy Hathorn is back. Carl Stracener (found while patrolling new medicine articles). Same close paraphrasing of obits. Same focus on Louisiana State and Texas alum. Do you want to help me analyze and present SPI? The DYK people will be no help. [3] [4] [5] and more. Same focus on southern politicians: Charles R. Matthews and Leslie Osterman. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Nikki, now that the CU is done, I hope it's OK to put this here so we can keep it all in one place. There is another aspect of Hathorn's work that I've never understood relative to DYK. As in the case of Carl Stracener, he often put up bios that didn't meet notability, based almost entirely on obits. Obituaries are information submitted most typically by family members, hence not independent or third-party. We have same here-- a small-town obit is the entire basis for the article, with one published paper by him, and one source that doesn't mention him but is used to source what the invention was. So, my question is, considering the massive CCI, why are we trying to clean up these bios rather than just deleting them? There was a recent well publicized example of someone who made up an obit and got it published so he could collect some funds for something-- why are we even accepting small-town newspapers as a single source for info, when that is not independent info, rather typically submitted by relatives? I've been around more than one small-town newspaper obit lately; they do nothing to verify, merely accept what the family submits via the funeral home, so we have information submitted by relatives being picked up by legacy.com and used as the basis for many of Hathorn's (and other DYK) bios, and used as the basis for establishing notability even though they are not third-party. I assume major newspapers like the NYT do verify obits, but I'm not certain. Will ping MRG and Orlady, but my concern was that there were so many bios written by Hathorn that didn't meet notability. We see same in his and others' work for attorney bios, where they put up info that is submitted to websites by the attorneys themselves-- not third-party. The CCI could go a lot faster if those that met notability only on the basis of info submitted by related parties (legacy.com, small town newspaper obits, of other non-third party sites like many of his attorney bios) were deleted for notability rather than copyvio cleaned. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now blocked one of the IPs for a month: 71.40.85.2 ( talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). It's been used exclusively by Billy since December and has added quite a bit of content. I found text matches in two of the major articles and reverted. In general, my approach to CCI subjects who are blocked and then persist after the block through block evasion is to remove much more liberally. I feel okay asking the community to mop up after somebody once; asking them to do it again and again because we can't stop the guy is an abuse of resources. That said, this IP has contributed far more content than the named account, and I'm going to have to add it to the CCI. :/ -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I just happened across this, which would mean any future SPIs would need explicit diffs. I suspect we'll be there again ... On Orlady's "possibly attack the motives of the nominator", yep, I've had enough of that, so other than pointing all of you at these issues when I happen across them, I'll steer clear. After all, I'm "too partisan to be neutral", [6] dontchaknow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Let me know when you're done and I'll take an overall run through at getting ready for FAC. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You should have contacted me about this.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you do spotchecks for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive6 please? Aaron • You Da One 17:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I was reading through FAC recently and noticed that in your source checks you say "Don't repeat cited sources in External links". That's mostly true in general, but there are exceptions to this, and I was wondering if you would be willing to discuss this? My reasoning would be that it depends on what function the citation and the external links are serving. If they are serving the same purpose, then the external link is indeed redundant, but citations and properly used external links are different (by their very nature) and can serve different purposes. The citation will generally be to enable editors and readers to verify a fact or opinion cited. An external link can have a broader purpose, directing the reader to further reading on a topic, or to point out other information contained in the same source, but not used for the article.
To try and explain this further, some websites break up their information across multiple pages and some don't. In the former case, a citation can point to one subpage of the website and an external link for further reading can point to another subpage. How is using a citation to one subpage of a website, and an external link to another subpage of the same website, different from using a link to single webpage twice, but for different purposes?
There are also cases where an external link placed in that section for reason A, mentions fact B in passing, gets used to cite fact B, is hence removed from the external links, is then later still replaced with a better citation for fact B, but is not replaced in the external links section. This is why I think it is necessary to examine why a webpage is being cited, and how it is being used as an external link. If the two purposes are different, then it might be an exception to this 'rule. I may raise this at WT:EL or WT:CITE, but wanted to see what you thought first.
The other thing I noticed (on reading through WP:EL) was the guidance to avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." That seems, to me, to be saying that the common practice of using external links as a temporary dumping ground for sources that might be of use in later editing (or for readers wanting to find out more), is deprecated (some use the talk page instead for this, but this doesn't work for articles with no active editors). I've often thought that articles in an early stage of development should have a section specifically called "further editing" or "suggested sources", as this is a different concept to that of "further reading" or "external links", and I think as an article approaches FA level (when the number of suggested sources is naturally diminishing as they are being used in the article), the two can sometimes get conflated. Anyway, I've written far too much here, but wanted to get these thoughts down as I've been mulling on this for a while and wanted to see what others think. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I received a call for help, in fear of the Bozeman Carnegie Library effect: have a hook pulled from the Main page while you are offline. Would you please check that article before it goes to prep? Marrante and I did, but you have sharper eyes, and I am afraid I didn't see the problem in the library either, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thank you for your recommendations at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Stephen_Hawking/archive1#Stephen_Hawking. I've just been working though them and have updated the FAC page (I'm going to sort out first/last name order shortly - just about to make dinner) there are a few were I was unsure of myself and it would be great to get your take on how far the article still has to go to satisfy your recommendations... Fayedizard ( talk) 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikki I am sure you have noticed the additions by Rjensen at the history of Canada article. I generally like hes additions though his refs are not so good. But I see there may be a bigger problem. Was in the middle of adding refs for hes new additions and come to discover some copyright problems. For instance the additions at section History of Canada#Society are just a copy and past from this book review. And the section History of Canada#Politics is a copy and past from here. What to do here? Moxy ( talk) 02:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! You indicated you'd like to help us beta-test the new MediaWiki 1.19 extension for the Education Program. Click here to get started.
Thanks, Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. A couple of weeks ago you were kind enough to do an image review of the Spanish conquest of Guatemala FAC. I've replied to each of your points; in one case I've switched an image and I also have a licensing query. I'd appreciate it if you could revisit the review page and see if your concerns have been addressed. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria - I'm curious as to why you thought this way since our article on IWD seems far better than Mother's Day's article, which is included there with no fuss. — foxj 15:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikki. Hopefully, I have addressed your concerns regarding the al-Jawali Mosque DYK nomination. If not, maybe you could fix anything you think would consider plagiarism. Thank you. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 01:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
please leave the ref dates in yyyy-mm-dd. Note that the original version of the article to which I reverted uses mdy format, so dmy should not be used in the article. Canuck My page 89 (talk), 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was advised by one of the reviewers to ask active FAC editors to review the Pakistan article's FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1. It has been out for nine days, the problems mentioned in the start were fixed but there have been no further comments. There was a question about a dispute that occurred after the nomination, I've explained about it on the FAC page that there's been no consensus for it on the talk page and the current version is as of consensus. Please take a look at the article and drop your review comments and/or vote. Thanks. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I *THINK* (knock-on-wood) that I've fixed all the problems you named. Either way, the citations have been extensively cleaned-up and are ready for a second look. Thanks! Palm_Dogg ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:New Worlds. I am incredibly busy but I really want to get this ready for FAC so will try to find more time in the next week or so to work on that last section. I think it's just another hour or two of work. It's not there yet, but most (or maybe all) of the necessary text is in there; it just needs to be massaged into a more readable narrative matrix. Anyway, if you can respond on the questions I left I will take another crack at it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Nikkimaria. I see by your edits that you're a bit of a deletionist. I've recently made some similar edits to O Canada along the lines of yours on McRib. Before this evolves into an edit war, can we parley a better solution? Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I look over nearly every source have have available and did re-paraphasing when need. Can you do some looking over? LittleJerry ( talk) 18:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Just went through and checked it off, but I think the article should be located at Deadman's Island (Nova Scotia)...typical geographic feature naming convention.-- kelapstick( bainuu) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for your feedback at the article's FAC. I've addressed most of the things you've mentioned now, but will need a little more information on which refs are in caps, and perhaps one or two other small points. Thanks once again for the review. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 15:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, I noticed you're listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors. I just started my first GA review (for Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting)). Would you mind reviewing it when I'm done? -- Fang Aili talk 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Since Fang went inactive, any chance you would like to finish the review, as you are already familiar with the article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your time with the article. I've added some comments. I'm generally accustomed to constructive dialogue and would appreciate some feedback if you have time. Thank you again. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 02:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
→ I commented again at the talk page. Thanks again for the constructive feedback. Very appreciated. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 07:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have heeded your source review and entreat you to take another look. Thanks.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The finland election FA and the DYK for justice and development in libya is pending further notes to improve or approve ;)( Lihaas ( talk) 08:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)).
Hi Nikki. 100th section on your talkpage. Wow! Saw your edits to Lucknow city. Although you have removed unsourced info from the article, some points need discussion. For instance, see line 379. The Dilkusha Palace, the Baradari (built by Wajid Ali Shah) and the clock tower at Husainabad are historical monuments constructed in the 19th century. They are among the most notable monuments of the city. Also, the sub section on Urdu Literature needs debate. Sure the section has POV but the city is famous for Urdu poets and the section can definitely be improved or merged if such an article exists. The information available there such as list of "famous poets of recent times" would be difficult for anyone to recreate. I am a native of Lucknow and I see the article is kinda dead for a while. Although Lucknow is a well researched subject it's difficult to get verifiable info about Lucknow on the web. Many of the references cited have low credibility or are simply lame (taken from sites promoting tourism and all). You might want to review the edit or revert. Anyways, I leave the decision to you, admin. Hope you are convinced. This is my first piece of communication with another Wikipedian :) — Ashay ( talk) 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Lucknow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tehzeeb ( 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) 18:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback on Spanish conquest of Guatemala, the article has just been promoted. As always, it has come out of the review process in better shape than it went into it. All the best, Simon Burchell ( talk) 15:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much -- Ian Rose and Sasata have also expressed an interest though I don't know if they'll actually want to do some of the reading; if they do there is probably enough to share. I will post some more notes on the article talk page tomorrow, but you can get an outline of what the most relevant articles are likely to be about by looking at this and this. New Worlds was where New Wave science fiction got started, and was also a key moment in the careers of several writers, most notably J.G. Ballard, Brian Aldiss, and Michael Moorcock. I think the influence section needs to give a summary of the academic position on New Worlds importance to the New Wave, to the genre overall, and to the writers whose career it launched.
More tomorrow; it's past my bedtime. Thanks again for your offer -- I don't collaborate much so I look forward to having the chance to work with someone. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 04:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Would you be able to strike resolved concerns at
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive2 so I can understand how I am progressing.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
08:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Please not three concerns without responses above.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Ahalya failed the FAC, where you had pointed imperfections in references. Please help improve the article by providing your constructive criticism at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I think they've all been addressed. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I'm watching, but I disagree with several of the things that were done in the previous edit that RexxS seems so arrogant and uncivil about. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I've requested a peer review for the above article, a television programme, because I'd like to nominate it for promotion to G.A. status. If you have the time and the inclination could you please look over the article and leave some comments here? I have contacted one other editor, though whether s/he'll take part is uncertain. Thank you, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 04:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw my aunt a few weekends ago and see is not doing to well. I have taken the time to fixup her article. Was wondering if you could read it over. She is coming to Ottawa for a ceremony and I believe this will be her last public appearance. Barbara Ann Scott. Moxy ( talk) 04:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Nikki. Can you please tell me whether you do spotchecks? The one for "Halo" has been pending for days now. Sandy even left a note on the page again. Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 05:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Two completely unrelated comments, but bundling them together here.
Not much else to add, but hope the first comment helps and the second is of some interest. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I unwatched. The whole stupid arguments show no concept of the encyclopedia and it was just making my blood boil. The article's degenerated, honestly, and it's always been a flashpoint. The fact that the current edit war is from folks supporting the "historically correct" side just makes it worse. It's not worth the blood pressure rise it was causing me. Sorry to abandon you... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there :-) Can you please leave some comments? I would like to bring the article to FA status. I already received one feedback from one user on the talk page which I already fixed. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 21:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
For your continuous hard work, I Jona, am pleased to award you this barnstar. Thanks for all you have done and for the review I requested. Hope you have a great weekday ahead. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
Congratulations for being nominated as one of the military historians of the year for 2011 in recognition of your major contributions to reviewing articles within this project's scope (especially FACs), as well as other contributions to the project. I am pleased to award you the WikiChevrons in recognition of this achievement. For the Coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
*****************The Beyoncé Knowles WikiProject Thanks You***************** | |
I, Jivesh, thank you wholeheartedly for your comments on the FAC " Halo", which has now passed. May God bless both you and the day I came across a kind and helpful person like you on Wikipedia. |
Hello Nikki! How are you? Hope you are doing great. I have one question for you. I want " Unfaithful" to be my second FAC, but there is one source that maybe could be questioned. Is Artistdirect reliable for FA, in particular this article. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
On the page " Teletubbies," why did you remove a bit info about some stuff about Teletubbies in popular culture (e.g. a Jeep commercial from 2007, etc) in the "popular culture" section? Is it for a tidy up? Is it trivia while it equals grammar while it's not what Wikipedia is about? I don't know why. It needs to be restored because I know they already have references to them.
68.224.119.202 ( talk) 04:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw your update and I was thinking it was really weird because I did the update last night. I had found a few new articles, and had everything ready to go ... except I must not have submitted the changes. How annoying. — howcheng { chat} 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Argolin ( talk) 04:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you please do a source spotcheck for the giraffe article? LittleJerry ( talk) 14:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
When an FAC fails, do you have to wait 2 weeks to re-nominate just that article, or can you nominate a different article before the 2 weeks is up? Aaron • You Da One 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. Can you please tell me whether alt texts are compulsory? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 11:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
HI Nikki, I want to thank you again for serving as the Online Ambassador for my English class last semester at Clemson University. Do you have time to be my OA again this semester? I'm trying to get a second OA, so hopefully you will have fewer student this semester. What do you think? Have you already been assigned to a class?
Also, I would love your feedback from last semester. What can I do to improve the quality of the student's experience and the quality of the student's work? Thanks again for your help.
Here is my course page for this semester Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Eng_103:_Rhetoric_and_Composition_(Patricia_Fancher)
trish Pfancher ( talk) 18:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for accepting me into the Online Ambassadors program. Currently I am mostly looking at the Canadian programs, but will be willing to help with a few American courses, if necessary. Can you confirm which courses currently need ambassadors, especially based on editor experience, and the full process for ambassadoring the program? Will I need to sign a MOU? I have created my profile, so please outline any further steps I need to take at this point to get involved, and the timelines for realtime student editor participation. Thanks! ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for taking care of most of the technical stuff at the FAC of Nyon Conference, which has been promoted.Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
As the FAC is still open and you did the image review, I am letting you know I added this image to the article. You may wish to add a note to your image review for delegate convenience. The copyright should not be an issue, but let me know of course if you see something. Thank you.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Since we so often see resistance to understanding when the structure of a source is copied, I pinged MRG on this one. What do you think? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You asked for 2 details to be cited in Christmas Gift Evans House, they are in this montanahistorywiki.pbworks.com source. Can it be used to support the details (nothing else), or should they be dropped? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
That looks great; thanks! I am knee deep in an off-wiki project at the moment but will try to find time to come back to the article this week; I've done a bit of tweaking off and on and I think the main thing left now is to write the lead and do a prose pass. I think I can get that done late this week. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have time to perform a source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1? I know you are busy, so any help at all would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 02:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that you pulled this nomination from the queue after it had been approved: fair enough, I accept that the initial error was mine. Can you now review the article following the changes I have made? Incidentally, in future, could you bring such concerns to the attention of the nominator by use of the {{DYKproblem}} template? Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 05:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria; Thanks for your hints on getting started with my class. I am sure they will be in touch as we (most of whom are neophytes) get started in the Wikipedia world. I have asked them as a start, to post a note to your talk page.
Thanks, Milligancl ( talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Howdy, I hope that you do not feel that I am being pushy by drawing your attention to my response to comments that you made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Tod/archive1. No rush for a response, obviously, but I am a bit stuck with some of the issues that you raised and would appreciate some advice/clarification when you do have a moment or five. Particularly the issue of how best to organise anonymous works. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I responded to your questions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Radzymin (1920)/archive1. // Halibu tt 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I placed a request for using the AutoWikiBrowser on the AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage many days ago, but since then I haven't got approved to use the application. If you need the link to the Request for Permissions for using the AutoWikiBroswer here is the link: AWB/CheckPage#Requests for registration. Can you help out to take a look at my request, since I've been waiting for a long time. Hope you can help me and have a great day, Wikih101 ( talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Yndamiro Restano Díaz, I tried to answer, but am not sure I understood the question. - Different topic: in the PumpkinSky CCI a reviewer observed that
hi, Nikkimaria
can you have a look at the economy, culture and landmarks sections, if you able to do so. could some of the information in these sections be simplied or cut back? that's what i'm not sure. as well as this, what else do you think i need to work on the article as a whole, before i begin to consider putting the article forward for FAC. recently, i have recieved help from brianboulton who has done a partial copy-edit of the first three sections, history, governance and geopgraphy for me. Kilnburn ( talk) 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
that's interesting. agree with the second paragraph in economy; looking at the section, i could just about remove most of the first paragraph, for the exception of the opening sentence. i also agree with the removal of some info about the town centre; too much info on the regeneration works on the High Street and expansion plans for The Mercat. the problem with adding more statistical details for Kdy is i don't think the information has been produced or can be found easily. i do know that i can't find information for the no. of employees in any of Kdy's main employers.
strangely enough i was looking at cutting back some info on the Kdy War Memorial in the landmarks section. as a matter of fact, do you think i should add information on the no. of listed buildings in the town here? Kilnburn ( talk) 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Let me know if you get threatened with a topic ban from DYK. I just saw Hawkeye's proposal to topic-ban Sandy from DYK. Unbelievable!
Keep up the good work!
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved from Sandy's talk |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I need to have logged off 10 minutes ago, can Sandy or a TPS please take a look at [ [1]]? Fast. I'll try to follow up in a few hours. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I would sell my soul to see Jenna on the main page. No reason why not, per all the previous discussions. But then I am a liberal fool. Much less offensive than a lane in London or a cartoon episode....
The Rambling Man (
talk)
I'd be happy to help either scrutinising old FAs for plagiarism or preparing some mint ones ready for emergencies. Just let me know. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
The DYK-closed banner reads, "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page." Why did you re-open it without following these guidelines? — Eustress talk 23:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. On January 23 you gave my Mark Satin FAC a brief source spotcheck and found two errors. Since then, I have corrected the errors, and I went on to check for similar pagination and paraphrasing errors among the 70 sources where I felt I might have possibly committed them. (Details on my FAC page, still hanging in there at 7th from the bottom of the FAC list.) As you may recall, I am new at this, and I would like to know if I have handled the aftermath of your spotcheck to your satisfaction. - Babel41 ( talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I believe I have addressed your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Hill Cumorah Pageant. If so, please change your vote to support. Thank you. — Eustress talk 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, thanks for pointing out the close paraphrasing. I have removed those, rephrased and checked properly. Now can you please check if it is ready and close the discussion. Thank You :) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 18:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Nikki. A nomination of mine hasn't been reviewed on sources and images yet, and you're the first person I thought of asking. I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance, Auree ★ ★ 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Melville Island (Nova Scotia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Wentworth ( 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) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've double-checked all the ODNB references in Edna Clarke Hall after you raised concerns. While I did find a couple of similarities (really just a couple of words here and there) that I have addressed, I didn't see that many (perhaps because it's my own writing, an outsider might see others). Please could you have another look and see what you think. Have also commented on DYK nom so if you could follow up I'd appreciate it. Thanks so much. Mabalu ( talk) 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Did my answer here satisfy your concerns about those Nintendo sources? « ₣M₣ » 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikki!
I am excited to learn how to edit wikipedia pages.
( GavynBackus4 ( talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC))
Hello, I am a fourth year student part of Dr. Louise Milligan's Seminar class and I would just like to introduce myself, so that in the future I can discuss and contribute to Wikipedia with your help. Thank you! Kegseminar ( talk) 16:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm one of the students in Dr.Milligan's Seminar class as well! I'm excited to learn how to contribute to wikipedia! Jboogaar ( talk) 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm also a student in Dr. Milligan's Seminar class, just wanted to introduce myself. ( Lbrozic ( talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC))
Hi! Ddiadamo ( talk) 19:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Your talk page is intense! I'm from Professor Milligan's class and you are our ambassador, I don't know what I am doing. ( Vschurter ( talk) 15:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC))
![]() |
The Helping Hands Barnstar | |
Dear Dank, Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, Ed, Jimfbleak, Nikkimaria, and Noleander, - I could not have brought the Mark Satin bio up to Featured Article status without the unique contributions (not to mention tact and patience) of each of you. I am probably two to three times your age, and not at home with this technology. But working with you gave me a glimpse of a beautiful 21st century world in which individual initiative, collectively honed, can produce socially (in)valuable work that is also first-rate. God bless! - Babel41 ( talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Have your concerns been addressed on this DYK nomination by recent edits? The original reviewer was involved in the edits to correct close paraphrasing problems, so someone else has to say whether the article is now okay, and as the person who raised the issue, you're best to give the verdict. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I got all your points. The only one I'm not sure on was the wikilinking consistency: not too sure what you mean here, I think my brain may be going soft! Also, would it be possible for you to do an image review on the article? If not, no problem. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm leaving you a message because I saw you make an edit to the DYK page. I've nominated an article which I've written, and received some feedback that I've tried to address. However I think that the editor I was conversing with may have lost interest in the process, or perhaps has missed my response. I would appreciate if you could grant a quick look at the discussion so that it does not become stale. Thank you, Aslbsl ( talk) 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your edit summary "tr" means, but the IPC tag is obviously still appropriate on this article. The article is little more than a listing of occurrences in popular culture. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I see now that you have switched to "rm". I assume that means "remove". Yes, you removed something. I could see that without the summary. The question is why you did what you did, not what did you do. The article contains numerous minor/trivial mentions. The article should explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply list appearances. The items included would have us add every novel, movie tagline, TV episode, song and album that mentions or alludes to "God" to the article God, resulting in a long, pointless list. That this topic has fewer entries merely means that the pointless list isn't as long. It's still a pointless list of trivia. - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm writing this as you have tagged some articles mostly written by me as CV or close paraphrasing. I have though for long time since joining Wikipedia nine months ago that copying and pasting was fine as long as you mentioned the source and that it's only copyright violation if you didn't include the source. Thus I will be doing a review on my edits where I have used copy-paste style (I know where to look), but as you know you're only given one week to make changes or the article (or part of it) will be deleted. So, I'm gently asking you not to tag more articles for deletion, because this could result in reduced activity for me at Wikipedia and probably still leaving copyright violations that are hard to find by others. Bahraini Activist Talk to me 19:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
right, i have removed some excess information on the economy section. this includes the majority of the first paragraph; High Street regeneration and the Mercat extension plans. can you have a look at the section for a copy-edit? Kilnburn ( talk) 23:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, I've noticed that this GAN has been open for nearly two months now -- could you do something about it? Given that there are outstanding issues still unresolved, I think a fail is required here. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 23:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
reviewing eyes |
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky, you did a lot to clarify! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
It's over, thanks also to you! 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, re this FAC: shall I continue my prose review below or above your image review? I'm still pretty new to FAC, you see. :) Eisfbnore talk 14:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
|
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]
10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be a nuisance! You did a source and image review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Len Hutton/archive1; just to clarify for the sake of another reviewer, was everything OK with the source and image fixes? Thanks again. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Nikki, does your oppose at WP:Featured article candidates/Missouri River/archive4 still stand? Thanks, Ucucha ( talk) 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments on this FAC. I think I addressed all of your points. Would you care to take a look again and provide support or further opposition? Thanks, Axem Titanium ( talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Should be ok now, but let me know if more needs to be done. I also wonder if you might do me a small favour if this happens again by highlighting any problem sentences. I use a screen magnifier which can make pinpointing the information a bit of a slow process, so it would be very helpful if I could have more detail on what needs to be fixed. Thanks. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
How is violating BRD not a convincing rationale? The initial removal did not gain proper consensus, please self revert. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 14:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, your concern with Monmouth Cap was a good one and has been fixed. However it is about to miss the bus for St Davids Day... could you assist if you have time as you will be able to spot immediately that your issue has been thoroughly dealt with Victuallers ( talk) 10:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Maple syrup". Thank you. -- Dougweller ( talk) 10:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Billy Hathorn is back. Carl Stracener (found while patrolling new medicine articles). Same close paraphrasing of obits. Same focus on Louisiana State and Texas alum. Do you want to help me analyze and present SPI? The DYK people will be no help. [3] [4] [5] and more. Same focus on southern politicians: Charles R. Matthews and Leslie Osterman. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Nikki, now that the CU is done, I hope it's OK to put this here so we can keep it all in one place. There is another aspect of Hathorn's work that I've never understood relative to DYK. As in the case of Carl Stracener, he often put up bios that didn't meet notability, based almost entirely on obits. Obituaries are information submitted most typically by family members, hence not independent or third-party. We have same here-- a small-town obit is the entire basis for the article, with one published paper by him, and one source that doesn't mention him but is used to source what the invention was. So, my question is, considering the massive CCI, why are we trying to clean up these bios rather than just deleting them? There was a recent well publicized example of someone who made up an obit and got it published so he could collect some funds for something-- why are we even accepting small-town newspapers as a single source for info, when that is not independent info, rather typically submitted by relatives? I've been around more than one small-town newspaper obit lately; they do nothing to verify, merely accept what the family submits via the funeral home, so we have information submitted by relatives being picked up by legacy.com and used as the basis for many of Hathorn's (and other DYK) bios, and used as the basis for establishing notability even though they are not third-party. I assume major newspapers like the NYT do verify obits, but I'm not certain. Will ping MRG and Orlady, but my concern was that there were so many bios written by Hathorn that didn't meet notability. We see same in his and others' work for attorney bios, where they put up info that is submitted to websites by the attorneys themselves-- not third-party. The CCI could go a lot faster if those that met notability only on the basis of info submitted by related parties (legacy.com, small town newspaper obits, of other non-third party sites like many of his attorney bios) were deleted for notability rather than copyvio cleaned. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now blocked one of the IPs for a month: 71.40.85.2 ( talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). It's been used exclusively by Billy since December and has added quite a bit of content. I found text matches in two of the major articles and reverted. In general, my approach to CCI subjects who are blocked and then persist after the block through block evasion is to remove much more liberally. I feel okay asking the community to mop up after somebody once; asking them to do it again and again because we can't stop the guy is an abuse of resources. That said, this IP has contributed far more content than the named account, and I'm going to have to add it to the CCI. :/ -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I just happened across this, which would mean any future SPIs would need explicit diffs. I suspect we'll be there again ... On Orlady's "possibly attack the motives of the nominator", yep, I've had enough of that, so other than pointing all of you at these issues when I happen across them, I'll steer clear. After all, I'm "too partisan to be neutral", [6] dontchaknow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Let me know when you're done and I'll take an overall run through at getting ready for FAC. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You should have contacted me about this.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you do spotchecks for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive6 please? Aaron • You Da One 17:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I was reading through FAC recently and noticed that in your source checks you say "Don't repeat cited sources in External links". That's mostly true in general, but there are exceptions to this, and I was wondering if you would be willing to discuss this? My reasoning would be that it depends on what function the citation and the external links are serving. If they are serving the same purpose, then the external link is indeed redundant, but citations and properly used external links are different (by their very nature) and can serve different purposes. The citation will generally be to enable editors and readers to verify a fact or opinion cited. An external link can have a broader purpose, directing the reader to further reading on a topic, or to point out other information contained in the same source, but not used for the article.
To try and explain this further, some websites break up their information across multiple pages and some don't. In the former case, a citation can point to one subpage of the website and an external link for further reading can point to another subpage. How is using a citation to one subpage of a website, and an external link to another subpage of the same website, different from using a link to single webpage twice, but for different purposes?
There are also cases where an external link placed in that section for reason A, mentions fact B in passing, gets used to cite fact B, is hence removed from the external links, is then later still replaced with a better citation for fact B, but is not replaced in the external links section. This is why I think it is necessary to examine why a webpage is being cited, and how it is being used as an external link. If the two purposes are different, then it might be an exception to this 'rule. I may raise this at WT:EL or WT:CITE, but wanted to see what you thought first.
The other thing I noticed (on reading through WP:EL) was the guidance to avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." That seems, to me, to be saying that the common practice of using external links as a temporary dumping ground for sources that might be of use in later editing (or for readers wanting to find out more), is deprecated (some use the talk page instead for this, but this doesn't work for articles with no active editors). I've often thought that articles in an early stage of development should have a section specifically called "further editing" or "suggested sources", as this is a different concept to that of "further reading" or "external links", and I think as an article approaches FA level (when the number of suggested sources is naturally diminishing as they are being used in the article), the two can sometimes get conflated. Anyway, I've written far too much here, but wanted to get these thoughts down as I've been mulling on this for a while and wanted to see what others think. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I received a call for help, in fear of the Bozeman Carnegie Library effect: have a hook pulled from the Main page while you are offline. Would you please check that article before it goes to prep? Marrante and I did, but you have sharper eyes, and I am afraid I didn't see the problem in the library either, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thank you for your recommendations at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Stephen_Hawking/archive1#Stephen_Hawking. I've just been working though them and have updated the FAC page (I'm going to sort out first/last name order shortly - just about to make dinner) there are a few were I was unsure of myself and it would be great to get your take on how far the article still has to go to satisfy your recommendations... Fayedizard ( talk) 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikki I am sure you have noticed the additions by Rjensen at the history of Canada article. I generally like hes additions though his refs are not so good. But I see there may be a bigger problem. Was in the middle of adding refs for hes new additions and come to discover some copyright problems. For instance the additions at section History of Canada#Society are just a copy and past from this book review. And the section History of Canada#Politics is a copy and past from here. What to do here? Moxy ( talk) 02:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! You indicated you'd like to help us beta-test the new MediaWiki 1.19 extension for the Education Program. Click here to get started.
Thanks, Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. A couple of weeks ago you were kind enough to do an image review of the Spanish conquest of Guatemala FAC. I've replied to each of your points; in one case I've switched an image and I also have a licensing query. I'd appreciate it if you could revisit the review page and see if your concerns have been addressed. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria - I'm curious as to why you thought this way since our article on IWD seems far better than Mother's Day's article, which is included there with no fuss. — foxj 15:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikki. Hopefully, I have addressed your concerns regarding the al-Jawali Mosque DYK nomination. If not, maybe you could fix anything you think would consider plagiarism. Thank you. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 01:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
please leave the ref dates in yyyy-mm-dd. Note that the original version of the article to which I reverted uses mdy format, so dmy should not be used in the article. Canuck My page 89 (talk), 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was advised by one of the reviewers to ask active FAC editors to review the Pakistan article's FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1. It has been out for nine days, the problems mentioned in the start were fixed but there have been no further comments. There was a question about a dispute that occurred after the nomination, I've explained about it on the FAC page that there's been no consensus for it on the talk page and the current version is as of consensus. Please take a look at the article and drop your review comments and/or vote. Thanks. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I *THINK* (knock-on-wood) that I've fixed all the problems you named. Either way, the citations have been extensively cleaned-up and are ready for a second look. Thanks! Palm_Dogg ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:New Worlds. I am incredibly busy but I really want to get this ready for FAC so will try to find more time in the next week or so to work on that last section. I think it's just another hour or two of work. It's not there yet, but most (or maybe all) of the necessary text is in there; it just needs to be massaged into a more readable narrative matrix. Anyway, if you can respond on the questions I left I will take another crack at it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Nikkimaria. I see by your edits that you're a bit of a deletionist. I've recently made some similar edits to O Canada along the lines of yours on McRib. Before this evolves into an edit war, can we parley a better solution? Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I look over nearly every source have have available and did re-paraphasing when need. Can you do some looking over? LittleJerry ( talk) 18:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Just went through and checked it off, but I think the article should be located at Deadman's Island (Nova Scotia)...typical geographic feature naming convention.-- kelapstick( bainuu) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for your feedback at the article's FAC. I've addressed most of the things you've mentioned now, but will need a little more information on which refs are in caps, and perhaps one or two other small points. Thanks once again for the review. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 15:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, I noticed you're listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors. I just started my first GA review (for Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting)). Would you mind reviewing it when I'm done? -- Fang Aili talk 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Since Fang went inactive, any chance you would like to finish the review, as you are already familiar with the article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your time with the article. I've added some comments. I'm generally accustomed to constructive dialogue and would appreciate some feedback if you have time. Thank you again. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 02:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
→ I commented again at the talk page. Thanks again for the constructive feedback. Very appreciated. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 07:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have heeded your source review and entreat you to take another look. Thanks.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The finland election FA and the DYK for justice and development in libya is pending further notes to improve or approve ;)( Lihaas ( talk) 08:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)).
Hi Nikki. 100th section on your talkpage. Wow! Saw your edits to Lucknow city. Although you have removed unsourced info from the article, some points need discussion. For instance, see line 379. The Dilkusha Palace, the Baradari (built by Wajid Ali Shah) and the clock tower at Husainabad are historical monuments constructed in the 19th century. They are among the most notable monuments of the city. Also, the sub section on Urdu Literature needs debate. Sure the section has POV but the city is famous for Urdu poets and the section can definitely be improved or merged if such an article exists. The information available there such as list of "famous poets of recent times" would be difficult for anyone to recreate. I am a native of Lucknow and I see the article is kinda dead for a while. Although Lucknow is a well researched subject it's difficult to get verifiable info about Lucknow on the web. Many of the references cited have low credibility or are simply lame (taken from sites promoting tourism and all). You might want to review the edit or revert. Anyways, I leave the decision to you, admin. Hope you are convinced. This is my first piece of communication with another Wikipedian :) — Ashay ( talk) 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Lucknow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tehzeeb ( 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) 18:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback on Spanish conquest of Guatemala, the article has just been promoted. As always, it has come out of the review process in better shape than it went into it. All the best, Simon Burchell ( talk) 15:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)