Hi, thank you for editing this article. The unsourced part you took out was a bit left over from before I started working on it. I couldn't find a reference, and wasn't brave enough to remove it, being new to wiki. I appreciate your markup corrections and style changes. Diana Bassplayer ( talk) 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stadio della Roma may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phil Zimmermann may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Hissa Hilal may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Good morning Nikkimaria. Please do not describe your edits as "mos" ( WP:MOS), as you did here, when the edit clearly contains potentially controversial changes that are entirely unrelated to WP:MOS. Thank you. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You say (not to me): "infoboxes improve ALL articles" - surely you don't believe that?" - I surely believe that, as much as I believe that ALL books profit from a title page. I would like topic, time and location pointed out for all articles at a glance. - I was pointed to an article which consists practically only of an infobox, and find it helpful, ready to be easily translated to whatever language. When I log in, I get an Africa-related question. One thing Wikipedia can do for Africa is have information structured in a way that makes it accessible for readers with limited English. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've done a lot of work on this article. I would welcome your input if you have time. Is it good enough to remove the copy-editing banner? Thanks Diana Bassplayer ( talk) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Nikki, not sure if you do all the spotchecks for all FACs but the Mucho Macho Man FAC is sort of sitting in limbo (Colonel Henry started a review but got sidetracked by real life) and given that you peeked at if for the peer review and have already checked the images, if there is any further magic you routinely do to sign off on these (or not), I'd be most appreciative. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thanks for the contributions. Relly Komaruzaman Talk 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC) |
I am well aware of Rushka Bergman's history and works. Everything listed in her wikipedia page is true and accurate. It is extremely frustrating that you keep taking out valid elements in her page. Please refrain from editing the material. There is no need for you to continuously vandalize this page.
AMF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not mean to remove that. It must have happened while we were going back and forth reposting and un-posting material. All of those cover stars are meant to be seen on the page and it would be much appreciated that you should leave it that way. Thank you. ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, I agree that some of the names are excessive, but I do think that the people she continues to work with should be mentioned on her wikipedia. These are the facts regarding her career at this time. She continues to work with film directors Steven Speilberg, David Cronenberg, David Lynch, Tim Burton, Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino. She continues to work with Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Shia Lebeouf, Robert Pattinson, and Michael Fassbender. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.71.136.12 (
talk) 16:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes I do. I will move forward with editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.136.12 ( talk) 17:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Well, "backlog is 8 years" does not seem to be very serious: I could for instance add these tags on all wikipedia articles and wait for more than 8 years if someone change them… and putting them back as you do if anyone remove them. You've put those tags which do not seem to trigger much reaction, so I thought I was correct to remove them after 3 months. But OK, if you want to keep them, let's do it. I will change the article soon to make it shorter, if I find the time.
Best,
- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I am an editor of a Canadian literary review and a friend of the social philosopher Loewen. I spent a good deal of time assembling the texts used on this page and neither he nor I wish it to be altered. The idea that there are too many quotes or material from reviews is purely subjective and you have no right to impose your opinions - based on what? - on someone else's work in this way. Find something else to do with your time. Ypress20 ( talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Hi Nikki, picked up another support on MMM. Maybe take a peek at the stuff you were concerned about and see if I addressed it all, or at least narrowed down the problem to something you can perhaps tweak directly. I think (I think!) that the "press release" question is the only thing I still need your input on. With ColonelHenry and Tigerboy both having RL stuff to deal with, I'm hoping everyone else can offer support soon. I'm going to ping Ian that we are getting close, just in case he has something happening. My current project is California Chrome, and that's an article I am going to have to monitor closely in real time, as he is a current Kentucky Derby contender. Kind of fun to be ahead of the curve on one of these for a change. Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Since you are involved, you should be aware of Wikipedia:AN#User:Robsinden_actions.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria: my students are moving their articles to the main namespace this weekend. So far, I notice problems with two of them: Negev Bedouin Women and Commodification of the womb. Why are these articles not showing? Thanks. BerikG ( talk) 06:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
At this discussion on AnI, I am asking about what I consider to be a misinterpretation by another editor of what constitutes original research and close paraphrasing. As an expert on copyright issues, it would be very helpful to have your input on the matter. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I would like to delete two users TINGLED1 and Rsl89 as reviewers from my course page, to allow others to sign up. (I already deleted them as members of the course --they have dropped out!) Please tell me how. BerikG ( talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I am a student of Professor Berik. I notice from the above message that she has already told you about my problem. The topic of my article is "Missing women of China". I moved it to namespace last night and it was taken down this morning.
I was told that, “you moved the article to mainspace when it clearly had problems you decided to disregard their advice." But the problem is the two comments I've got was on March 29th and 31th. I made a lot of changes after that. According to the viewers, the first problem of my article is that the article looks like original research. I think maybe because I'm an international student, so some of my English expressions make the article looks like an essay. While after several revisions, I think it looks much better now than before. The second problem they said is the title. The viewer thinks the title should be "Gender imbalance in China" instead of "Missing women of China". But they are totally two different concepts. There is a "Missing women of Asia" in the Wikipedia already, so actually I am not quite understand why the title is a problem. I explained to the viewer, but it seems that we still have different ideas on this problem.
My previous taken down article is here now: Draft:Missing women of China.(I'm also confused that I cannot find the draft in my sandbox or my page.) Could you help me to look at what are the problems that do not match Wikipedia requirements? (This is what the viewer pointed out, but he didn't told me what are the specific problems. He just told me there was sufficient cause for it to be declined.) Thank you so much!! I'm really appreciate! Yangtana Li ( talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria: Missing women is a term to describe a distorted sex ratio that males population is far more than females population due to some discriminations against women. It is a more academic phrase than gender imbalance. There are many journal articles on google scholar talking about missing women. While gender imbalance includes two sides: males are far more than females, or males are much less than females. The former is what missing women described. In China, females are less than males due to traditional discriminations against women. I'm not sure if I explain it clearly. (I'm sorry for what I said, "they are totally two different concepts" above, because I'm ashamed that I was confused about gender imbalance and gender inequality at that time. In Chinese, imbalance and inequality sometimes have similar meaning.)
Thank you for your helpful advices and revisions! I'll keep revising the draft, especially the sections you mentioned above. Thank you so much!! Yangtana Li ( talk) 22:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria: Could you help me to move the article "Missing women of China" to the namespace please? My article is protected now, so I cannot move it by myself. The article is still in the Draft:Missing women of China. Or if you think the article need to be revised on some points before the move, let me know please. Thank you so much! Best, Yangtana Li ( talk) 08:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I seem to have made a mistake with my sandbox. I am a student in Dr. Berik's course. I have developed major edits to the Sexism in India article and have proposed a name change to Gender inequality in India. In doing so, I overwrote the title of my sandbox with Gender inequality in Utah. I am unable to move my sandbox to the Sexism in India article. I wonder if I should create a new account and start over. I can still access my article text/code. Any advice? Weetie2 ( talk) 01:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am attempting to get Greed (film) promoted to FA status again and thought that you may be interested in giving it another look.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 01:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
With the discussion at Talk:Robert of Chichester? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The lead image is always bigger than the other imagers, and should be displayed such according to it, given the place and opportunity.
upright=1.2
" (or "|
frameless|upright=1.2
" for
plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than "upright=1.8
" (defaults to 400 pixels) wide; an image can be wider if it uses the "
center
" or "
none
" options to stand alone. e.g.
[[File:Example.png|thumb|upright=1.2|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]
|XXXpx
, where XXX is replaced by a number of pixels, although this should be avoided where possible, since it overrides the user's default. For example:
[[File:Example.png|thumb|120px|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]
Hafspajen ( talk) 13:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have rectified the issue that you pointed out. Please have a look, and mention if there are other issues. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 13:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (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
Nick-D (
talk) 14:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether this DYK nom should simply be closed? Looking at the extent of the edits subsequent to Montanabw's comments, it seems unlikely that the pervasive close paraphrasing has been dealt with, but I wanted to be sure before doing so. Also, given the circumstances, you may want to readd the close paraphrasing template in the article, which was removed when the specific infringement you mentioned in your DYK comment was simply dropped from the article (except for the final sentence). BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sanjhi roti (community meal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabzi ( 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) 09:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi NM, It is with a heavy heart that I have to inform you of this discussion which has just been started. You may or may not wish to comment, I'll leave that to you, but I felt you ought to know seeing as you kindly keep a watch on it from time to time. Cassianto talk 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see talk page. Thanks, - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 14:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I noticed there was a call for a new review on this one, and you had been the one to point out close paraphrasing in a previous review. Can you please take another look—it's so much better when you do it, rather than have someone else who's less adept, just in case there are remaining instances. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please tell me why you deleted the In popular culture section in Fantasia for Strings (Henze)? Please note that the information it contained got to DYK, so I don't see the point in deleting it. Wildbill hitchcock ( talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"It is common for hong kong men to be temporarily kidnapped and robbed by mainland gangsters." [1] OccultZone ( Talk) 19:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You cannot read Please do not modify this page? Don't edit for adding your own opinion about the article. You even know what is stub? Read WP:STUB, it is clearly far bigger to be a stub. OccultZone ( Talk) 19:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok Nikki. I just wanted you to know that you've now reverted four times. That's three different versions of an infobox by three different editors, which doesn't look like any attempt to seek consensus. I won't revert further and you know that I have no history of edit-warring, so pot/kettle is hardly appropriate is it?. But I will seek sanctions if you try to impose your preferred version of an article against multiple other editors after you have been served with a warning. You know that I'd much rather not have to do that, because I value your contributions in general. Please take it to talk and let's find a consensus. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
("Person infobox") is inappropriate to composers of classical music? - as if composers were not people! Why wouldn't somebody suggest {{ infobox classical composer}} in any case, instead of just reverting? I think articles have to move forward, not look back; stagnation is the nemesis of wiki-editing, so I don't find the concept of a 'default position' to be useful; rather, it stifles progress and possible improvement. Not every article benefits from an infobox, of course - we can agree on that - but I really don't believe that anyone can predict that a whole class of articles will or won't benefit; there are far too many variables for that. I just wish the process of finding out which ones do and which ones don't wasn't so difficult that uninvolved editors get treated badly just for raising the issue. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, could you please stop by and comment on whether the fair use issue has been addressed? TonyTheTiger has made some edits that reduced his use of long quotes, but you'll be a much better judge than I whether this is sufficient. I've temporarily reversed the reapproval by the original reviewer. The last thing we want is for this to be promoted again and then have to be pulled back again. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to my 'edit' of the Stephen_Merchant article. Every other country can be linked to, but not England. I've noticed this a lot on Wikipedia. It's a pity you can't 'nuke' England, eh?
/ -:
Whatever, you 'win'... 70.238.216.14 ( talk) 03:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort to expand edit summaries beyond a cryptic abbreviation, but request that you don't mention my name for something I don't stand for, as here. Without context, it seems that per me, you "restore" to a status quo by removing an infobox. Whoever knows me (which I thought includes yourself) will see that there's the danger of misunderstanding. The idea that a status quo remains frozen, without hope for improvement, is not what I stand for. The removal of content that is helpful, even if only for some readers, is not what I stand for. - If you tried to express that I had suggested on the talk page to better use infobox person, you didn't succeed to make that clear. The best solution would be to avoid my name in places where I have no chance to explain. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You removed it from Rape in Germany, it was not really undue, and Under-reporting includes the data about unreported rapes. It is relevant with the subject. OccultZone ( Talk) 04:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't remove the page number from google books links; typically this is very unhelpful for the reader. Removing the search term is of course fine, & I now do it myself when posting. Thanks Johnbod ( talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I used to have an account for High Beam, but somehow I cannot enter. I always end up on the site, where I am asked to pay. What can I do? -- Nicola54 ( talk) 17:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 02:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
This is my first time applying for journal access and I was just wondering when you start approving/declining users?
Thanks!-- Dom497 ( talk) 23:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed on the Jenna Jameson talk page that the article was currently undergoing FAR, and the header there had a link to a page where I could leave a comment. However, after I saved my comments, I noticed that the link supplied on the Jameson talk page had sent me to an archive rather than the main FAR page. Do I need to move my comments from the archive to the main page for them to count toward the FAR? Sorry to bother you with this, but I've never commented on a FAR before.
Thanks, -- chrisFjordson (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ain Shams University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timewyrm: Genesys may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Jerry Nelson may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Max Johnston may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Paul de Man may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Theodora Cowan may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Hilda Rix Nicholas may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Arnold Schoenberg may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I am adding brief definitions of Adler’s three kinds of freedom. They are too important to merely file by title. If you delete what I add, OK. I am too old to fight. Vejlefjord ( talk) 22:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
You explained that you like short edit summaries, I recommend you start using "rm ib" for "remove infobox". That would be clearer than "see talk", "wrong ...", "rewrite", and other variations on the theme. Better even: think about stopping the removal of infoboxes from articles where you are no major contributor, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. Could you please take a look at it? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an outstanding 25 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
Hi there. The link you removed was to the song itself. I'm curious to know why you thought it was unreliable. (I assure you that that's the version on the album.) JTBurman ( talk) 00:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the talk page, if you remove it again I will raise the matter at ANI. Giant Snowman 14:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have to justify something that is current MOS; and no, the consensus is not against me. If you are so confident of that then why not start a RFC? Giant Snowman 15:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no common style, I see the following different styles all the time:
As well as many other styles - with or without commas, with or without the province, with or without the country name. Giant Snowman 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Gardening, I had an idea: leave all these "technical data" to an infobox where readers will easily find them, don't repeat in the lead but tell the readers right away why they might be interested in the article, - likely not because of someone's data of birth and death, calendar at time of birth, country some place is now, and pronunciation of a name. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
All the stuff written is true and i am adding refrences. why is the written stuff being deleted Shakeeluddin ( talk) 15:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Why Raashid Alvi page stuff is being deleted. Shakeeluddin ( talk) 15:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
Wats wrong , Y Raashid Alvi article's text is deleted
Hamdirfan987 (
talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fighting the vandalism on my user page. They get vicious at times.
rJay talk 21:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed on the John C. Bowers page that you changed the layout of the footnotes to 30em rather than 2 column. I was under the impression that 2 columns is easier to read. Yoninah ( talk) 09:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Same topic: I don't understand this edit, among others. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikki, the method of having the refs at the end is preferred by many authors and is supported at FAC; I've had several FACs formatted in that matter (as well as several formatted inline). There are arguments in favor of each, and in this case, deference should be granted to the person doing the most actual work because it is consistent with one's own editing style. (I personally find it difficult to edit that format on my laptop screen, and I'm also not fond of sfn, but I will use both when needed, and if someone else creates this format, I will not change it if someone else prefers it, - and it IS much easier to use when sources are used multiple times, saves having to hunt through the body text for the original ref.) You are on a real IDONTLIKEIT tear this week, and I suggest you let it go, at least where other people have more edits to an article and have done more of the research than you have. If you start the article or are the lead contributor, then fine, dictate how it's done. But otherwise, I really wish you'd stop making a moral issue out of this stuff. Montanabw (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I failed to thank you for the major editing you did on the Mortimer Adler article, so thanks. Vejlefjord ( talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
So - what have I screwed up? The hook was approved by a third party and I don't see anything controversial about it. Did I miss something? I don't normally do DYK.--v/r - T P 22:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Nikkimaria. Just wondering, as it comes up a lot: What are the advantages to reflist|30em as compared with reflist|2 ? Also, why 30, rather than 29, 31 or some other number? I just want to understand what is optimal. Thanks for any advice. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
[left] Hmmm. Just because a template says something is deprecated does not make it so. This template has said that it is deprecated since 2006. So nothing has changed. It seems to me that we should apply WP:CITEVAR and not make any changes to articles (other than ones we have worked on significantly ourselves) until a widespread consensus is reached, or after starting a discussion on the article's talk page. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This needs a wider discussion to become an effected change. Along the lines of our discussions when people wanted to change the date formats.
The importance of this is even greater because the purported advantages are not uniform -- on both my PC and on my iphone, the em columns are ineffective (resulting in one column, always), while the forced 2 column approach is superior.
Could I please query with you, your rather obscure message you left when reverting my changes to Giano's talk page please? I didn't know he was a regular or I wouldn't have templated him, and as far as I'm aware, a talk page is the only place I can leave a warning for something like this. I took what was quite clearly an ad-hominem attack against SfanIMG_00 out of the conversation, and your revert of my edit has put it back in. My edit was, at least in my opinion, helping, by removing an unjustified attack against another editor. Is there any specific reason I should not have done this? CharlieTheCabbie ( talk) 02:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello Nikki, if you have the time, would you be able to swing by my latest FAC to conduct a source review? I would be very greatful if you could. Cassianto talk 09:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
First off, thanks for doing the source review on the WINC (AM) article. Just wanted to give you a heads up and let you know that I have finished it and made all the corrections requested, except one. I have posted replies in the Source Review section on the FAC page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you resend email, as it was being sent to a defunct email account, have now updated link to current email account. Dan arndt ( talk) 05:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You're editing in bad faith. I am seeking out the reflinks, as I did with The Women, and was just about to add another one when your insistence on hitting the undo button created an edit conflict. Stop ignoring AGF. And if you keep deleting unsourced stuff while I am seeking out reflinks it makes it that much harder for me to do my part. Quis separabit? 23:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Rosaline in William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is never seen, but is crucial to how the title characters fatefully meet. Unseen (by the audience) characters are frequent in other Shakespearean plays, such as John Dighton, Miles Forrest, Elizabeth of York, and Jane Shore in Richard III; Valentine, brother of Mercutio (also in Romeo and Juliet); and Escalus and Antonio in All's Well That Ends Well.
You can haz cheezeburger! Thank you for the HighBeam registration. Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
Please could you look at this DYK nomination. I have detected certain sentences that occur elsewhere online but the nominator is claiming that at least some of them are copied from the Wikipedia article. You have more experience of this type of problem than I do. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
Sorry for the email thing being such a hassle. The "allow messages from other users" checkbox was not ticked, but it is now. Apologies again! Fleetham ( talk) 19:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would stop deleting the annoying role players entry on the tarp Wikipedia page. The first time I made the entry, it was deleted by a person hired by Wikipedia to go around and take care of spam and vandalism. The message that follows is what I sent him word for word:
Hello Happy Attack Dog, i'm new to editing Wikipedia, and honestly i'm not sure if this is going to get through, so I deeply apologize if this message ends up somewhere its not supposed to. On April 4th, you removed the contribution I had made to the tarp Wikipedia page, saying you found it nonconstructive. While I see where you are coming from, please understand, when talking about teen nerds role playing on a music site, it can get difficult to make much of anything sound professional. As well as the fact that, while I did my best to make it sound constructive and informational, that was not its primary intention. I myself am a member of TARP, and we have been hard at work creating our own wiki for the past month or so. To be completely honest, I posted it because I thought it would be cool if we could legitimately say we're on Wikipedia. While I realize that that is not in any way this sites purpose, I still feel it is justified, acceptable, and presentable enough to remain on the page, and would very much appreciate it if you would allow us to continue to stay there. (P.S. Again i'm very sorry if this ends up somewhere other than where you asked me to send you a message.)
Apparently it was enough to persuade him, because he never came back to delete it again. I know that everyone has their own opinion, but I believe that if this is enough to convince someone who works for Wikipedia specifically to delete spam and vandalism then it should be allowed to remain.
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks very much for your email. I just responded - having a bit of a problem. Can you help? Coretheapple ( talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, got the email on HighBeam, thanks! Iñaki LL ( talk) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Please explain why you deleted the images of flags from the article on blue. They are an integral part of the symbolism of the color, and similar galleries are found in the other main color articles. A gallery is much more effective than a list. Please restore it. SiefkinDR ( talk) 04:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
hello;
thank-you for your sudden interest in the Julius Nepos article; which you have NEVER edited before.
however, if you only interest in the article is due to wp:canvassing by user:montanabw, which is in effect a circumvention of wp, then respectfully i feel your edit is inappropriate.
as regards the merits of the date format; i suggest that a single line that contains clear indications of gender, birth, & death is MORE EFFICIENT, in that it contains a greater information density, & clarity. for reader it specifies the subject's gender, & that the dates shown are for b & d, not reign.
the partucular format i'm using hybridizes the old uk who's who style, with wp/de standard practice.
& as there is no MOS-dictat regarding the matter, there is no real impediment to revising the format, other than sheer inertia.
if you have any REAL interest in working on this article, which i have edited extensively in the past, you are welcome to discuss it on the talk page.
if not, then fare-thee-well.
regards,
Lx 121 ( talk) 05:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abstinence-only sex education in Uganda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sugar daddy ( 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) 08:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
With your help, the WINC (AM) was just promoted to Featured Article status. Together, we took a C-Class article, edited, added and made it a Good Article. We didn't stop there, we made it better and now it is a Featured Article. Whether you made one edit or twenty, you still helped and I thank you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - since you seem to be the DYK expert, would you mind reviewing Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ford_Island for me? The hook has ample sourcing, but I'm not positive it's appropriate for the main page. There are other interesting facts that could be used instead of necessary. Thanks.--v/r - T P 23:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Rather than unilaterally removing stuff from this article as "unsourced", you might have checked the non-in-line references (specifically, his scientific autobiography, which contains the info about his wife's illness), or at least, put a flag on it and got in touch with me. This is a fairly easy thing to fix -- I'd been intending to work that autobiography in as a source eventually anyway -- but it would have been easier if you hadn't deleted text that is going to be put back in it anyway. (I have no problem with the edits to the obituary citations, which I did not write; thanks for doing those.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill ( talk) 21:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could check this nomination for close paraphrasing. There was one known instance where it took a couple interations to get significant change; I'd like your opinion on the article as a whole, if you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:04, 20 May 2014 (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
Nick-D (
talk) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If you have the time and are interested, I would appreciate a media review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive1, so the FAC can progress past where its currently stuck. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 17:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Would you at least explain to me exactly what it is that I should do to my FURs so that they are acceptable in terms of NFCC#1 so that next time we don't have to drag this issue out for several days? This is what's there now:
NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."
My reading is that there are two criteria to satisfy NFCC#1. 1) There can be no free alternative, and 2) it has to convey encyclopedic information that cannot be conveyed with prose alone. Please tell me what I am missing here so that I don't have to bang my head against this wall ever again. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 19:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. I added an External link to the article, since it seemed to offer visitors to that page information they could not get otherwise. It also indicates his impact on the larger web, and the Dr Who community, who seem very happy with his work.
Tardis.wikia.com Biography of Scott Gray, Dr Who stories by Scott Gray, Warwick Gray, W. Scott Gray http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Scott_Gray
I do not know what "mos, rm per BLPEL" means.
Kind regards, RC711 ( talk) 19:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I can see the possibility that a visitor to Wikipedia would follow an external link to a site that bashed or lied about Scott, but I have faith in visitors that they can make their own determinations of quality and relevance. External links are different from References, since one expects random material, that, hopefully, might give some extra information about the current topic. Do you know how I can find the discussion about that policy? Seems interesting. By the way, is it only that I pointed to a wiki? Is there some problem with wikis?
It is hard to find relevant information about rare events (a not very well known living person) on External links, so when you find one that is of moderate quality and completeness, it is hard to just throw it away. It might be relevant to followers of that living person. Most visitors can ignore it, but it might help the few. Thanks for the quick reply and the info, RC711 ( talk) 20:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, after I saved my reply, I saw the links to BLP. Very reasonable conclusions, leaning toward protecting people. If wikis are unreliable because they change, then why do people rely on Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have an outreach to wikis? When I was running my own websites I would routinely review/analyze/comment on/ all the sites that I pointed to. I recommended quality standards and policies. Over time the whole community benefited. RC711 ( talk) 22:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
For this, I'll buy yuou a beer/ coffee, whatever you want! Name the time and place! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Just sent an e-mail regarding Highbeam access.
WAVY 10 Fan ( talk) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. While checking your user profile, I noticed that you frequently review FA candidates. Well, I have one, Megadeth, and if you have no other important Wiki-activities this time around, can you take a look at it and leave comments on what should be corrected at the nomination page? Thanks in advance and see you.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 08:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, can I ask you to please take a look at this nomination/article? I'm most concerned about the anthem's translation and fair use guidelines, but there may be other issues. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
As infrequently as we have positive words to say about each other, I thought I would drop by and pay my respects on your latest FAC nom. Taking on a whole major city at FAC is an enormous contribution to WP. As a person who specialize in far branch articles, I commend you for taking on such a thick topic on the tree of knowledge. I can barely fathom such an endeavor. You can see my FAC that follows yours is very far branch.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angel Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic ( 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) 08:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You cite today CITEVAR for reverting a reference style established in May 2013. Let me understand, also why you have a interest in such a change while nobody else seems to care, and it's of no consequence for the reader. I want to supply transparency for future editors, that is keep the references away from the body of the article to edit both sections with more ease, - consistent with FA and several GAs on the topic. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikki, I rarely say this, but you are pretty much completely in the wrong on this one; I went through the refs in the article and having them at the end clearly dates back past January 2014, and as far as I can tell, you never touched that article until this month. If there is an inconsistency with some cites inline and some at the end, the solution is to point that out to the editor who is doing most of the actual work, not to make more work for them! I have edited articles with both styles, and I believe that deference should first be given to the person who is doing most of the real work, but if there are compelling and logical reasons (besides "NikkiStalksGerdaForUnfathomableReasons") for a change, the lead editor should be part of that discussion. For example, I took William Robinson Brown to FAC with the end-of-article citation style, even though I usually write inline because I had a collaborating editor whom I respected that preferred it, and because they were willing to step up and make substantive content edits, source searches and the like; I was perfectly willing to alter my style slightly to help such a useful and congenial editor. Montanabw (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You fail to explain your own actions, which are inconsistent, your behavior on BWV 183 cannot be justified by your own arguments here and at BWV 37. Gerda does explain herself, you simply fail to ever grant that any of her arguments have merit. Furthermore, one can certainly change THEIR OWN established style if they see something better. It is utterly ridiculous to go seek a consensus where you are the only editor who does much of anything, and even when one other person shows up to make inconsequential edits, WP:BRD trumps seeking prior consensus from minor contributors. And really Nikki, your pattern of following Gerda around just to find new things about which to to nitpick smacks of a personal vendetta. What do you have against her? Seriously, I think you are making this personal but hiding behind the screen of policy. I am asking this question sincerely because I cannot believe you really and sincerely give a rip about where citations go in an article. Montanabw (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Ambassador,
I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.
https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V2SSrhU2NFOVAV
Also, if you are able to, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send the following survey to the mentee you worked with:
https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V1quUdMZ1By3Ah
Thank you in advance for your participation, Gabriel Mugar 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your fixes to this page. The reason the word "include" was there is because these lists of recordings are almost surely incomplete; only the Columbias are fairly complete, but I'd guess there are probably still be some strays not listed. The other two lists definitely omit a lot of unknown recordings. Is there a better way to indicate this? I think it's important not to give the impression that these lists are definitive. Milkunderwood ( talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi -- I noticed you are removing certain access dates in refs, such as here. I was wondering why. Thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 15:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I just pinged you from this talk page (did it work?), hoping that you could take a look at the close paraphrasing issues raised and responded to, and see whether you think this is close paraphrasing or not. The disagreement needs an expert third (fourth?) party to take a look and give an opinion, and I'd certainly rather you look at it now rather than risk it not being seen by you because of how quickly material goes from prep to queue to main page. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria. I am very happy that you were the first person to reach out to me on Wikipedia, and your offer that I could seek your assistance here is greatly appreciated in this moment, of "my need".
Consider this, the editing I was doing was continuous editing that spanned 4 and a half hours. It is impossible to imagine that others, like you, would not also had looked at my edits; even in real time of their being saved. The tacit support of not being rebuked throughout the span, and your welcome, which thanked me "for my contributions", did not constitutes a "pact of support", but it was more than sufficient for me to say: "your message has truly brightened my day"!
And from this "high" "sense of acceptance", another editor cast's my efforts, and my editing "good cheer" as low as I care to go in criticism. And I don't know how to say what needs to be said
So I ask you: please, speak the "Wikipedia talk", that I do not know, and tell the reviewing board my side; as a new editor.
First, A link is given to a previous deletion, of an arguably dissimilar category – as part of the basis for the deletion of my work. And then; I am told that to argue for keeping my work while speaking of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF, is poor form. Well, the other deletion is no less OTHERSTUFF, and it shouldn't support a deletion any more than "other OTHERSTUFF" shouldn't support keep.
Based on the merits alone: the category is said to be "overcategorization per minor award." The categorization scheme is practically basic; I was limited to following very basic structural examples to model my editing solution by. And calling it a minor award is a laughable opinion; no more.
Then it is said, in further condemnation, "it is already listified". That is ridiculously irrelevant. Categorization serves a uniquely different purpose than a list article, and it is not counterproductive when it mimics a reasonably small list of a finite group. It becomes counterproductive when the list is incredibly long. And then, it's not the category that is inappropriate, but the "big ass sprawling list".
Now consider this. In the exact moment that I was editing the introduction on my user page, which said: "My primary editing interest will be on music related articles. I enjoy the topic and hope I am able to help with improving its coverage." Another editor was notifying me that my attempt to "enjoy the topic and help with improving its coverage" was actually "overcategorizing a minor award that wasn't needed because of a list article". It's bullshit
I know it wouldn't be good to actually saying this, which I am too close to saying, for believing it's so. And I think its bullshit that I should be disallowed from "improving [music's] coverage" which I had ironically just said I wanted to do; when I was last happy about my editing experience.
Consider this, the "creative professionals" that are categorized by this scheme, often depend on Wikipedia:ARTIST to demonstrate their own notability, and rightful inclusion on Wikipedia; The criterion says: notability exists when the subject "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Categorizing subjects by notable criteria increases accessibility of the content and literally strengthens the notability of its member articles in a clear and efficient manner which a back-link to a list article can not do.
So please, will you say what I am trying to say, for me, and relate it as the kind of experience that seriously jeopardizes editor retention. In case it's not painfully obvious.
I apologize for the length of this post, it also measures more of my time, but I wanted you to understand my situation as best as I can express it. I hope you will do this for me. Thank you. Anne F. Figy ( talk) 10:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I think the page ||Hindi kinship terms|| is not yet encyclopedic but over time and edits it will be, so please refrain from deletion. The page can explain more on how the relationships/kinship are represented in Hindu culture (not Hindi, Hindi is a language and Hindu is religion). It does describe the relationships but not in detail. Give it more time. Thanks!
Hi, thank you for editing this article. The unsourced part you took out was a bit left over from before I started working on it. I couldn't find a reference, and wasn't brave enough to remove it, being new to wiki. I appreciate your markup corrections and style changes. Diana Bassplayer ( talk) 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stadio della Roma may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phil Zimmermann may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Hissa Hilal may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Good morning Nikkimaria. Please do not describe your edits as "mos" ( WP:MOS), as you did here, when the edit clearly contains potentially controversial changes that are entirely unrelated to WP:MOS. Thank you. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You say (not to me): "infoboxes improve ALL articles" - surely you don't believe that?" - I surely believe that, as much as I believe that ALL books profit from a title page. I would like topic, time and location pointed out for all articles at a glance. - I was pointed to an article which consists practically only of an infobox, and find it helpful, ready to be easily translated to whatever language. When I log in, I get an Africa-related question. One thing Wikipedia can do for Africa is have information structured in a way that makes it accessible for readers with limited English. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've done a lot of work on this article. I would welcome your input if you have time. Is it good enough to remove the copy-editing banner? Thanks Diana Bassplayer ( talk) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Nikki, not sure if you do all the spotchecks for all FACs but the Mucho Macho Man FAC is sort of sitting in limbo (Colonel Henry started a review but got sidetracked by real life) and given that you peeked at if for the peer review and have already checked the images, if there is any further magic you routinely do to sign off on these (or not), I'd be most appreciative. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Thanks for the contributions. Relly Komaruzaman Talk 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC) |
I am well aware of Rushka Bergman's history and works. Everything listed in her wikipedia page is true and accurate. It is extremely frustrating that you keep taking out valid elements in her page. Please refrain from editing the material. There is no need for you to continuously vandalize this page.
AMF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not mean to remove that. It must have happened while we were going back and forth reposting and un-posting material. All of those cover stars are meant to be seen on the page and it would be much appreciated that you should leave it that way. Thank you. ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, I agree that some of the names are excessive, but I do think that the people she continues to work with should be mentioned on her wikipedia. These are the facts regarding her career at this time. She continues to work with film directors Steven Speilberg, David Cronenberg, David Lynch, Tim Burton, Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino. She continues to work with Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Shia Lebeouf, Robert Pattinson, and Michael Fassbender. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.71.136.12 (
talk) 16:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes I do. I will move forward with editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.136.12 ( talk) 17:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Well, "backlog is 8 years" does not seem to be very serious: I could for instance add these tags on all wikipedia articles and wait for more than 8 years if someone change them… and putting them back as you do if anyone remove them. You've put those tags which do not seem to trigger much reaction, so I thought I was correct to remove them after 3 months. But OK, if you want to keep them, let's do it. I will change the article soon to make it shorter, if I find the time.
Best,
- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I am an editor of a Canadian literary review and a friend of the social philosopher Loewen. I spent a good deal of time assembling the texts used on this page and neither he nor I wish it to be altered. The idea that there are too many quotes or material from reviews is purely subjective and you have no right to impose your opinions - based on what? - on someone else's work in this way. Find something else to do with your time. Ypress20 ( talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Hi Nikki, picked up another support on MMM. Maybe take a peek at the stuff you were concerned about and see if I addressed it all, or at least narrowed down the problem to something you can perhaps tweak directly. I think (I think!) that the "press release" question is the only thing I still need your input on. With ColonelHenry and Tigerboy both having RL stuff to deal with, I'm hoping everyone else can offer support soon. I'm going to ping Ian that we are getting close, just in case he has something happening. My current project is California Chrome, and that's an article I am going to have to monitor closely in real time, as he is a current Kentucky Derby contender. Kind of fun to be ahead of the curve on one of these for a change. Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Since you are involved, you should be aware of Wikipedia:AN#User:Robsinden_actions.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria: my students are moving their articles to the main namespace this weekend. So far, I notice problems with two of them: Negev Bedouin Women and Commodification of the womb. Why are these articles not showing? Thanks. BerikG ( talk) 06:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
At this discussion on AnI, I am asking about what I consider to be a misinterpretation by another editor of what constitutes original research and close paraphrasing. As an expert on copyright issues, it would be very helpful to have your input on the matter. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I would like to delete two users TINGLED1 and Rsl89 as reviewers from my course page, to allow others to sign up. (I already deleted them as members of the course --they have dropped out!) Please tell me how. BerikG ( talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I am a student of Professor Berik. I notice from the above message that she has already told you about my problem. The topic of my article is "Missing women of China". I moved it to namespace last night and it was taken down this morning.
I was told that, “you moved the article to mainspace when it clearly had problems you decided to disregard their advice." But the problem is the two comments I've got was on March 29th and 31th. I made a lot of changes after that. According to the viewers, the first problem of my article is that the article looks like original research. I think maybe because I'm an international student, so some of my English expressions make the article looks like an essay. While after several revisions, I think it looks much better now than before. The second problem they said is the title. The viewer thinks the title should be "Gender imbalance in China" instead of "Missing women of China". But they are totally two different concepts. There is a "Missing women of Asia" in the Wikipedia already, so actually I am not quite understand why the title is a problem. I explained to the viewer, but it seems that we still have different ideas on this problem.
My previous taken down article is here now: Draft:Missing women of China.(I'm also confused that I cannot find the draft in my sandbox or my page.) Could you help me to look at what are the problems that do not match Wikipedia requirements? (This is what the viewer pointed out, but he didn't told me what are the specific problems. He just told me there was sufficient cause for it to be declined.) Thank you so much!! I'm really appreciate! Yangtana Li ( talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria: Missing women is a term to describe a distorted sex ratio that males population is far more than females population due to some discriminations against women. It is a more academic phrase than gender imbalance. There are many journal articles on google scholar talking about missing women. While gender imbalance includes two sides: males are far more than females, or males are much less than females. The former is what missing women described. In China, females are less than males due to traditional discriminations against women. I'm not sure if I explain it clearly. (I'm sorry for what I said, "they are totally two different concepts" above, because I'm ashamed that I was confused about gender imbalance and gender inequality at that time. In Chinese, imbalance and inequality sometimes have similar meaning.)
Thank you for your helpful advices and revisions! I'll keep revising the draft, especially the sections you mentioned above. Thank you so much!! Yangtana Li ( talk) 22:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria: Could you help me to move the article "Missing women of China" to the namespace please? My article is protected now, so I cannot move it by myself. The article is still in the Draft:Missing women of China. Or if you think the article need to be revised on some points before the move, let me know please. Thank you so much! Best, Yangtana Li ( talk) 08:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I seem to have made a mistake with my sandbox. I am a student in Dr. Berik's course. I have developed major edits to the Sexism in India article and have proposed a name change to Gender inequality in India. In doing so, I overwrote the title of my sandbox with Gender inequality in Utah. I am unable to move my sandbox to the Sexism in India article. I wonder if I should create a new account and start over. I can still access my article text/code. Any advice? Weetie2 ( talk) 01:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am attempting to get Greed (film) promoted to FA status again and thought that you may be interested in giving it another look.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 01:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
With the discussion at Talk:Robert of Chichester? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The lead image is always bigger than the other imagers, and should be displayed such according to it, given the place and opportunity.
upright=1.2
" (or "|
frameless|upright=1.2
" for
plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than "upright=1.8
" (defaults to 400 pixels) wide; an image can be wider if it uses the "
center
" or "
none
" options to stand alone. e.g.
[[File:Example.png|thumb|upright=1.2|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]
|XXXpx
, where XXX is replaced by a number of pixels, although this should be avoided where possible, since it overrides the user's default. For example:
[[File:Example.png|thumb|120px|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]
Hafspajen ( talk) 13:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have rectified the issue that you pointed out. Please have a look, and mention if there are other issues. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 13:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (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
Nick-D (
talk) 14:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether this DYK nom should simply be closed? Looking at the extent of the edits subsequent to Montanabw's comments, it seems unlikely that the pervasive close paraphrasing has been dealt with, but I wanted to be sure before doing so. Also, given the circumstances, you may want to readd the close paraphrasing template in the article, which was removed when the specific infringement you mentioned in your DYK comment was simply dropped from the article (except for the final sentence). BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sanjhi roti (community meal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabzi ( 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) 09:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi NM, It is with a heavy heart that I have to inform you of this discussion which has just been started. You may or may not wish to comment, I'll leave that to you, but I felt you ought to know seeing as you kindly keep a watch on it from time to time. Cassianto talk 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see talk page. Thanks, - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 14:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I noticed there was a call for a new review on this one, and you had been the one to point out close paraphrasing in a previous review. Can you please take another look—it's so much better when you do it, rather than have someone else who's less adept, just in case there are remaining instances. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please tell me why you deleted the In popular culture section in Fantasia for Strings (Henze)? Please note that the information it contained got to DYK, so I don't see the point in deleting it. Wildbill hitchcock ( talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"It is common for hong kong men to be temporarily kidnapped and robbed by mainland gangsters." [1] OccultZone ( Talk) 19:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You cannot read Please do not modify this page? Don't edit for adding your own opinion about the article. You even know what is stub? Read WP:STUB, it is clearly far bigger to be a stub. OccultZone ( Talk) 19:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok Nikki. I just wanted you to know that you've now reverted four times. That's three different versions of an infobox by three different editors, which doesn't look like any attempt to seek consensus. I won't revert further and you know that I have no history of edit-warring, so pot/kettle is hardly appropriate is it?. But I will seek sanctions if you try to impose your preferred version of an article against multiple other editors after you have been served with a warning. You know that I'd much rather not have to do that, because I value your contributions in general. Please take it to talk and let's find a consensus. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
("Person infobox") is inappropriate to composers of classical music? - as if composers were not people! Why wouldn't somebody suggest {{ infobox classical composer}} in any case, instead of just reverting? I think articles have to move forward, not look back; stagnation is the nemesis of wiki-editing, so I don't find the concept of a 'default position' to be useful; rather, it stifles progress and possible improvement. Not every article benefits from an infobox, of course - we can agree on that - but I really don't believe that anyone can predict that a whole class of articles will or won't benefit; there are far too many variables for that. I just wish the process of finding out which ones do and which ones don't wasn't so difficult that uninvolved editors get treated badly just for raising the issue. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, could you please stop by and comment on whether the fair use issue has been addressed? TonyTheTiger has made some edits that reduced his use of long quotes, but you'll be a much better judge than I whether this is sufficient. I've temporarily reversed the reapproval by the original reviewer. The last thing we want is for this to be promoted again and then have to be pulled back again. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to my 'edit' of the Stephen_Merchant article. Every other country can be linked to, but not England. I've noticed this a lot on Wikipedia. It's a pity you can't 'nuke' England, eh?
/ -:
Whatever, you 'win'... 70.238.216.14 ( talk) 03:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort to expand edit summaries beyond a cryptic abbreviation, but request that you don't mention my name for something I don't stand for, as here. Without context, it seems that per me, you "restore" to a status quo by removing an infobox. Whoever knows me (which I thought includes yourself) will see that there's the danger of misunderstanding. The idea that a status quo remains frozen, without hope for improvement, is not what I stand for. The removal of content that is helpful, even if only for some readers, is not what I stand for. - If you tried to express that I had suggested on the talk page to better use infobox person, you didn't succeed to make that clear. The best solution would be to avoid my name in places where I have no chance to explain. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You removed it from Rape in Germany, it was not really undue, and Under-reporting includes the data about unreported rapes. It is relevant with the subject. OccultZone ( Talk) 04:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't remove the page number from google books links; typically this is very unhelpful for the reader. Removing the search term is of course fine, & I now do it myself when posting. Thanks Johnbod ( talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I used to have an account for High Beam, but somehow I cannot enter. I always end up on the site, where I am asked to pay. What can I do? -- Nicola54 ( talk) 17:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 02:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
This is my first time applying for journal access and I was just wondering when you start approving/declining users?
Thanks!-- Dom497 ( talk) 23:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed on the Jenna Jameson talk page that the article was currently undergoing FAR, and the header there had a link to a page where I could leave a comment. However, after I saved my comments, I noticed that the link supplied on the Jameson talk page had sent me to an archive rather than the main FAR page. Do I need to move my comments from the archive to the main page for them to count toward the FAR? Sorry to bother you with this, but I've never commented on a FAR before.
Thanks, -- chrisFjordson (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ain Shams University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timewyrm: Genesys may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Jerry Nelson may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Max Johnston may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Paul de Man may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Theodora Cowan may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Hilda Rix Nicholas may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Arnold Schoenberg may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I am adding brief definitions of Adler’s three kinds of freedom. They are too important to merely file by title. If you delete what I add, OK. I am too old to fight. Vejlefjord ( talk) 22:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
You explained that you like short edit summaries, I recommend you start using "rm ib" for "remove infobox". That would be clearer than "see talk", "wrong ...", "rewrite", and other variations on the theme. Better even: think about stopping the removal of infoboxes from articles where you are no major contributor, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. Could you please take a look at it? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an outstanding 25 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
Hi there. The link you removed was to the song itself. I'm curious to know why you thought it was unreliable. (I assure you that that's the version on the album.) JTBurman ( talk) 00:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the talk page, if you remove it again I will raise the matter at ANI. Giant Snowman 14:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have to justify something that is current MOS; and no, the consensus is not against me. If you are so confident of that then why not start a RFC? Giant Snowman 15:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no common style, I see the following different styles all the time:
As well as many other styles - with or without commas, with or without the province, with or without the country name. Giant Snowman 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Gardening, I had an idea: leave all these "technical data" to an infobox where readers will easily find them, don't repeat in the lead but tell the readers right away why they might be interested in the article, - likely not because of someone's data of birth and death, calendar at time of birth, country some place is now, and pronunciation of a name. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
All the stuff written is true and i am adding refrences. why is the written stuff being deleted Shakeeluddin ( talk) 15:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Why Raashid Alvi page stuff is being deleted. Shakeeluddin ( talk) 15:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
Wats wrong , Y Raashid Alvi article's text is deleted
Hamdirfan987 (
talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fighting the vandalism on my user page. They get vicious at times.
rJay talk 21:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed on the John C. Bowers page that you changed the layout of the footnotes to 30em rather than 2 column. I was under the impression that 2 columns is easier to read. Yoninah ( talk) 09:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Same topic: I don't understand this edit, among others. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikki, the method of having the refs at the end is preferred by many authors and is supported at FAC; I've had several FACs formatted in that matter (as well as several formatted inline). There are arguments in favor of each, and in this case, deference should be granted to the person doing the most actual work because it is consistent with one's own editing style. (I personally find it difficult to edit that format on my laptop screen, and I'm also not fond of sfn, but I will use both when needed, and if someone else creates this format, I will not change it if someone else prefers it, - and it IS much easier to use when sources are used multiple times, saves having to hunt through the body text for the original ref.) You are on a real IDONTLIKEIT tear this week, and I suggest you let it go, at least where other people have more edits to an article and have done more of the research than you have. If you start the article or are the lead contributor, then fine, dictate how it's done. But otherwise, I really wish you'd stop making a moral issue out of this stuff. Montanabw (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I failed to thank you for the major editing you did on the Mortimer Adler article, so thanks. Vejlefjord ( talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
So - what have I screwed up? The hook was approved by a third party and I don't see anything controversial about it. Did I miss something? I don't normally do DYK.--v/r - T P 22:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Nikkimaria. Just wondering, as it comes up a lot: What are the advantages to reflist|30em as compared with reflist|2 ? Also, why 30, rather than 29, 31 or some other number? I just want to understand what is optimal. Thanks for any advice. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
[left] Hmmm. Just because a template says something is deprecated does not make it so. This template has said that it is deprecated since 2006. So nothing has changed. It seems to me that we should apply WP:CITEVAR and not make any changes to articles (other than ones we have worked on significantly ourselves) until a widespread consensus is reached, or after starting a discussion on the article's talk page. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This needs a wider discussion to become an effected change. Along the lines of our discussions when people wanted to change the date formats.
The importance of this is even greater because the purported advantages are not uniform -- on both my PC and on my iphone, the em columns are ineffective (resulting in one column, always), while the forced 2 column approach is superior.
Could I please query with you, your rather obscure message you left when reverting my changes to Giano's talk page please? I didn't know he was a regular or I wouldn't have templated him, and as far as I'm aware, a talk page is the only place I can leave a warning for something like this. I took what was quite clearly an ad-hominem attack against SfanIMG_00 out of the conversation, and your revert of my edit has put it back in. My edit was, at least in my opinion, helping, by removing an unjustified attack against another editor. Is there any specific reason I should not have done this? CharlieTheCabbie ( talk) 02:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello Nikki, if you have the time, would you be able to swing by my latest FAC to conduct a source review? I would be very greatful if you could. Cassianto talk 09:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
First off, thanks for doing the source review on the WINC (AM) article. Just wanted to give you a heads up and let you know that I have finished it and made all the corrections requested, except one. I have posted replies in the Source Review section on the FAC page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you resend email, as it was being sent to a defunct email account, have now updated link to current email account. Dan arndt ( talk) 05:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You're editing in bad faith. I am seeking out the reflinks, as I did with The Women, and was just about to add another one when your insistence on hitting the undo button created an edit conflict. Stop ignoring AGF. And if you keep deleting unsourced stuff while I am seeking out reflinks it makes it that much harder for me to do my part. Quis separabit? 23:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Rosaline in William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is never seen, but is crucial to how the title characters fatefully meet. Unseen (by the audience) characters are frequent in other Shakespearean plays, such as John Dighton, Miles Forrest, Elizabeth of York, and Jane Shore in Richard III; Valentine, brother of Mercutio (also in Romeo and Juliet); and Escalus and Antonio in All's Well That Ends Well.
You can haz cheezeburger! Thank you for the HighBeam registration. Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
Please could you look at this DYK nomination. I have detected certain sentences that occur elsewhere online but the nominator is claiming that at least some of them are copied from the Wikipedia article. You have more experience of this type of problem than I do. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
Sorry for the email thing being such a hassle. The "allow messages from other users" checkbox was not ticked, but it is now. Apologies again! Fleetham ( talk) 19:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would stop deleting the annoying role players entry on the tarp Wikipedia page. The first time I made the entry, it was deleted by a person hired by Wikipedia to go around and take care of spam and vandalism. The message that follows is what I sent him word for word:
Hello Happy Attack Dog, i'm new to editing Wikipedia, and honestly i'm not sure if this is going to get through, so I deeply apologize if this message ends up somewhere its not supposed to. On April 4th, you removed the contribution I had made to the tarp Wikipedia page, saying you found it nonconstructive. While I see where you are coming from, please understand, when talking about teen nerds role playing on a music site, it can get difficult to make much of anything sound professional. As well as the fact that, while I did my best to make it sound constructive and informational, that was not its primary intention. I myself am a member of TARP, and we have been hard at work creating our own wiki for the past month or so. To be completely honest, I posted it because I thought it would be cool if we could legitimately say we're on Wikipedia. While I realize that that is not in any way this sites purpose, I still feel it is justified, acceptable, and presentable enough to remain on the page, and would very much appreciate it if you would allow us to continue to stay there. (P.S. Again i'm very sorry if this ends up somewhere other than where you asked me to send you a message.)
Apparently it was enough to persuade him, because he never came back to delete it again. I know that everyone has their own opinion, but I believe that if this is enough to convince someone who works for Wikipedia specifically to delete spam and vandalism then it should be allowed to remain.
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks very much for your email. I just responded - having a bit of a problem. Can you help? Coretheapple ( talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, got the email on HighBeam, thanks! Iñaki LL ( talk) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Please explain why you deleted the images of flags from the article on blue. They are an integral part of the symbolism of the color, and similar galleries are found in the other main color articles. A gallery is much more effective than a list. Please restore it. SiefkinDR ( talk) 04:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
hello;
thank-you for your sudden interest in the Julius Nepos article; which you have NEVER edited before.
however, if you only interest in the article is due to wp:canvassing by user:montanabw, which is in effect a circumvention of wp, then respectfully i feel your edit is inappropriate.
as regards the merits of the date format; i suggest that a single line that contains clear indications of gender, birth, & death is MORE EFFICIENT, in that it contains a greater information density, & clarity. for reader it specifies the subject's gender, & that the dates shown are for b & d, not reign.
the partucular format i'm using hybridizes the old uk who's who style, with wp/de standard practice.
& as there is no MOS-dictat regarding the matter, there is no real impediment to revising the format, other than sheer inertia.
if you have any REAL interest in working on this article, which i have edited extensively in the past, you are welcome to discuss it on the talk page.
if not, then fare-thee-well.
regards,
Lx 121 ( talk) 05:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abstinence-only sex education in Uganda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sugar daddy ( 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) 08:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
With your help, the WINC (AM) was just promoted to Featured Article status. Together, we took a C-Class article, edited, added and made it a Good Article. We didn't stop there, we made it better and now it is a Featured Article. Whether you made one edit or twenty, you still helped and I thank you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - since you seem to be the DYK expert, would you mind reviewing Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ford_Island for me? The hook has ample sourcing, but I'm not positive it's appropriate for the main page. There are other interesting facts that could be used instead of necessary. Thanks.--v/r - T P 23:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Rather than unilaterally removing stuff from this article as "unsourced", you might have checked the non-in-line references (specifically, his scientific autobiography, which contains the info about his wife's illness), or at least, put a flag on it and got in touch with me. This is a fairly easy thing to fix -- I'd been intending to work that autobiography in as a source eventually anyway -- but it would have been easier if you hadn't deleted text that is going to be put back in it anyway. (I have no problem with the edits to the obituary citations, which I did not write; thanks for doing those.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill ( talk) 21:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could check this nomination for close paraphrasing. There was one known instance where it took a couple interations to get significant change; I'd like your opinion on the article as a whole, if you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:04, 20 May 2014 (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
Nick-D (
talk) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If you have the time and are interested, I would appreciate a media review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive1, so the FAC can progress past where its currently stuck. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 17:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Would you at least explain to me exactly what it is that I should do to my FURs so that they are acceptable in terms of NFCC#1 so that next time we don't have to drag this issue out for several days? This is what's there now:
NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."
My reading is that there are two criteria to satisfy NFCC#1. 1) There can be no free alternative, and 2) it has to convey encyclopedic information that cannot be conveyed with prose alone. Please tell me what I am missing here so that I don't have to bang my head against this wall ever again. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 19:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. I added an External link to the article, since it seemed to offer visitors to that page information they could not get otherwise. It also indicates his impact on the larger web, and the Dr Who community, who seem very happy with his work.
Tardis.wikia.com Biography of Scott Gray, Dr Who stories by Scott Gray, Warwick Gray, W. Scott Gray http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Scott_Gray
I do not know what "mos, rm per BLPEL" means.
Kind regards, RC711 ( talk) 19:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I can see the possibility that a visitor to Wikipedia would follow an external link to a site that bashed or lied about Scott, but I have faith in visitors that they can make their own determinations of quality and relevance. External links are different from References, since one expects random material, that, hopefully, might give some extra information about the current topic. Do you know how I can find the discussion about that policy? Seems interesting. By the way, is it only that I pointed to a wiki? Is there some problem with wikis?
It is hard to find relevant information about rare events (a not very well known living person) on External links, so when you find one that is of moderate quality and completeness, it is hard to just throw it away. It might be relevant to followers of that living person. Most visitors can ignore it, but it might help the few. Thanks for the quick reply and the info, RC711 ( talk) 20:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, after I saved my reply, I saw the links to BLP. Very reasonable conclusions, leaning toward protecting people. If wikis are unreliable because they change, then why do people rely on Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have an outreach to wikis? When I was running my own websites I would routinely review/analyze/comment on/ all the sites that I pointed to. I recommended quality standards and policies. Over time the whole community benefited. RC711 ( talk) 22:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
For this, I'll buy yuou a beer/ coffee, whatever you want! Name the time and place! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Just sent an e-mail regarding Highbeam access.
WAVY 10 Fan ( talk) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. While checking your user profile, I noticed that you frequently review FA candidates. Well, I have one, Megadeth, and if you have no other important Wiki-activities this time around, can you take a look at it and leave comments on what should be corrected at the nomination page? Thanks in advance and see you.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 08:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, can I ask you to please take a look at this nomination/article? I'm most concerned about the anthem's translation and fair use guidelines, but there may be other issues. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
As infrequently as we have positive words to say about each other, I thought I would drop by and pay my respects on your latest FAC nom. Taking on a whole major city at FAC is an enormous contribution to WP. As a person who specialize in far branch articles, I commend you for taking on such a thick topic on the tree of knowledge. I can barely fathom such an endeavor. You can see my FAC that follows yours is very far branch.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angel Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic ( 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) 08:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You cite today CITEVAR for reverting a reference style established in May 2013. Let me understand, also why you have a interest in such a change while nobody else seems to care, and it's of no consequence for the reader. I want to supply transparency for future editors, that is keep the references away from the body of the article to edit both sections with more ease, - consistent with FA and several GAs on the topic. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikki, I rarely say this, but you are pretty much completely in the wrong on this one; I went through the refs in the article and having them at the end clearly dates back past January 2014, and as far as I can tell, you never touched that article until this month. If there is an inconsistency with some cites inline and some at the end, the solution is to point that out to the editor who is doing most of the actual work, not to make more work for them! I have edited articles with both styles, and I believe that deference should first be given to the person who is doing most of the real work, but if there are compelling and logical reasons (besides "NikkiStalksGerdaForUnfathomableReasons") for a change, the lead editor should be part of that discussion. For example, I took William Robinson Brown to FAC with the end-of-article citation style, even though I usually write inline because I had a collaborating editor whom I respected that preferred it, and because they were willing to step up and make substantive content edits, source searches and the like; I was perfectly willing to alter my style slightly to help such a useful and congenial editor. Montanabw (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You fail to explain your own actions, which are inconsistent, your behavior on BWV 183 cannot be justified by your own arguments here and at BWV 37. Gerda does explain herself, you simply fail to ever grant that any of her arguments have merit. Furthermore, one can certainly change THEIR OWN established style if they see something better. It is utterly ridiculous to go seek a consensus where you are the only editor who does much of anything, and even when one other person shows up to make inconsequential edits, WP:BRD trumps seeking prior consensus from minor contributors. And really Nikki, your pattern of following Gerda around just to find new things about which to to nitpick smacks of a personal vendetta. What do you have against her? Seriously, I think you are making this personal but hiding behind the screen of policy. I am asking this question sincerely because I cannot believe you really and sincerely give a rip about where citations go in an article. Montanabw (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Ambassador,
I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.
https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V2SSrhU2NFOVAV
Also, if you are able to, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send the following survey to the mentee you worked with:
https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V1quUdMZ1By3Ah
Thank you in advance for your participation, Gabriel Mugar 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your fixes to this page. The reason the word "include" was there is because these lists of recordings are almost surely incomplete; only the Columbias are fairly complete, but I'd guess there are probably still be some strays not listed. The other two lists definitely omit a lot of unknown recordings. Is there a better way to indicate this? I think it's important not to give the impression that these lists are definitive. Milkunderwood ( talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi -- I noticed you are removing certain access dates in refs, such as here. I was wondering why. Thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 15:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I just pinged you from this talk page (did it work?), hoping that you could take a look at the close paraphrasing issues raised and responded to, and see whether you think this is close paraphrasing or not. The disagreement needs an expert third (fourth?) party to take a look and give an opinion, and I'd certainly rather you look at it now rather than risk it not being seen by you because of how quickly material goes from prep to queue to main page. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria. I am very happy that you were the first person to reach out to me on Wikipedia, and your offer that I could seek your assistance here is greatly appreciated in this moment, of "my need".
Consider this, the editing I was doing was continuous editing that spanned 4 and a half hours. It is impossible to imagine that others, like you, would not also had looked at my edits; even in real time of their being saved. The tacit support of not being rebuked throughout the span, and your welcome, which thanked me "for my contributions", did not constitutes a "pact of support", but it was more than sufficient for me to say: "your message has truly brightened my day"!
And from this "high" "sense of acceptance", another editor cast's my efforts, and my editing "good cheer" as low as I care to go in criticism. And I don't know how to say what needs to be said
So I ask you: please, speak the "Wikipedia talk", that I do not know, and tell the reviewing board my side; as a new editor.
First, A link is given to a previous deletion, of an arguably dissimilar category – as part of the basis for the deletion of my work. And then; I am told that to argue for keeping my work while speaking of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF, is poor form. Well, the other deletion is no less OTHERSTUFF, and it shouldn't support a deletion any more than "other OTHERSTUFF" shouldn't support keep.
Based on the merits alone: the category is said to be "overcategorization per minor award." The categorization scheme is practically basic; I was limited to following very basic structural examples to model my editing solution by. And calling it a minor award is a laughable opinion; no more.
Then it is said, in further condemnation, "it is already listified". That is ridiculously irrelevant. Categorization serves a uniquely different purpose than a list article, and it is not counterproductive when it mimics a reasonably small list of a finite group. It becomes counterproductive when the list is incredibly long. And then, it's not the category that is inappropriate, but the "big ass sprawling list".
Now consider this. In the exact moment that I was editing the introduction on my user page, which said: "My primary editing interest will be on music related articles. I enjoy the topic and hope I am able to help with improving its coverage." Another editor was notifying me that my attempt to "enjoy the topic and help with improving its coverage" was actually "overcategorizing a minor award that wasn't needed because of a list article". It's bullshit
I know it wouldn't be good to actually saying this, which I am too close to saying, for believing it's so. And I think its bullshit that I should be disallowed from "improving [music's] coverage" which I had ironically just said I wanted to do; when I was last happy about my editing experience.
Consider this, the "creative professionals" that are categorized by this scheme, often depend on Wikipedia:ARTIST to demonstrate their own notability, and rightful inclusion on Wikipedia; The criterion says: notability exists when the subject "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Categorizing subjects by notable criteria increases accessibility of the content and literally strengthens the notability of its member articles in a clear and efficient manner which a back-link to a list article can not do.
So please, will you say what I am trying to say, for me, and relate it as the kind of experience that seriously jeopardizes editor retention. In case it's not painfully obvious.
I apologize for the length of this post, it also measures more of my time, but I wanted you to understand my situation as best as I can express it. I hope you will do this for me. Thank you. Anne F. Figy ( talk) 10:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I think the page ||Hindi kinship terms|| is not yet encyclopedic but over time and edits it will be, so please refrain from deletion. The page can explain more on how the relationships/kinship are represented in Hindu culture (not Hindi, Hindi is a language and Hindu is religion). It does describe the relationships but not in detail. Give it more time. Thanks!