Could I possibly trouble you for an image review for Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, so it can be put to bed? Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
<blush>I guess I forgot to scroll down far enough to see it! Thanks for checking anyway.</blush>-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I was hoping you could take a look at this nomination and assess its status with regard to close paraphrasing. I had found, within the Aftermath section, some overly close paraphrasing with regard to the NRHP source, and while there have been some edits in this regard, I think it's best if you cast your eagle eye over it and determine the current level of problem. I did tag the article with the close paraphrasing template; if it's no longer needed, please feel free to remove the template. If there are problems, and the recent edits did not adequately address them, it may be time for me to mark the nomination for closure. Thank you very much as always for your help at DYK. (I just closed the Iris article that I last asked your help on; the nominator never came back to address the sourcing and paraphrasing issues.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
|
Nikkimaria, I just found some close paraphrasing in the article's Recordings section's second paragraph, and given that close paraphrasing was also found earlier in the review process, I was hoping you could take a look and see if I found the last of it, or if there are more instances. Many thanks. I apologize for messing up the ping from the DYK nomination page; my finger stayed on the Shift key a little too long. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I am getting Bath School disaster ready for possible submission as a Featured Article. I have been doing deep-diving on the sources (boy those copyright volumes are so much fun to read! lol) and on the photographs in the article. My tentative conclusion is that the one book source M.J. Ellsworth's Bath School Disaster (published in 1927 but there is no record of the copyright being renewed) is public domain and almost all of the photographs (all of the photos in Ellsworth's book plus all of the newspaper/National Editorial Association/Associated Press photos) are public domain. I can find no record of Ellsworth's copyright being renewed or of the newspaper photo copyrights being renewed in 1954/1955/1956. For the pertinent discussions I'll refer you to a discussion at Media copyright and to the article's talk page Talk:Bath School disaster especially here. If you can take a look that would be awesome, thanks in advance. Shearonink ( talk) 17:21, 20 February 2020 (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)
13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your great work on editing the page.
But I didn't understand , why did you delete the link? because under the second picture is the text about the group ("Other honourable mentions for Friday also have to go to Slash, still the coolest guy in rock, and London-based Neonfly who performed early on the acoustic stage."). The acoustic stage called the Jägermeister Acoustic stage. This is very importent for the band and Dailymail is one of the famous newspapers in UK.
If you think this is possible, then return the link back, please. Maybe it can be put after the words: "a memorable performance.."
Thank you for spending your time on us!
-- Yulia Markhutova ( talk) 07:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria!
I've seen your source. It fits well. Thanks a lot! -- Yulia Markhutova ( talk) 18:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi Nikkimaria. I'm not sure if you're stalking my edits, or all uses of Wikidata Infobox, but I see that you convert them to the standard infoboxes within a day of them being added. You convert them quite nicely (and thank you for taking the time to do that, rather than just removing them), but I find it makes the infoboxes more difficult to expand. Mostly it doesn't matter as I've finished working on the article by then, but in the case of Playa de Las Teresitas it's taking me a bit longer. Any chance you could wait a day or so longer before converting them, if you must, please? (Also, in that case, the date of opening was removed from the infobox, I'm not sure why.) Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
since you did comment on this later withdrawn FAC I wanted to notify you that I've renominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Hello Nikkimaria, please see Order's Talk page before once again removing sourced content without cause or consensus. Ortolan57 ( talk) 15:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Following up to ask why the "Notable Covers" update to Ya Got Trouble made on Feb 19 2020 was removed by you on Feb 22 2020. The explanation that you left behind was "non-RS". Interestingly there were nine items in this section; only four are actual covers, while five are noted parodies of the original material, yet only a single parody was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1010:8976:B480:729F:A480:B266 ( talk) 05:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
Thank you for editing my page. I don’t think I have written so much since I left school, I am not sure I wrote that much when I was at school. I would like to put back part of one of your edits as it was something one of the local historians mentioned to me when I was visiting the library. “This is not about the Kings, Queens and Dukes that gave their names to the area, but about the Miss King's, Miss Dollman's and Mr Lathbury's that shaped where we live.“ There is another change “so you can continue the journey to The Vale a long time after the river disappeared. “ I’d like to put back, but references the wider area and not the area included in the article, so doesn’t change the article if it’s not included.
I also noticed you removed one of my photos, was this removed because of a size issue or for another reason. If I resize the photo can I put it back in the article?
As you may have guessed this is my first wiki article, I have referenced a few books that I haven’t directly quoted from. To save me searching all the help pages can you let me know the code to add these books as my references please.
Many thanks
Colin Colin Potter 20 ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
|
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barrett Brown (wrestler) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrett Brown (wrestler) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sismarinho ( talk) 05:54, 12 March 2020 (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)
01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stop breaking the references on Sylvia Rose Ashby. You’ve done this twice now. - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 08:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could check this one for close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc. It had earlier been noted as having issues in the review, and the most recent review cites an Earwig link as evidence of continuing issues, though I'm not seeing any red flags when checking the first few results. Can you please see what there is to find, and note issues (or lack thereof) on the review? It's been stalled for a while now. Many thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, I just wanted to apologise for my behaviour the other day. I think I was having a depressive episode, so I was highly sensitive to everything. I'm saying this as an explanation, not an excuse as I am ultimately responsible for my actions. But I wanted to say sorry to you as I think I was rude and not terribly reasonable. Thank you for your work on Women in Red, I'm trying hard to get our articles up to speed and filling in the blanks as fast as I can! Your help is really valuable. - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 10:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi Nikkimaria, Tenryuu from Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. A fellow collaborator, Puddleglum2.0, is looking for editors to answer some interview questions regarding editing and COVID-19. If you're interested, please leave your thoughts over at User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR. Cheers! -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
File:Kentucky Mounted Militia Battle Of Raisin River Frenchtown In 1813 War Of 1812.jpg has an incorrect File name but I don't seem to be able to fix it.
A couple of things:
Anyway you're an image expert so I figured you're probably able to move/change the file name. If you can't move it or aren't interested, that's cool. Just leave me a note here and I'll try asking elsewhere. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
... for improving Jessye Norman's article by pointing out the copyvio, borrowing her smile -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 21 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC) |
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring accessibility for Rita (opera), and even improving it. Please do the same in the other cases, sparing me to break my vision 2020 resolutions. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
If we'd take World War II as a model, we'd have infobox first, then sidebar, right?Yes, as is done with Pelléas et Mélisande (opera).
Sorry also for not specifically mentioning that in the context of the Composer sidebar I talk about opera only. Sure, there are precedents there too, for example Armide (Lully) or Tolomeo. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
If you think, Pelléas works, why are the others different?As per your post above with regards to respecting author preferences. With regards to proposing a project discussion... what do you feel needs proposing? I don't see anything unprecedented. The sidebars with option to expand have existed for a long time, as shown at Armide and Tolomeo so has the idea of sidebar with picture underneath, as shown at Octavia (opera) so has infobox+sidebar. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Can you just make me understand why you put time and energy in defending and keeping alive a feature that is clearly redundant? (... while the parallel in World War II is about something different, - an analogy for opera would by a sidebar with operatic terms such as act / baritone / libretto ...) - I believe that discussion on a broader level would be needed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikki can you please see if I referenced this YouTube video properly? It was showing many options. Here is my edit /info/en/?search=Old_Time_Rock_and_Roll
Here are the ways it says you can do it. /info/en/?search=Template:YouTube/sandbox
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
|id=
and |title=
, as I've done
here. However, the existence of the YouTube video isn't enough to include the mention because it doesn't demonstrate that it's significant to the subject - see
this discussion.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
17:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Thank you. I had googled how to reference YouTube as I've not done that before. It wasn't showing one like that with the ID. I was able to get the article to go to the YouTube video however by clicking on the link in the Old Time Rock and Roll page Wifey93 ( talk) 09:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
How can grave of his father and paper written by Chuck Norris himself were he tells that his mother will be 99 on 4 May 2020 be unreliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Well at least that I can accept as an fact. But one day when she dies I will add her. Many actors and actresses have their parents dates of DOB and DOD on their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
I created an account on Newspapers for my email address as instructed on 26 March, but I have yet to hear anything since. I commented on my application, but not sure if it got lost. Thanks! PotentPotables ( talk) 02:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
|
Unless you find credible sources per Wp:PW/RS for this article you created and appear to be promoting, the unreliable source tags stay. Dilbaggg ( talk) 14:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, there were a number of passages in the article that Yoninah identified as having been copied from the sources. The nominator has said that the issue has been addressed; can you please check to make sure that indeed no more copyvio or close paraphrasing exists? Thank you very much; I hope you're having a good holiday weekend. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The connection between the Women's Championship (Original Version) and the women's world championship can not be found under any WP:RY, and fails WP:V, thus it is worth mentioning that there is no link between the two and I will report you next time you keep using wp:or terms, the sources in Cora Livingston claims her as just women's champion not women's world champion. Stop pushing personal POV. Dilbaggg ( talk) 21:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Lula_Mae_Hardaway
In this one I noticed the person had plagiarized rather than just showing the reference so revised it Wifey93 ( talk) 09:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Here, I am copying the entire Talk:Josephine Blatt talk page discussion to you:
Yes she may have been the first female champion in the 1890s, but not the first wrestling champion, one of the many early wrestling titles include the American Heavyweight Championship first won by Edwin Bibby in 1881. [1] There are even earlier titles than that. Dilbaggg ( talk) 10:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Look at the 1905 world title and 1881 heavyweight title, they have Ney Work Times edition publishing news of the title victory from 1905 and 1881 respectively: [2], [3] pure WP:V for thenm, while this so called women's championship only has modern day blogs for source, and those aren't even WP:PW/RS and make dubious claims. There are even older wrestling titles before 1881: World Greco-Roman Heavyweight Championship is from 1875, any source that claims Josi's title if at all it existed is the first recognized title, its totally dubious !
User:Nikkimaria is known for the propaganda pushing povs, she even uses unreliable sources, like once she used the pre 2013 bleacher report despite clear instruction to refrain from it on WP:PW/RS, such desperate editors are unsafe for the community ! Here is a prove of her relying on forbidden sources to push her personal pov [4] ! Dilbaggg ( talk) 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
or: the resurrection of loving-kindness -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Nikki - it's been a while since we've communicated. I can't remember who told me quite a while back to capitalize titles in books and newspapers even if the source didn't - and for some reason, I'm thinking it may have been you. If so, does that still hold true? If not, what are your thoughts about it? Atsme Talk 📧 01:56, 13 April 2020 (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)
05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, I noticed you removed the "Cultural References" section to the Nancy Drew page. Was this due to the ones listed not possessing references or pages of these types no longer containing sections of the sort? -- H. Roosevelt ( talk) 05:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
ir? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
It may not be necessary, but I just wanted to say thank you for approving my most recent Wikipedia Library application, as you did for my previous ones. I'm so excited to have access to this latest resource! Have a great day, Moisejp ( talk) 17:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
There must be a gremlin at play. I am utterly confused how I can be adding something when I thought I was deleting it. It was my intention to delete the non-notable parents - I'm sure I saw them there earlier. I think I need to get out and get some air...oh, I cant. Cassianto Talk 23:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
From the article on Lee Fierro, you recently removed the statement "and was survived by five children, seven grand-children and seven great-grandchildren" ( diff). You also removed the link to an article that made that statement. So I'm curious about your reasoning for removing that material. Not disagreeing, just curious. Your edit line said "doc," but that claim was indeed documented in the linked article. If it's not a documentation issue, but a stylistic issue of some sort, would you disagree some of that material could be put earlier in the article? Many bios, for example, mention that people have had children (giving names would be preferable, but giving a number would also seem appropriate if names are not available). I'll look for your reply here since my opinions are unformed, I'm merely curious. Thanks. -- Presearch ( talk) 06:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
That is a beautiful image of a book on the main page, and I see that you were the one who nominated the article at Wikipedia:FAC. Thank you. ↠Pine (✉) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I saw that you removed the Find a Grave external link on the Madame CJ Walker article and did not provide a reason. I and other editors have been watching the page closely due to recent increased interest in Walker and associated vandalism. The memorial is managed by Find a Grave and I don't see anything inaccurate about it. Do you? Do you have a reason for removing this link template? DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 20:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
@ Nikkimaria: It appears as though you have a stalker reverting all your recent edits for no reason. I have placed a message to WP:ANI about it, so feel free to comment there. Tknifton ( talk) 20:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria,
With regards to the recent edit on the Neverwinter Nights 2 page, thank you for providing the link to Wikipedia's policy on external links. This helped me to understand why the link I added previously had been removed several times, often with minimal to no explanation. However, after reviewing Wikipedia's policy on this matter, I believe the external link I provided is appropriate and compliant with the policy.
In particular, the NWN2 wiki appears to comply with section 12., which provides for exceptions of links to normally be avoided (in this case, an external wiki). Section 12 precludes "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." I believe the NWN2 qualifies as a wiki with:
I believe the NWN2 wiki meets the above two criteria as evidenced by the following:
In light of the above, I believe the NWN2 Wiki complies with Wikipedia's policy on external wikis and hope you will see fit to leave this external link in place.
I am happy to discuss further and, if you decide it has to be removed, I will respect the decision and not get into an edit war. This was not my intention, and I apologize for appearances of doing so.
Respectfully submitted, Raelind ( talk) 05:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, As your FA review on the article suggested, I have been attempting to paraphrase certain problematic sections of the article so that it does not constitute as plagiarism. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and let me know if there are any sentences or sections that still need to be adjusted.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, though it is rather difficult sifting through all the sources to see if I did it right (or wrong). In terms of access to the sources which ones did you need?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC) @ Nikkimaria: I thought I would explain my whole process here just to give a better understanding of my whole definition when I say "paraphrasing". Essentially, I am looking at the original quoted and explaining it in terms of what the author meant, with short blurbs in quotations where I am directly using the original author's quote. Hopefully, this is right.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 21:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria! I am working on Category:Wikipedia articles containing unlinked shortened footnotes. I am active in converting unlinked shortened footnotes into something more useful, & plan on training other to do this as well. If you are unacquainted with the power of this, I invite you to examine the Icarians & Oneida Community articles. This is a hidden category & thus not available to readers unless they have the option to turn hidden categories.
In the future, if you have questions about edits that I make that are invisible to the typical user, please ping me first.
Peaceray ( talk) 22:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you know how to go about letting a copyright holder release an image under commons cc; i have told them that they will no longer own it, and will be uploading on their behalf. Article is here. Txs. Ceoil ( talk) 01:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Ceoil, yep, the email and tag you need are at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Nikkimaria. You were kind enough to do a spotcheck for the Meghan Trainor article here. Following which I have worked on the article a bit more and plan on taking it through another FAC. However, the FAC coords tend to be extremely strict and archive my nominations fairly quickly. If possible, I could really use a full source review at the PR page so I get enough time to work on all your comments. It would be very appreciated.-- N Ø 14:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not sure how to know if my Wikipedia library card access to JSTOR is working, do I have to do something on either accounts to enable it? I was trying to access this article which I believe Wikipedia covers access to since I don't think it's part of JSTOR books? Also, about JSTOR books, it seems that the voting page for new library card resources lists JSTOR books with twice with different links, so these votes can probably combined. Thanks, Aza24 ( talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
|
I'm confused by this edit. Why did you remove a valid parameter with information that is sourced in the article? A more detailed edit summary might help. What does "doc" mean? Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 01:29, 14 May 2020 (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)
15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 22:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria,
Thank you for having approved my application for access to JSTOR via the Wikipedia Library card platform.
With all best regards,
Shams lnm ( talk) 23:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the picture that I added of Pascal Langdale correct cause I don't think so.@ NikkiMaria: Pixel Lupus ( talk) 11:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Pascal Langdaleher check please. Pixel Lupus ( talk) 13:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: Pixel Lupus ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Thank you for reviewing the images on the Article Stockport County F.C. Right now it looks like you are seeking clarification on 4 images
As mentioned these are all from the Stockport Image Archive. There are Images on the website with a Y next to the copyright point - the 4 images in question have an N next to their copyright point. The Stockport Image archive states- "© Copyright. Unless otherwise stated, the copyright, database rights and similar rights in all material published on this site are owned by Stockport Library and Information Service, Stockport Council."
So going off this, the images on the Image archive are copyright images if they have a Y next to them and are not if they have an N. I don't think these images were ever published in the United States so I don't think they would come under U.S copyright law and if they did then I would be unsure what they would come under.
I'd be happy to change the copyright status of the images but as I have mentioned I'm unsure what to tag them as going off the guidelines and tag on this page Wikipedia:File copyright tags
Thanks, Wna247 ( talk) 17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
For the Wycliffe Congregational Church photo the Photographer is listed and has been credited as the Author on commons along with the date the photo was taken. For the fire at Edgeley Park photos the Image date is said to be unknown and the photographer is unknown - however the fire was on 23 July 1935 so it can be assumed this is when the image was from give or take a couple of days, but no publishing information is given. For the championship shield photo the Date is given as 28 May 1937 and the photographer is listed as Stockport Advertiser Newspaper so it can be assumed that the image was published in the newspaper on or around that time. Finally the team photograph is dated 1957 with the Photographer listed as Stockport Express so again it can be assumed this image was published. The image does say it from the start of the season, this would have been late August 1957 in this case.
Other than this information I have given you and the Copyright information as provided above in an earlier message, there is nothing else on the website that states anything about copyright ownership of the images in the archive. Hope some of this is useful Wna247 ( talk) 18:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Bit of an update on this after speaking to one of the Libraries and Archives team this is what I got back "At Stockport Heritage library where possible everything accepted into the collection has the copyrights handed over at the point of donation, to prevent problems of untraceable rights holders arising in the future." I was also told that the archive is made up of council works (E.g the newspapers) and donations (e.g the wycliffe church photo) I was told none of the works were published internationally, only locally. Any photos created before June 1957 by council works would have expired copyright 50 years after first publication. Any donations with Y next to the copyright means that the work is still covered by copyright while donations with a N means they have given up all copyright. Unsure if I can post external links but I was sent this link to the chart that the libraries use to work out copyright - https://aranewprofessionals.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/hayley-4.png Will try to get more information if needed Wna247 ( talk) 13:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I have changed them but they might still be wrong or need more information so I will change/clarify if needed. Just so you are aware though the Stockport Advertiser dates back to at least 1842 (there are pages from this year on the British Newspaper Archive). The Stockport Express came around in 1953 before the two papers merged in 1981 to be known as the Stockport Express Advertiser (later shortened to Stockport Express in 1999) The Stockport Express was known as the County Express (a series of newspapers covering Manchester and Cheshire with the Stockport Edition available to Stockport residents) from 1959 until 1961. So with that the Stockport Advertiser is out of publication while the Stockport Express is still in publication but in a different form to its 1953-1959 counterpart. Wna247 ( talk) 23:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I might replace the image we are currently looking for copyright tags for all the tags in the comprehensive list you sent me for the USA say for example "first published" The images have not published in the USA and as I don't live in America I wouldn't know its copyright status in that country. All I know what what the Libraries and Archieve team have told me. Just want to check over these before adding to the article:
/info/en/?search=File:The_Railway_End_of_Edgeley_Park,_Stockport,_during_a_match_in_1994.jpg - Covered by CC BY-SA 2.0 License
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stockport_County_defend_against_Cheltenham_Town,_2011.jpg - This image is under the same license as the image above but commons doesn't seem to like it , would I be better uploading to Wikipedia directly (like the image above) or not at all? EDIT- Original flickr link - https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurencehorton/5698885611/in/photostream/, on the page if you click on some rights reserved it takes you to this page https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Wharton_c1896.jpg - Not uploaded by myself - But may use this image in the Stockport county article as the person pictured did play for the team in 1901. This image is tagged as public domain PD-1923 and Anonymous-EU EDIT - Images source shows getty images and here is the info from that site Date created: 01 January, 1896 Licence type: Rights-managed - https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula#RM Release info: Not released - https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/unreleased-imagery
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1910_Cheshire_ordnance_survey_map_showing_Edgeley_Park_(cropped).jpg - Ordnance survey map as mentioned above, hopefully I have tagged if correctly based on what was displayed on the website. This is the only image of the 4 I have added to the article. Wna247 ( talk) 18:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
No Worries thanks for clearing that up - As picture 2 has been deleted I won't re-upload it. I didn't upload picture 3 and have sent you all the information the source link contains so I cannot be sure when it was published (but again on the source website it says not published), that picture is used on that persons wiki page so I just wanted to run it by you before using it on another page. Picture 4 ordnance survey I have tagged as such and it was published in 1910 so that should be fine as you say. You haven't mentioned anything about picture 1 so I assume that is all ok.
Going back to my original images:
• File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg: the UK tag requires you to provide information about steps taken to ascertain authorship, and to know US status we need to know when/if this was published. If that can't be determined this would likely be considered non-free.
The image was published in the United Kingdom but the photographer and Image date is said to be unknown. But we can gather it was taken on or around 23 July 1935 as that’s when the fire was. And likely to be published in the local newspaper on 24 or 25 July 1935 as that is when the local weekly newspaper was released in the United Kingdom. .– According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date
Possibly "Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.
• File:Stockport_County_receiving_the_Championship_Shield_in_1937.jpg: based on the diagram this may be PD but needs different tagging for sure.
"PD-release"
"PD-US-unpublished"
"PD-anon-60-1996"
"PD-posthumous-50"
Any of these seem relevant as the image was published in the Stockport Advertiser Newspaper on 28 May 1937 in the United Kingdom. – According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date.
"Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.
• File:Stockport_County_Football_Team_1957.jpg: probably not PD in the US based on possible publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
"Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.
This image was can be assumed published in late August 1957, the Photographer listed as Stockport Express. It can be assumed then that this was published in the Stockport Express newspaper in the United Kingdom on or around that time.– According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date.
I can't find any more information of the United States publishing of these images if the archive team have told me that the Images were never published in the United States.
For the Wycliffe Church photo I have added a bit more information to the photos page but I could go and take a photo of it myself and upload it as own work if the information I have put onto the photo page is not enough.
Thanks, Wna247 ( talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
but again on the source website it says not publishedNo, it says not released, which in this case appears to be a model release.
likely to be published in the local newspaper on 24 or 25 July 1935Can this be confirmed?
This image was can be assumed published in late August 1957... copyright expired after 50 yearsIn the UK. But 1957 + 50 would be after 1996 so likely still copyrighted in the US.
OK Still unsure on how an image can be copyrighted in the United states, when it was never published or released in that country (which I have been told by the Stockport Images and archives team) when its Copyright has expired in the UK
I would like to use the 1937 shield photo and/or the fire photo but would be happy to remove the team photo from 1957 due to the copyright.
At the moment I can only speak to the archives team over email but will be able to visit the library and see the archive myself once they re-open - at that point I should be able to confirm that date of the newspaper publications in 1935 and 1937, but that might not be fore a couple of weeks yet.
Can remove them from the article for now then add back in later once I can get all copyrights/publication dates etc. confirmed. If I can.
So the main Stockport county will have the following images in there after the next round of FAC edits:
File:Stockport County FC logo.svg - The clubs logo. Text is yellow on the website but blue on the sourced Document. Yellow is the official colour but the blue version is used on white backgrounds.
File:Wycliffe Congregational Church, Heaton Norris.jpg - I have given all the information I know on this image but I can now go and take a picture of this building myself and re upload. so then it will be tagged as my own work and therefore I'd give up rights to it via CC.
File:1910 Cheshire ordnance survey map showing Edgeley Park (cropped).jpg - Ordnance survey from 1910
File:Stockport County FC League Performance.svg - a version of this file is on most football clubs pages (differs depending on club of course) is tagged as an own work and updated yearly.
File:Stockport County Warm Up vs Cambridge.jpg - Is an Image I took at a match,is an own work and tagged as such.
File:Edgeley Park - geograph.org.uk - 763377.jpg - licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. with Attribution Dave Pickersgill
File:Stockport County fans.jpg - not uploaded by me but tagged as and own work under Commons and GNU Free Documentation License
I may later add to the article:
File:Dave_Jones.jpg - Uploaded via flickr via a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
- former manager of the club in the late 1990s (but this image is from 2010 when he was managing Cardiff City).
File:The Railway End of Edgeley Park, Stockport, during a match in 1994.jpg - Uploaded by me, similar to the Geograph.org image above This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License with Attribution
File:WillemIIManchesterUnited1963a (cropped).jpg - This is a picture of David Herd (who is mentioned in the main Stockport County article) scoring a goal later in his career for another club. - Original not uploaded by me but I have cropped it - Original is under the under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. This photo is a maybe, while it does show David Herd (a former Stockport player) in action its from a match between Manchester united and Dutch team Willem II.
I may also upload a photograph I took of a player at a pre-season match a few years ago and like the Warm Up vs Cambridge. will mark it as own work and tagged as commons.
If these are all ok I will go with these in the article and later add the 1937 shield photo and the fire photo if I can verify the copyright status with the library and archives team but as I said that might be a few weeks yet and don't want to delay the FAC of the article if it ends up coming down to image copyrights. A simple Yes or No for the above images will be fine. Wna247 ( talk) 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
You have removed a Wikidata template from Jean François Denis de Keredern de Trobriand, and I restored it only after adding another source to the Wikidata Q-Item. The source in question is a semi-official webpage of the École navale (the French naval academy). I would appreciate if you did not keep removing it without explaining clearly what it is you thing is lacking about these sources. I understand that you did not like the website from which the portrait comes from, but as it is you are refusing to believe any textual information from that website, while accepting that the portrait is indeed a portrait of the subject of the article, and that is just confusing. Rama ( talk) 20:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Stop removing information as you did on Rhoda Montemayor. Or else you might get further blocked. DustEchos( DustEchos|talk) 12:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC) DustEchos ( talk) 18:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria,
Thank you for taking interest in my major project of whipping the Elizabeth Cosson article into shape (given the collection of dead links, outdated and incorrect information, and rather clunky writing it had). It is a mammoth task and even though I’ve been spending eight hours a night on it (it’s my second major project as a registered contributor [although I’ve been a guest contributor for some time now], after rewriting and improving Nursing Service Cross) there is still much work to do.
I would encourage you to please abide by WP:RVREASONS when making anything other than minor edits. One word or blank edit summary reasons, for anything other than a minor edit, are contrary to WP:RVREASONS. It is good practice, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to discuss significant changes on the Talk page, to recent edits before hitting the publish button. Because I don’t have any understanding of your reasons, and the removal wasn’t a minor edit, I’ve temporarily rolled back your changes for now.
As this article is undergoing a major re-write, and is still a work in progress, it is preferred contributions by other editors are held off on until 2 June 2020, unless there is an urgent compelling reason to do so (emergency edit) [I’d prefer review is on the finished product as reasons for content may not be clear without looking at the whole]. But if you have time to explain your reasons for each individual removal, my metaphysical door is always open and my welcome mat is out. Thanks for taking the time to drop by for a lighting visit and I look forward to taking the time to talk together. Kangaresearch ( talk) 05:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, please be responsible and follow WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. It’s important for all Wikipedians to adhere to WP:5P4. I draw your attention to the following [6]. I have rolled back your changes temporarily again until you follow Wikipedia policy and discuss them first as they are now clearly contentious. I have asked you to discuss in accordance with WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Please discuss IAW WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Kangaresearch ( talk) 14:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for showing some restraint (after getting a bit hot), and I am sorry if you felt changing the new subheading you added without any discussion was harmful to your feelings (I’m just trying to keep the open subsections in alphabetic order for ease of navigation, which changed when it became C after I). And while it appears you feel differently, the change of the title field in the info-box (remembering the info-box is only were I was up to when you dropped in) to lower case is the primary concern of case change - these should be uncontentious things in normal circumstances but I acknowledge your sensitivities. I am glad it didn’t devolve to the farce of earlier though, before we put a line under it (I mean subheadings on a talk page, not exactly the fields of Flanders). As mentioned let us try to be productive, after all, all activity is on the talk page now, not the article (which doesn’t progress us far). I feel like (now) I just get you in bad moments sometimes, as at times you can progress things along (like with the paypoint, even though it got pretty bogged there for a while), but at other times - not so much. I just wanted to let you know there is no urgency in these discussions - if it is not a good time, feel free to come back to it later. It doesn’t concern me much that you personally have these firm views, as long as you can express them as best as you can to me, fairly, so I have no ambiguity on them it is enough (you are always clear whether you want something one way or not, but not always in terms of why, except in generalised statements - and those are the ones I try to tease out a bit more, as sometimes you say something pivotal when that happens). As for myself, I don’t treat these conversations as battles to be won, but there are things I think need a little more, so anyone in the future can track why or why not things were done with some precision. I feel like, from very poor beginnings, we improved things in 48hrs (not an easy task) so that is worth protecting. Let us work in the interests of the article, because I know I was just about take a step rather reluctantly the other day, then suddenly saw a more measured tone and having just previously thought there is no way this will self-resolve, you changed my mind. It shows it is possible, and I appreciate you don’t normally spend time doing this (as normally you are focussing on copywriting, then moving to the next thing - not engaging in conversations), so I acknowledge the time you have provided (but as I said, if you want to take a moment, please feel free to do so - the article will still be there). Kangaresearch ( talk) 18:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WP:TPO & WP:OWNTALK disregard and repeated blanking of content without discussion, despite repeated request to do soWP:OWNTALK "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user" WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection" Re:
Elizabeth Cosson
Disruptive editing
|
Hello, I see that you removed part due to non-RS. I believe I found a RS to replace the non-RS: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1453326/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv Is this RS? Is it OK for me to re-instate that part using this RS? -- Dr.bobbs ( talk) 00:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Most of this edit, which you explained with a laconic "ce", removed quote fields from references.
I wrote a user essay where I suggest every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.
If you know of some guideline, or longstanding convention, that generally deprecates the use of quote fields, then could you please link to it for me?
If you don't think quote fields were generally deprecated, but you think my use of them lapses from some guideline, or longstanding convention, then could you please link to it for me?
In general, going forward, could you reserve the laconic edit summaries of "ce" for edits where the purpose, and justification, is actually obvious?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, since you've already an image review for the this nomination at FAC, may ask you to perform a source review as well? I'd really appreciate it, Shahid • Talk2me 19:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
My time is limited. Yet your [8] may do more harm than good without sufficient reason. Also note that unapproved alteration of national anthems may even be a crime in certain places, like Chinese Macao since 20 December 1999, though not Canada nor the USA.-- Jusjih ( talk) 19:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (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)
04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi can you please check the layout as I can't figure out what's wrong with it as it's the same as the other Duggar Family member pages. I had to add to the Jana Marie Duggar page that I made in 2018 as someone had edited it and took out the beginning. The page is also missing a picture of her and it won't let me insert it . Here is the page /info/en/?search=Jana_Duggar
Thank you Wifey93 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Wifey93 ( talk) 00:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to add a picture of Jana but it give an error and it also is saying the page isn't valid but I thought I had fixed it Wifey93 ( talk) 00:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It will not add any of the first five pics https://www.google.com/search?q=jana+duggar&client=tablet-android-lenovo&prmd=niv&sxsrf=ALeKk02ryXAuCqSOMIUIxSVgSf-JsyGbxA:1592182609417&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj55-e2zoLqAhWgRzABHa95D4YQ_AUoAnoECBsQAg&biw=602&bih=964 Wifey93 ( talk) 00:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi also it's telling me the page isn't notable as it shows the too two messages on this page /info/en/?search=Jana_Duggar Wifey93 ( talk) 01:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It's funny because I went through her other sibling pages and they are fine but not sure why this one came up as the notability.... I had to fix the page because it was missing the facts for the biography like where she lives, how old she is etc. I tried to add a different picture and it won't. It also reverts back to the Duggars family and Jim Bob Duggars page for some reason and I can't seem to fix that. Yet if you notice this page of her sibling works /info/en/?search=Jinger_Duggar_Vuolo Wifey93 ( talk) 02:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I also had to add info and references as the page was lacking /info/en/?search=Jana_Duggar
I don't notice this issue with the other sibling pages Wifey93 ( talk) 02:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikki I can't figure out why there are issues with the page as her sister's page worked with no issues but Jana's page is saying it's not the right format. Here is her page /info/en/?search=Jana_Duggar. I already had to make a new page for her a second time because Wikipedia didn't recognize the first page I made.
Her sister's page is working tho and they do connect them with all of the other siblings and parents
This is her sister's page /info/en/?search=Joy-Anna_Duggar_Forsyth Wifey93 ( talk) 04:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey Nikkimaria, you had helped me with this article's sourcing a while back. Wanted to point out that I have gone ahead with its FAC nomination. Since you are renowned for this, I would be immensely glad if you could provide a source review. Thanks.-- N Ø 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to Robert H. Locke mentioned Wikidata already being linked in the sidebar. However, I'm not seeing any such sidebar or link after your edit (I'm checking using a vanilla Firefox browser in desktop mode). Is this an error in your Javascript, or are you planning to add a sidebar? - Vandraedha ( talk| contribs) 03:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The Minute Man | |
Thank you for your assistance with getting The Minute Man to featured article status. I could not have done it without your help. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
— Bruce1ee talk 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Good evening! Just looking to see if you have any more feedback for the Space Shuttle FAC. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 12:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I'm considering submitting Cymmer Colliery explosion as FAC and saw you listed at WP:FAM. I'm a first-time FA nominator and would appreciate your guidance if you had the time/interest. Even if you were not able to mentor, a peer review or any feedback on the article would be very welcome please. In particular, the last section of the article uses bullet points – are these a definite no in a FA level article? My experience is in more technical writing where they are common. In this case, their use avoids the seemingly unnecessary inclusion of padding words to make each point a paragraph as well as the repetition of the same citation for each of those paragraphs. (Full disclosure: I made a similar request to another editor listed at WP:FAM a week ago but have not heard back.) Cheers ~ RLO1729 💬 02:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC has been archived in the middle of my ongoing discussion with Gog the Mild. I have messaged the editor at User talk:Ealdgyth#Archiving Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC and would appreciate your thoughts/input. IMO, this lack of careful consideration is one of the reasons editors leave Wikipedia. ~ RLO1729 💬 19:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
What made you revert my contribution to the Germany page? It was a very helpful information. Davidjimnez ( talk) 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I don't think you ask consensus for every time you edit a page... Davidjimnez ( talk) 15:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Would you please explain why you deleted parts of the article on Imani Perry? 89.103.125.162 ( talk) 10:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your recent editing history at Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. Apologies for the random message. I was wondering if you could do an image review for my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I recognize your reversion of my addition of an infobox is due to its delicate history and previous discussions on the talk page, albeit from 7 years ago. However, I really don't care if it has one or not, what I do care about is that for the soon to be nominated featured topic, all of the Monteverdi Operas use the same infobox, whether it be this template, the current "Identibox" on L'incoronazione di Poppea or the one that I inserted. At the moment the latter is present in every Monteverdi Opera except L'incoronazione di Poppea and there is quite literally no reason for this one to be different than the others. How can I go about standardizing them? Should I bring up a vote on the Opera project page between using this template, the current "Identibox" or the current infobox used on the other pages? I don't mean to dredge up old conflicts but frankly, it is pointless and meaningless for the articles to be formatted differently in this respect. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 05:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." There was an Arb case on this very point back in 2006, and the practice has held since then. I don't see any discussion on the article's talk page or any other form of consensus, and the reason you have given above seems to fall squarely into the examples of why not to change. - SchroCat ( talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 14 reviews between April and June 2020.
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk)
00:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Hi Nikkimaria, I'm considering making my first FAC nomination, and I want to ask if you would be willing to mentor me in preparation for that process. The article I want to nominate is Honey Davenport. Would you be interested in taking a look? Thanks, Armadillopteryx talk 07:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I have withdrawn the nomination for Everything I Wanted because some reviewers recommended a copyedit and peer review. I will put up a new nomination in a few weeks after both the copyedit and peer review are done, so I hope to see you there! Thanks a lot! DarklyShadows ( talk) 01:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I wrote a Wikipedia article on Mary Louise Day, a young teenaged girl who disappeared from her home in CA in 1981. She remained missing for 22 years until ultimately being found alive and safe. I’ve noticed two notes on the top of the page regarding the article tone and the sources. I’ve used all possible sources that reflect the information in the article and I’ve tried to the best of my ability to fix any errors that go against the Wikipedia tone. Can someone please help me, I’d hate to see the article be removed. Strangemysteries2004 ( talk) 00:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok thank you!!! I’ll rewrite that and whatever else sounds like that Strangemysteries2004 ( talk) 04:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, hope all is well! Could I use an image from this book in Fabian Ware’s article uploaded to enwiki under {{ PD-US-expired-abroad}} or am I missing something? Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, for wiki-historic reasons BWV 105 is the only cantata without template (I think Gerda was involved in an infobox arbcom case so, as a result, there was no obligation to have any infobox). I added the missing template using the same method as BWV 140, knowing that the libretto was anonymous. It is listed as so in the book of Dürr & Jones. As you can check I created the images of the manuscripts on the Bach archive: and in 2008 I started and created most of the article for BWV 105. The fact that the libretto is anonymous is recorded in Dürr & Jones. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 11:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
|
It has become clear during the FAR that the project and I have different ideas over the way the season should be laid out, as a result, I have recused myself from the review. Jason Rees ( talk) 21:12, 11 July 2020 (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)
11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Please explain your changes. They new infobox lacks information, and all the information from wikidata is backed up with reliable sources Germartin1 ( talk) 14:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I found your name in the edit history for the Lemonade (Beyonce) article. Given your experience, if you're interested in issues of sourcing, perhaps you can chime in on such a discussion --> Talk:Lemonade_(Beyoncé_album)#Possible_OR/POV_violation. isento ( talk) 10:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for catching my error at the Unconstitutional constitutional amendment article. I meant to cite this link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2649816 but for some reason accidentally ended up citing the "Besse Cooper" Gerontology Wiki article instead (which I was simultaneously looking at as I was writing this article). Anyway, I have now put the correct source into this article. Futurist110 ( talk) 06:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, Would like to understand what further I can provide to sufficiently confirm the edit? I watched the episode last night, and it was quite a thought provoking episode paying homage somewhat to the artists work. Due to a lack of 'reliable sourcing' available online, I wanted to contribute. Are you able to assist? Unsure how to reference video content which has limited reliable internet, text based references.
here is a video source:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6s6yyr
appropriate timecodes: 16:50 - lady in red appears 17:04 - lady in red sites with man in a booth 18:22 - artwork appears in book 18:40 - characters introduce artwork 19:45 - characters discuss the artwork 21:49 - lady in red talking with man in background in a booth 27:53 - lady in red with man in foreground in a booth 37:36 - lady in red talking with man outside of diner 41:14 - shot of diner, clear similarities
in fact, other Edward Hopper artworks featured with similar impressions and discussions throughout. 17:28 - Hotel Room, 1931 17:49 - New York Movie, 1939
as discussed on forum:
https://filmboards.com/board/p/1150094/
has also been mentioned on a wikipedia banned website (peoplepill) on edward hopper
and is also mentioned on another wiki page, but felt odd to self reference: /info/en/?search=Edward_Hopper. "...Hopper's painting New York Movie was featured in the television show Dead Like Me; the girl standing in the corner resembles Daisy Adair." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.232.18 ( talk) 14:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (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)
14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I know you could pick up your adminship at any time you choose to, but I respect your decision to refrain. Nevertheless, would it make your editing easier if you had permissions like template editor or page mover, etc? I'd be more than happy to grant you any of the unbundled permissions if you ever thought you might find them useful. Regards -- RexxS ( talk) 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, might Elizabeth Throsby's family form one of those "unusual" cases "worth highlighting" per MOS:SURVIVEDBY? I included it because of the sheer number of them, unusual even for that time. She was the only survivor of the massacre to go on to have children, and by the time of her death, she had produced a family that outnumbered those who perished. I think these are extraordinary stats. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 05:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
When changing |publisher=
to |newspaper=
or |magazine=
as you did in
this edit, a good thing, please make sure that there are no lingering aliases of these parameters in the template (as seen
here and
here) so that others don't have to cleanup after you.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you. If I were to renominate The Masked Singer (American TV series) for featured article status, would your image review on the first archive still count, and can it be mentioned in the description? I haven't added/edited any images since your review. Heartfox ( talk) 03:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. Why did you delete it? -- Jbaranao ( talk) 04:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for your query as to the significance of the addition I made to the Dick Turpin page. To me it is a point of interest relating to the appearance in popular culture, through folk music, of the character of Dick Turpin, perhaps especially because the song seeks to portray him as he really was, rather than the romanticised version of him as a dashing hero. When compared with the other items in the Legacy section, the fact that a song has been written doesn't seem any less significant to me than the other entries. Of course I see that a play or a film is a larger work, but the song is still a representation in the arts, and therein lies the significance. (The fact that the song was played in the Royal Albert Hall is perhaps not especially significant, and the only real reason I included that was because I had a reference to it.) Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer. Muonmo ( talk) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria,
Please consider that the presence of the first contact with the west is crucial for what happens afterwards in japan from the consolidation of kingdoms and the subsequent expansion of the japanese abroad (korea etc) I understand that some of the paragraphs may go on to another article such as the history of Japan, but this information is succinct information of the presence of a century of the Portuguese in Japan, where both civilizations suffered linguistic influences, in art and knowledge.
As for the map, please consider complementary information, being framed in the context of contact with the outside. I didn't understand the principle of Good Faith, do you need more references from the author of the map? Thank you -- Hugo Refachinho ( talk) 10:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work you've done on the Wikipedia Library project. I've just begun to collect sources to improve and expand the Fanny Lou Hamer article. I am amazed at the number of articles available from JSTORE that should be helpful.
At first I could not find a way to use the 'Workspace' tool without a unique identifier. I thought about asking you, but then chose to use the support link within JSTORE. Sent the request at noon, got the correct answer within an hour! — just sign up for an individual free account anD the JSTOR platform will link the wikipedia account with the free account and allow persistent 'Workspace' collections — I am very happy. — Neonorange ( Phil) 20:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I hope you're doing well. I had a question about this blog entry and if it's reliable. Normally I wouldn't dismiss it without hesitation but in this case the author/owner of the blog is a well respected musicologist (professor at University of Oxford as well) so I was wondering if it is still usable because of that. If not it's not a huge deal since the blog itself links to plenty of sources that are reliable/published. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 01:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw that you deleted some text and unreliable sources. However, the funeral is evidenced by other, reliable sources. You "threw the baby out with the bathwater".May I please put the text and RS back? Bearian ( talk) 20:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria. My apologies. I had somehow overlooked your first edit where you removed the external link (EL) to The Peerage website and the Appendices heading. I did not mean to enter into an edit war with you. I still consider myself a novice and am on a seemingly endless learning curve, especially with regard to the knowledge and understanding of the MOS. I see you are an FAR coordinator and have more than 140,000 edits.
With regard to the EL. The Peerage is a self-published website but usually reliable. It is often cited in biographies of British aristocrats. It cites sources and so I try to replace it by a citation from the relevant source given in it and (until now) moved the reference to EL as I try not to entirely supersede what other Wikipedians have done. I found the link to The Peerage in the EL useful to check facts against it. However, as you insist on deletion, I will take your word as a really eminent, experienced and influential Wikipedian. The great majority of the articles on my watchlist have this EL. I will remove them as I crawl around my watchlist for other improvements, otherwise you can certainly make a pass through my contributions and remove this EL everywhere, earning about a hundred edits in the process. But if you prefer and find it urgent, I will go through my watchlist and do it ASAP.
With regard to the heading "Appendices". I found that the headings from the appendices often take too much importance in the table of context. By introducing Appendices as a 2nd-level heading and demoting the various appendices to the 3rd-level I wanted to help readers. I see now that MOS:LAYOUT insists that the standard appendix headings must be 2nd level. So I must comply. I learned a lot from you. Please accept, dear Nikkimaria, the expression of my highest consideration, Johannes Schade ( talk) 08:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi!! Please notice that I have undone your undoing of my edit on the Wikipedia article about Consuelo Vanderbilt Balsan, as I think that my edit and the new information about the life and character of Mrs.Balsan found therein was well-founded and I brought citations enough! Don't you believe that it is not educationally accurate that an entire article should be almost drawn by the work of one person (a Mr.Stuart)? In any case, would you please take some time and read the Daily Mail article I cited on the bibliography? It was rather illuminating. Happy Days! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeofCleveland ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Dahlias in Walsdorf |
---|
I like today's Main page, with the TFA (thank you the image review!) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria, would you please consider doing an image review for the article Pepi I Meryre, which is currently at FAC ? The article has been posted there a while ago and as received only one text review so far, so I am worried about it failing for want of reviews, in particular image and source ones. Thank you. Iry-Hor ( talk) 10:37, 10 September 2020 (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)
12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Hey Nikkimaria, is there by any chance you could restore Fagerbakke's "Personal life" section back in the article again? because I've been constantly requesting it in the talk page to be restored back in the article again. But no matter how many sources I keep on providing to help restore it, they still won't add it back. I was just curious if you could restore it back? If that's ok? I've been trying hard to provided the best sources I could, but they still won't count, as I've been told. 2600:1000:B046:332A:9843:9F32:493E:74 ( talk) 20:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Well there were some other ones I found, but I've been having trouble trying to show them on the talk page. whenever I tried to post it, I keep getting this message saying that it's been disallowed. So I don't know what other replacment source I could find, because those were the only best ones I can find for now. Until you told me it's a dead link.
P.S. I actually ment to say "article" not "infobox", I just made a mistaje in my typing. And yes, I do mean that same sentance as before. But does the Hollywood Reporter count? Here: https://www.hollywood.com/general/actor-bill-fagerbakke-splits-from-wife-59442806/ 2600:1000:B051:E1A8:C435:632A:39C8:C30C ( talk) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
What about "Filmreference.com"? Because that one actually shows his info of his marriage to her and his two daughters. The problem is, I can't share the link here because it won't allow me to post it. That source is currently used as the source for his date of birth in the article. 2600:1000:B06D:53A0:5DF9:6786:3966:5D9C ( talk) 01:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
You reverted my external link on Neutral Milk Hotel and wrote "See WP:ELNO," but after reading I fail to see why the link is not valid. It certainly gives more information about the band than what is written on the Wikipedia page. TheThingy Talk 02:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you very much for forwarding my application for access to Springer Nature journals. I seem to have easy access to all articles in all publications save one—Scientific American—also listed under "Nature Research journals" at the Springer Nature website'.
As it happens, I am discussing a rewrite of the lede for Anthropic Principle with another editor who wishes to simplify the lead. I believe our views mesh, but I wish to be carful to avoid compromising accuracy. I am familiar with Scientific American—it would be a great resource for improving ledes.
Scientific American has published dozens of articles related to the 'anthropic principle. I'd like to get clues from these articles to help express a competent summary in the lede.
I can not find an appropriate link at Springer Nature to ask for assistance. Am I missing something? I may be able to get access through my local library—closed now by the pandemic. Do you have any suggestions? — Neonorange ( Phil) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
In your opinion, is it ok to keep "fourth oldest person ever" without a reliable source? The "editor" with the IP address 141 126 101 68 has added this on many occasions and it has been reverted by myself and others as many times. MattSucci ( talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the article cites "Adams 2010" but there is no such reference in the bibliography. Can you please add? Thanks, Renata ( talk) 00:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there by any chance you coukd respond to this talk page request I made here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Michael_Angelis#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_September_2020_2, because there's a mistake in the article I wantee to be fixed so badley abd it still hasn't been corrected yet. 2600:1000:B033:2B98:94F3:F07E:BD35:DC86 ( talk) 21:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Would you please care to tell us where you are reverting the find a grave links on Baden-Powell grave. -- Bduke ( talk) 01:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hey I saw you removed climate change from the Japan article. I added it again as it is quite an important subject and just explains a bit about how climate change affects japan and the goals of the government. Finn.reports ( talk) 06:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not covered in the environment section. It doesn’t say anything about the goals of the Japanese government concerning climate change and what the effects are for japan. So a little section for climate change is needed as it is an pretty important subject for japan and any other country. Finn.reports ( talk) 11:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The topic is not really covered in the environment section. There is nothing about the goals of the Japanese government or the effects of climate change in japan. It is an pretty important subject so I don’t get why it can’t be added to the page. Finn.reports ( talk) 11:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your copyedit at the BBQ page--but I always had the impression that the "proper" way was the other way around. What's the relevant MOS guideline on this? Thanks Kingoflettuce ( talk) 13:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
When you revert someone who was welcomed just a few days ago, could you perhaps supply a bit more of an edit summary than "per talk". I remember that in the beginning, I didn't even know that articles have talk pages. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Why did you remove my Hubert Laws contribution to "Amazing Grace" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyScholar ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
You deleted cause of death here. For whatever reason. The page had been somewhat improved by me because I came over from the list of prominent Covid deaths that exists. There the person got an entry, so is notable. Did a good job, bad job? I'm not sure what to say, honestly I don't think you did. Fix it. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.72.62 ( talk) 06:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
NantucketHistory ( talk) 01:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Three images were downloaded onto Commons and used in the article this past June, the source being http://www.acolumbinesite.com/. I went looking into the sourcing for the one with Brooks Brown but now I think all of them are lacking the proper permissions and the permissions seem...well, to not be quite right. AColumbineSite's FAQ states
But then the editor who uploaded the photos onto Commons claims that
I nominated the Brooks Brown photo for deletion because of the permission issues but am now thinking that all three should be nominated to go...but am I wrong on this? Anyway, would appreciate someone with more expertise - such as yourself - to look into the situation. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Hello, the Biblioteca Marciana was promoted at FA, and I want to thank you for all of your time in reviewing the images and helping me to resolve the problems. Kind regards, Venicescapes ( talk) 15:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your feedback. I'm learning how to contribute to Wikipedia and appreciate your guidance on my contributions to the article of Jenner. Would just like some of your help on how I could better improve some things I did say, because I believe adding information about Jenner's relationships are important to the article and notable about her life. Thanks, Emilywillingham ( talk) 17:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that you've been removing my content from Amelia Earhart's "in popular culture" section, citing "unreliable sources". I can understand how the Wikia source could be seen as unreliable but how was my IMDb source unreliable? I'm not a veteran editor by any means so, if you can explain that to me in a way that makes sense, I'll take your word for it and drop it. DaveA2424 ( talk) 15:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. You have revert my edit. Thanks for the reminder. But, did you read the article or the reference that i type? Griffith reference is only one source and the journal was deleted on the source. The journal was also only book review of the book that i cited, so i think what i cite is more valid that the previous reference. I add the readable link also and it was the same book. May you reconsider your revert? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agus Damanik ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
For your massive improvement of the problematic Disney family article. Theroadislong ( talk) 07:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
Hi. Why do my links to find a Grave keep getting deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.241.109 ( talk) 15:35, 14 October 2020 (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)
12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, I recently saw your review of my FA nomination of Stephen Dee Richards and how it did not pass because of the issues you listed. I have addressed most of those issues as the following:
Reworded statement.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What kind of reference should I use to round up the money value?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
For the original amount, I used the source provided. The adjusted amount was done through a website that adjusts money for inflation. Not sure I can cite it though.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
There are a couple of sites that might be reliable enough to cite. The best is In2013Dollars.com, which give a more accurate explanation of the adjusted money.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Will remove it then.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Done.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Meaning it applies to all shortened cites right? And should I italicize all newspaper publications when sourcing them in sfn format-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Done-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I fixed it now.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Rearranged reference list to sort periodicals by date published.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
There are only 2 or 3 books that are multi-edition, fixed it to include editions.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Finally corrected the problem-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, an image that I personally photographed in Israel is being questioned for copyright at Template:Did you know nominations/Hadassah (dancer). Are you familiar with copyright law in Israel for outdoor street art? Images of this and similar street art portraits are posted at Solomon Souza and Mahane Yehuda Market#Artwork. Thanks for any enlightenment you can provide. Yoninah ( talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
In The Maid of Orleans (opera), you replaced an image related to the opera by one showing the composer. Project opera promotes images related to the opera in the top position, and an image of the composer only if none is available. Consider self-reverting. If not, please explain, and restore the other image to the opera article where it was. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I know HOI4 content is generally considered content unfit for Wikipedia as most people are not aware of the content of mods. However, Bill Hammons himself has acknowledged his prescence in Red World numerous times and is in contact with numerous mod devs. Therefore, I think this fits according to Wikipedia's policies on notoriety.
Thanks, 73.234.135.49 ( talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, It has been a while since I have talked about the article on Begotten. I Just want to let you know that I have been working with Brandt Luke Zorn to try and get it up to FA status before it is renominated. I was wondering if you could give me your assessment if you think it is ready for renomination?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Looking over the sources, I did find some that might be considered questionable. I am going to list my response to each one here (If I missed any please let me know):
It gives information such as radio interviews, podcasts, speaking events, and his past journalistic endeavors for Vice, and Boing Boing. I am not sure if it confirms the reliability of the interview with Merhige, but it does give more room to suggest the possibility.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I have made more progress with the sources now. SmellsLikeScreenSpirit has been removed and replaced by a more reliably sourced interview (CHUD.com). The Nightmare on Films Street site I have looked into and found that they are a branch off of Bloody Disgusting's network.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, You removed the find a grave link to William McIntosh in the External Links section of this article. The information you deleted does not seem to be redundant, and might be regarded as useful. Could you explain your reasoning? Gulbenk ( talk) 17:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'm not sure whether you saw my ping here, but it's clear that there is some significant close paraphrasing, if not copyvio, in the Marian Anderson article, which was unfortunately not found during the article's GA review. Now it's at DYK, and the nomination has run into trouble because of what's been found so far. What I'm wondering is how severe this is overall. If what's been found is the basic extent of it, then this can go forward. If there's more of it, then the article probably needs a reassessment. Can you please take a look and see how much of a problem this is? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your welcome! I noticed that you reverted the edits I made to the Aragorn and Arwen articles. I just reviewed the guidelines here on linking to external websites, and was wondering if you would be willing to point me to which specific policy you believe was violated? I wouldn't add links to random fansites, but believed links to the LotR wiki would be acceptable given its size and wide usage. Thanks! Bitterhand ( talk) 00:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you said that my addition to the article on Guy Fawkes Night did not require a new section. I can understand why you said that. I looked for a place in the existing structure to add it, but could not find it.
I feel that its non-observance in York especially and, to a lesser extent, other parts of Yorkshire is a significant fact and would be of interest to many readers. (On a personal note, I can remember being told by a teacher at junior school in Wakefield that we didn't burn guys in Yorkshire.) Is there somewhere else that it can go in the article? It is just two sentences. Can it not be fitted in somewhere else?
Thanks. Epa101 ( talk) 10:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
You removed the link to Find a Grave from the external links section of Bruno Bertagna. You cited “EL” which doesn’t tell us much. I see nothing under EL “ Links normally to be avoided” that would suggest this use of Find a Grave is improper. In fact it supplies burial info not otherwise found in the article, which is specifically cited as a reason for including a Find a Grave in external links. As we are told on the entry for the Find a Grave template HERE:
To comply with WP:ELNO, only place [the Find a Grave template] in External links section if the website contains unique information not already mentioned and cited in the body of the article and is not a WP:COPYLINK violation. Remove from External links if Find a Grave is already cited in main body, if burial information is provided in main body by a more reliable source, or if the page contains any unlicensed copyrighted information (e.g., professional portrait photography or copies of obituaries from a newspaper). [Emphasis added]
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
“US” after city, state is not a requirement of WP:MOS and further isn’t consensus for infobox templates for baseball, basketball, football and NCAA coaches. That’s why I removed them. Rikster2 ( talk) 14:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this. Go look at MOS:TIES. All these infoboxes by definition are for athletes who are strongly connected to the United States and therefore should comply with formal written American English. And formal written American English is (1) concise and (2) uses U.S., not US. When it's clear in context that the article's subject is an American (because it's stated in the first paragraph of the article), there is no need to add US in every infobox. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 04:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your tireless review work. I am specifically thinking of ACR and FAC image reviews, but this is only scratching the surface of your contributions. I don't know how you do it all, but it is all much appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, it is regarding
this edit. According to the template documentation, the |birth_name=
parameter can be used if it differs from the |name=
parameter. In the article
John Witherspoon (actor), it is clearly mentioned and sourced that the subject changed his surname from "Weatherspoon" to "Witherspoon". I believe it should reflect in the infobox as per the template doc. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
09:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
At WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant genus names (L–P)/archive1 I've got a request to "standardize" the format to either mention the country or not ... "Portland, OR, US" vs. "New York, NY". Looking at a bunch of recently promoted FACs and FLCs (other than this one), I don't see anyone asking for "New York, NY, US" ... is "New York, NY, US" ever required at FAC? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
†
|
|
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)
15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Nikkimaria. I tried to renew my Library access to Fold3 back in September and I see you approved it and sent it off to them, but for some reason my membership there isn't yet active, it just has me as an expired "free" member. I'm reaching out for help :) ♟♙ ( talk) 20:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please do not start edit wars. It may result in you being banned from Wikipedia.
Have a great day. Politialguru ( talk) 20:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I know you don't know me from Adam, but I have [Biblical criticism] undergoing an FA review that is stalling for lack of a source review. The coordinator says they will archive it if it doesn't get more response soon and to go look at frequent reviewers and ask shamelessly! So I am! I see that you are a frequent reviewer, and I read your requirements and have no problem with any of them. You sound tough but I think that's absolutely necessary. I respond quickly, with a good attitude and cooperation - or at least a really good reason for compromise. ((Smiley)) Please come and help get this important article what it needs to be among Wikipedia's best. Thank you! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Why are you removing the location parameter from references? This is valuable information, both for identifying references and evaluating their context. — Michael Z. 04:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this will make you feel better about consistency in the article’s citations: I went through and added missing information. — Michael Z. 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:CITE#Generally considered helpful discusses the difference between citation format and content, and makes this explicit: “The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information.” Please restore the place of publication in the article, and any others where you’ve removed it. — Michael Z. 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I posted an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#RFC: Does following style guidelines on consistent citations mean consistent inclusion of “place of publication”?. I tried to ask the simple question without specifics about this article, and without advocating. Let’s see what others think, okay? — Michael Z. 21:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind assistance. FunkMunk and Czar were very helpful. Venicescapes ( talk) 07:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI, I'm conducting an experiment with a Find a Grave listing for a "famous person" who also has a WP article. The listing has no biographical material, so I've suggested some bare facts (gender, POD, and bio data) to describe the person. I'm curious to see how long the material gets incorporated (e.g., approved by FAG editors) into the listing. And, BTW, I've reviewed the edit history for James Garrard. This was a TFA on June 7, 2013, at which time it had FAG listed in the EL section. And the FAG page did not contain photos of his burial site. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
You asked about IWGPP. Here is their FAG contributor page: [9] and here is their website. Another major contributor to FAG is the War graves. These are institutions with huge databases. when you dismiss FAG links without looking beyond the basic source you are dismissing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I see you created this 11 years ago, but I don't think it would survive WP:AfD, and it has been edited extensively by a SPA that appears to be the subject. Bearian ( talk) 19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you think about working up together a general WP:URFA/2020 message (after US Thanksgiving) to be posted across WikiProject talk pages explaining the process and encouraging editors to tune up and comment on FAs, and at URFA/2020? Sort of like what we would do in a FAC newsletter, or FCDW Dispatch, if we still had one. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
i know your always being asked to do things...so will ask but with the intent of starting in the new year. Long ago - ten years Aboriginal Canadians passed its GA review....thinking its time to redo the article. Would you be interested in overseeing my edits and perhaps doing an informal review after fixup?-- Moxy 🍁 03:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the display of extra large images, as at present on top of BWV 37: I don't think we should have them at all. For whom and what? Everybody needing a pic larger can click on it. IF larger, why not within the infobox? IF any reason for not in the infobox, why not below the infobox? But back to the beginning: I'd go for a normal-size image (not larger than upright=1.3) IN the infobox. IF a specific image should be shown larger (to make detail visible at a glance), it could go to the context in the article body, and a different one could be lead image, no? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you. I currently have an article at FAC at which a user has stated their opposition to a lack of images. I have a number of player images available, such as File:Hardy, Billy.jpg, which I've avoided using because I'm doubtful they would pass under their current licence. You've provided image reviews at a number of my FACs previously, so was hoping to run these by you to get your thoughts? Would they pass as they are? Kosack ( talk) 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so very, very much. You are absolutely the most amazing person. You could have dumped me at any point, but you never quit and never even yelled at me once - which surely you must have felt like from time to time! If this succeeds, I feel as though it is more due to your work than mine, because I could not have done all of this on my own. You are just wonderful, your work is wonderful, and I am a permanent fan. It would be nice to think I could repay the favor someday, but I know the likelihood of me being able to help you with anything is pretty low, but if you ever need a friend, please count me as one. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
As said in some edit summaries: the opera sidebox which duplicates the navbox, often has a picture of the composer at a "wrong" age, and has no picture related more closely to the opera, is no service to the reader. Could you please NOT restore it for operas mainly edited by VivaVerdi (who is dead so can't object, but before added infoboxes to all Verdi operas) and Voceditenore whose vote is clear? ... while I leave Handel and Offenbach alone, for respect of editor's wishes? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your question: "Why apply that to this one and not to the other?" - this being the opera composer sidebar, the other being the composer navbox: because this has accessibility flaws, and the other is the normal navigation on Wikipedia. I don't mind both in one article, as I have accepted for years, but to deprive readers of the normal and accessible form is not acceptable. Please self-revert your reverts of my reverts. Primefac may be interested. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for editing the article Bagger 288! Sorry about the random image lol.
Ilikememes128 (
talk)
15:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Here As Barbas do Imperador. There was more information in the automated infobox. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
|subject=
is appropriate for non-fiction.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
02:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
|website=Campaign
).
Nikkimaria (
talk)
21:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for processing my Wikipedia Library application. I'm sorry but I realize I applied for the wrong collection: Nature instead of Link. Should I "return" the Nature and make a new application for Link, or is there some other procedure to switch it? Thanks! Levivich harass/ hound 19:36, 13 December 2020 (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)
22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought of both Bach Cantatas Website sources as posts. This is apparently the misunderstanding.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to get consistent, useful cites. User-duck ( talk) 17:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks like you are WP:FOLLOWING my edits and removing the FindaGrave ELs. Why? Because you are an editor who doesn't like findagrave. And it doesn't matter when the site is posted simply as an interesting and useful link for readers. Here is an example [11]. The particular findagrave link is maintained by Findagrave. That is, FAG has active editorial control of the page. Accordingly it is not WP:SPS in the sense that any FAG contributor can change it. Any data that needs changing must be suggested to FAG -- they review those changes. You ignore the fact that some readers who conduct genealogy via FAG. E.g., they can use the website to locate relatives. (And some readers are interested in their famous relatives with WP articles. For example, someone is interested in Ely's children or grandchildren. FAG is a useful tool in this endeavor. But you are obscuring the starting point. Why? Because you simply don't like FAG, and nothing more. Such edits are WP:BATTLEGROUND in nature, inhibit the WP:ENJOYment of editing, and do nothing to improve the quality of WP articles. Please stop. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Question for you. Cokie Roberts is buried at the Congressional Cemetery in Washington DC. I've just added her Find a Grave listing to the EL section. Roberts is listed as a famous person and the listing is managed by Find a Grave. The photos of her gravestone were added by the Historic Congressional Cemetery Archivist. Is it improper to have Roberts' Find a Grave link as an EL on the article page? If improper, then why? And if proper, then why? Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 10:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Because your edit summary said " rm non-RS" at Robert Alter and the source was a dead link, I interpreted the addition in the diff and read it as a removal. I thought I was adding it back with an updated source. Sorry about the confusion. BiologicalMe ( talk) 16:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I just found out you approved my application on the wikipedia library, and then 4 minutes later sent it to partner. What does that mean? How do I log in to get access? Thanks in advance, Ghinga7 ( talk) 22:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC).
Hi Nikkimaria, the ongoing FAR drive that hit Japan will no doubt hit Cameroon soon, which is in a much sorrier state. I noticed you saved it in a 2013 FAR, so I thought I might elicit your opinion on its quality and viability. Personally I feel that it would take quite substantial work to bring it up to current standards, and there's not really anyone looking after it well. Best, CMD ( talk) 12:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
{{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}}
to your friends' talk pages.(Sent: 05:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC))
Hi Here's my source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6MDXQ6KAsY&t
Please watch the whole film, but the specific number is stated at 5:50
I hope we can correct this, if 15,500 aboriginal children were in residential schools in 1977 (cited in the article), a place they would often stay for less than two years. The numbers don't add up. That number only includes children in residential schools for that year, not the hundred years this practice happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.138.5 ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't because all the 'verified' sources are from western newspapers that downplay the numbers massively. You only have to look at the history to know that that number of 20k does not match the hundred-and-fifty years these schools operated.
/info/en/?search=List_of_Indian_residential_schools_in_Canada
There must be something you can do in terms of separating the official number published by the government and the supposed true extent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.138.5 ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I have seen that you have changed the correct access-date
in multiple articles to the older format of accessdate
. That is the same with archive-date
and archive-url
. Unless I'm mistaken, a quick review of {{
Cite web}} will support that claim. Also, it is considered rude to revert without notify the editor.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|editor-last=
for full names and in some cases multiple names.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
20:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|editor-last=
for full names, which is an error.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays | ||
Dear Nikkimaria, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy".
|
Season's greetings! | |
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2021 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive.... Modernist ( talk) 15:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
Natalis soli invicto! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of your recent boldly stated, well reasoned and stalwart comments at FAC. They are noted and appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hello, thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia nice. We appreciate your effort, but you are unnecessarily flagging David Salzman's page. There are a sufficient number of citations; IMDb is one of twenty-five sources. A. Julian 23:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, but I am only citing IMDb when I am referring to his role in the production of movies.A. Julian 01:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
IMDb is considered credible when referring to movie credits. I had many other sources supporting other aspects of his life. A. Julian 01:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC) IndyBoy IndianaBoy33 ( talk) 01:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
IMDb is niche and known to be reliable in the entertainment industry. Please stop. A. Julian 01:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
The way I used IMDb was appropriate. I used it as "a tertiary source for hard data on released films." Because of this fact, I am allowed to cite IMDb when referring to movie credits. Also, I added in even more citations to back up the article. I did what you asked, so I hope you now find this satisfactory. I understand you want to keep Wikipedia great, but the page should definitely not be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you actually read the articles cited before you flag pages. Everything cited supports the page. A. Julian 18:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
Is that all? You could have been more direct. A. Julian 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
You clearly did not read the source because it says, "Salzman grew up in the Flatbush section of Broklyn, N.Y., a few blocks from the baseball sandlot known as the Parade Grounds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history " Military Historian of the Year" and " Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Gottlob! nun geht das Jahr zu Ende is quite a good private comment, - perhaps I should not have made more of it. I confused two cantatas, one that I just heard - Ich freue mich in dir, BWV 133 - and this one to come today (31 December already where I live). I wanted to expand both, but better stick with one. Wishing you a good 2021, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
This is enough. You have effectively ruined David Salzman’s page. You should be ashamed. A. Julian 01:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
Leave his page alone. A. Julian 02:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
This is the last time I tell you. I went through everything you noted, and I added additional citations. Leave me and the page alone; this is embarrassing. I have been so nice, and you have turned out to be the most disrespectful editor I have ever encountered. I am not trying to shame you here, but your behavior is not okay. Edit other pages, and leave it up to me to fix the page if an actual problem arises. Happy New Year. Goodbye. A. Julian 18:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you look through my new citations? You have my word that they covered each problem. Can we just move on from this? I will keep fixing the page, but it will not work if you keep interfering. Thank you. A. Julian 18:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
Talk page stalker: User:A.JulianEditor take your issues to article talk. And please avoid the kind of personalizing and WP:BATTLEGROUND statements you have made above. You will find that Nikkimaria is quite experienced in evaluating sourcing and source-to-text integrity, so I suggest that you try to understand instead of insulting. Watchlisting the article; if you again add text that is not supported by a source, it will be problematic. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria
I wish you a Happy 2021 (while it's still January...).
Thank you for processing and approving my application to use Sabinet (via the Wikipedia Library System) on Dec. 6/7, 2020.
The message I've received on December 7, said:
I'm quite new to the application process, assuming the above is just the ordinary standard message.
But then everything fell silent (I've also checked my Spam-box). Fair enough, I assumed, it was December, after all.
Therefore I have a few questions. I've only read Wikiproject:Sabinet today, and the following sentence struck me:
At this moment, the 20 "slots" are already filled, [according to the page https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/50/].
So, just for clarity, I'm now officially on a waiting list? Meaning the moment someone's 'time window' expires during 2021 and becomes open again, the next Wikipedian on the list 'fills' it? And then you will receive the necessary access details, etc. etc.?
I don't mind waiting my turn at all, I'm just unsure about the procedures (or if I skipped a vital page of reference). And whether the access details were already sent to me, etc. There could be a thousand reasons, perhaps an error from my side. Or those of the partnership(s).
And moving on with the process, after your time has expired and you are planning to renew your 'membership', it means it's back to the application form once more?
That's quite a lot of questions, but thank you for your patience. Suidpunt ( talk) 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 is {{ in use}}, please respect that. Tx. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Please discontinue your massive content deletions at the BWV 53 article. If you think something should be removed, please take it piecemeal, explaining each step. Please remember:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria! I noticed your edit here and was wondering if you could explain what the alt text and genre removal was about. Checked the infobox documentation but can't work it out. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk) 19:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
|genre=
is used for fiction, and this work is non-fiction. As for alt, it would probably be better to replace it with a more extensive description, but I don't think simply repeating the title is likely to be useful.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
[for non-decorative images,] the only situation where blank alt
text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked
. But after re-reading the policy, I agree that a description of the front cover is ideal here, so I've had a go—is this broadly what you imagined? —
Bilorv (
talk)
22:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
|
|
Hi, Nikimaria; in [], you used the term "disinformation", but I am unable to determine to what it referred. As I'm more opposed to disinformatsiya than most (particularly on Wikipedia), I'd be gratified if you would provide me with your meaning of the term in that context. Many thanks, -- Quisqualis ( talk) 15:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, why were edits about the British folk revival reverted in the page linked above? Certainly mentioning in passing the artists that recorded ballads about the subject is significant in the context of the section of the article that talks about Turpin's cultural legacy. The source given is very interesting IMO and the article benefits from it, so i wanted to know how to better represent notability? YuriNikolai ( talk) 12:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that - please also see the revision history of .950 JDJ where the same editor did the same thing and got snippy in edit summaries upon being reverted. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If you have the time, could you give a source review (a spot check has already been done) on Paper Mario: The Origami King? It's getting really close to promotion at this point. Le Panini [🥪] 15:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Stumbled across Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 – had no idea it existed. Thank you for a fantastic, interesting and unique article! - Aza24 ( talk) 21:09, 14 January 2021 (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)
00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, wanted to ask about this edit on Arthur C. Neville. This is maybe the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen someone delete Template:Find a Grave from an article in the last couple weeks -- is there some guidance I'm missing? What's the point of the deletion? -- Asdasdasdff ( talk) 04:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my edit [12] regarding Peter Sellers and Melvyn Douglas regarding it's "significance". The instance of meeting Sellers in Burma during WWII is mentioned in both the page for: Melvyn Douglas#Career and in Being There#Filming. Coincidence? Yes. Insignificant? No. It's not merely a piece of trivia but something Douglas and Sellers purportedly bonded over during the filming of Being There, and as it exists in the other two pages I deemed it worthy of mentioning in Sellers' article. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 17:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW, the title of these journals isn't "English Journal/Journal Français", but rather either "English Journal" or "Journal Français". Databases like PROJECT MUSE will display a combined title because they want to show it can be cited as either and generate citations with the combined title because they don't know if they are being cited in French or in English, or simply don't bother choosing which of the two titles to use.
Case in point, if you go at the bottom of the first page of that article, you'll see
And not
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Listed separately, as two distinct titles, one in English, the other in French. This is no different than listing the date on the website as "Fall/automne 2014". In French you would say Automne 2014. In English you would say Fall 2004. Same for listing number/numéro 3. In English you say "number 3", in French you say "numéro 3". Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm the only keep vote but even I read the discussion as consensus to delist. (courtesy ping: User:Casliber). DrKay ( talk) 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I cannot locate the page where we have guidance on sentence vs title case in titles on citations ... cluestick? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikki, the citation cleanup at Wii is proving to be quite a chore, and I need more guidance re things that have been fiddled with in the templates since the days when I used to do extensive citation cleanup at FAR. Wii has a nasty mess of one of everything (missing authors, missing dates, wrong titles, partially linked publishers), but the worst of the mess is a mixture of work= , publisher= , website= and even others, almost none of which are correctly italicized. Rather than approach it as I have been (editing every single citation), I will need to do some of it globally. So, it is clear I can switch all instances of The New York Times, for example, to work= to render italics. Ditto for The Guardian. Both are hard print sources. I believe I switch all instances of BBC News (some of which are listed incorrectly as just BBC) to publisher= as it is not a hard print source and should not be italicized. I will have to check everything that looks like a magazine to see if it is a magazine or a website, that is, whether to use work= or publisher= for italics. Then we get into websites. Engadget is a website. Why do the cite templates italicize websites? To switch it to non-italics, I guess I have to switch website= to publisher= and that solves that. But then it gets tricky with things like Eurogamer. Eurogamer is a website, just like Engadget. So why is our article italicized while Engadget is not? There are issues like this everywhere. This work is going to be horrid; I am looking for a way to search on each source used multiple times and fix them all at once. Advice? @ ImaginesTigers and Panini!: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Masem: let's all get on the same page before continuing ... sorry I didn't ping you in here, Masem ... Panini, I am willing to do all of this in a coordinated fashion, so let's get sorted first. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope it is clear now why I am done rubbing elbows with MOS warriors. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there,
An editor keeps removing sourced content on the Moorgate tube crash article, and I don't think they are right to as the information is sourced to the Me, My Dad & Moorgate documentary. I've seen you've edited on the page recently, could you perhaps give me an indication of whether the info is okay to be there or not? 217.137.43.61 ( talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria, I understand that Find a Grave does not require references, and it is not considered a reliable source for information, but a high percentage of deceased twentieth-century entertainers have Find a Grave in the list of External links, so I thought that it was acceptable to include such a link. (Just now I looked at articles for the first 10 deceased performers I could think of, and 50% had a Find a Grave link.)
When I created the new article Jack Prince (singer) I knew that I could not find a photograph of him that would be without copyright restrictions, and so my thinking was that providing a link to Find a Grave would also provide a link to a photograph of him. I understand that no article "belongs" to me, and other editors are free to change anything they feel needs changing. I do not want to obtain a reputation as a troublesome editor, and so I will make no further attempts to attach External links to above-named article. Karenthewriter ( talk) 03:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'm confused by your reply, for I said I will make no further attempts to attach External links to the article. If others wish to expand the article they are free to do so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karenthewriter Karenthewriter ( talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nikkimaria, I hope you are well. I have just finished copyediting The Fables (band), and was made uncomfortable by its closeness to a Canadian Bands source I found—said source had not been included in the references, though it is now. I have done my best to put things in my own words, but I'd like someone who is not familiar with the article to take a look and make sure there is no close paraphrasing remaining. (Not that I'm all that familiar with it: I knew nothing about the band before I started my copyedit.)
Thanks for anything you can do (and there's no rush): if further editing is required, I'll be happy to do it, but right now I'm just not seeing any issues. (If you can point out all that remains to address, if anything, I'd appreciate it; if it's a quick fix, by all means do it yourself rather than have to type out instructions that would take you longer.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mathsci Iban violation. Thank you. You aren't really involved in any way, but I'm notifying you as I mentioned you because Mathsci mentioned you in their defence on their talk page. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah a minute after I removed that, I realized something's weird with the metismuseum PDFs. Once you look at one, any others I followed the link to seemed to only load the original, even when I directly copy/pasted the URL in my browser. So I was looking at a totally different PDF even though my browser was showing the URL to the correct one. Super weird. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I began a discussion on project opera. The image of old Handel on Rinaldo is misleading. That article is supposed to show our best content. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
happy Valentine's! - As for BWV 1, I don't expect major changes. Heard BWV 159 today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
"This wasn't the standard when it was promoted" - sure, because it wasn't even a possibility in 2009. The template infobox opera was created in 2013, Brianboulton approached me using it that same year (for L'Arianna). It is the standard in Carmen, the Monteverdi operas (featured topic), The Bartered Bride, Nixon in China, all while he was alive. Please revert your revert, or we really discuss. You probably know that I asked all arbitration candidates the same question.
Also: this was the promoted version, and yours also differs from it. But please please please lets not return to that old thing. This is 2021. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This goes for Agrippina (opera) and Rinaldo (opera). A discussion will be on project opera, if necessary. I hope not. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Could I possibly trouble you for an image review for Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, so it can be put to bed? Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
<blush>I guess I forgot to scroll down far enough to see it! Thanks for checking anyway.</blush>-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I was hoping you could take a look at this nomination and assess its status with regard to close paraphrasing. I had found, within the Aftermath section, some overly close paraphrasing with regard to the NRHP source, and while there have been some edits in this regard, I think it's best if you cast your eagle eye over it and determine the current level of problem. I did tag the article with the close paraphrasing template; if it's no longer needed, please feel free to remove the template. If there are problems, and the recent edits did not adequately address them, it may be time for me to mark the nomination for closure. Thank you very much as always for your help at DYK. (I just closed the Iris article that I last asked your help on; the nominator never came back to address the sourcing and paraphrasing issues.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
|
Nikkimaria, I just found some close paraphrasing in the article's Recordings section's second paragraph, and given that close paraphrasing was also found earlier in the review process, I was hoping you could take a look and see if I found the last of it, or if there are more instances. Many thanks. I apologize for messing up the ping from the DYK nomination page; my finger stayed on the Shift key a little too long. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I am getting Bath School disaster ready for possible submission as a Featured Article. I have been doing deep-diving on the sources (boy those copyright volumes are so much fun to read! lol) and on the photographs in the article. My tentative conclusion is that the one book source M.J. Ellsworth's Bath School Disaster (published in 1927 but there is no record of the copyright being renewed) is public domain and almost all of the photographs (all of the photos in Ellsworth's book plus all of the newspaper/National Editorial Association/Associated Press photos) are public domain. I can find no record of Ellsworth's copyright being renewed or of the newspaper photo copyrights being renewed in 1954/1955/1956. For the pertinent discussions I'll refer you to a discussion at Media copyright and to the article's talk page Talk:Bath School disaster especially here. If you can take a look that would be awesome, thanks in advance. Shearonink ( talk) 17:21, 20 February 2020 (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)
13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your great work on editing the page.
But I didn't understand , why did you delete the link? because under the second picture is the text about the group ("Other honourable mentions for Friday also have to go to Slash, still the coolest guy in rock, and London-based Neonfly who performed early on the acoustic stage."). The acoustic stage called the Jägermeister Acoustic stage. This is very importent for the band and Dailymail is one of the famous newspapers in UK.
If you think this is possible, then return the link back, please. Maybe it can be put after the words: "a memorable performance.."
Thank you for spending your time on us!
-- Yulia Markhutova ( talk) 07:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria!
I've seen your source. It fits well. Thanks a lot! -- Yulia Markhutova ( talk) 18:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi Nikkimaria. I'm not sure if you're stalking my edits, or all uses of Wikidata Infobox, but I see that you convert them to the standard infoboxes within a day of them being added. You convert them quite nicely (and thank you for taking the time to do that, rather than just removing them), but I find it makes the infoboxes more difficult to expand. Mostly it doesn't matter as I've finished working on the article by then, but in the case of Playa de Las Teresitas it's taking me a bit longer. Any chance you could wait a day or so longer before converting them, if you must, please? (Also, in that case, the date of opening was removed from the infobox, I'm not sure why.) Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
since you did comment on this later withdrawn FAC I wanted to notify you that I've renominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Hello Nikkimaria, please see Order's Talk page before once again removing sourced content without cause or consensus. Ortolan57 ( talk) 15:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Following up to ask why the "Notable Covers" update to Ya Got Trouble made on Feb 19 2020 was removed by you on Feb 22 2020. The explanation that you left behind was "non-RS". Interestingly there were nine items in this section; only four are actual covers, while five are noted parodies of the original material, yet only a single parody was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1010:8976:B480:729F:A480:B266 ( talk) 05:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
Thank you for editing my page. I don’t think I have written so much since I left school, I am not sure I wrote that much when I was at school. I would like to put back part of one of your edits as it was something one of the local historians mentioned to me when I was visiting the library. “This is not about the Kings, Queens and Dukes that gave their names to the area, but about the Miss King's, Miss Dollman's and Mr Lathbury's that shaped where we live.“ There is another change “so you can continue the journey to The Vale a long time after the river disappeared. “ I’d like to put back, but references the wider area and not the area included in the article, so doesn’t change the article if it’s not included.
I also noticed you removed one of my photos, was this removed because of a size issue or for another reason. If I resize the photo can I put it back in the article?
As you may have guessed this is my first wiki article, I have referenced a few books that I haven’t directly quoted from. To save me searching all the help pages can you let me know the code to add these books as my references please.
Many thanks
Colin Colin Potter 20 ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
|
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barrett Brown (wrestler) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrett Brown (wrestler) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sismarinho ( talk) 05:54, 12 March 2020 (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)
01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stop breaking the references on Sylvia Rose Ashby. You’ve done this twice now. - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 08:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could check this one for close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc. It had earlier been noted as having issues in the review, and the most recent review cites an Earwig link as evidence of continuing issues, though I'm not seeing any red flags when checking the first few results. Can you please see what there is to find, and note issues (or lack thereof) on the review? It's been stalled for a while now. Many thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, I just wanted to apologise for my behaviour the other day. I think I was having a depressive episode, so I was highly sensitive to everything. I'm saying this as an explanation, not an excuse as I am ultimately responsible for my actions. But I wanted to say sorry to you as I think I was rude and not terribly reasonable. Thank you for your work on Women in Red, I'm trying hard to get our articles up to speed and filling in the blanks as fast as I can! Your help is really valuable. - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 10:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi Nikkimaria, Tenryuu from Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. A fellow collaborator, Puddleglum2.0, is looking for editors to answer some interview questions regarding editing and COVID-19. If you're interested, please leave your thoughts over at User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR. Cheers! -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
File:Kentucky Mounted Militia Battle Of Raisin River Frenchtown In 1813 War Of 1812.jpg has an incorrect File name but I don't seem to be able to fix it.
A couple of things:
Anyway you're an image expert so I figured you're probably able to move/change the file name. If you can't move it or aren't interested, that's cool. Just leave me a note here and I'll try asking elsewhere. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
... for improving Jessye Norman's article by pointing out the copyvio, borrowing her smile -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 21 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC) |
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring accessibility for Rita (opera), and even improving it. Please do the same in the other cases, sparing me to break my vision 2020 resolutions. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
If we'd take World War II as a model, we'd have infobox first, then sidebar, right?Yes, as is done with Pelléas et Mélisande (opera).
Sorry also for not specifically mentioning that in the context of the Composer sidebar I talk about opera only. Sure, there are precedents there too, for example Armide (Lully) or Tolomeo. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
If you think, Pelléas works, why are the others different?As per your post above with regards to respecting author preferences. With regards to proposing a project discussion... what do you feel needs proposing? I don't see anything unprecedented. The sidebars with option to expand have existed for a long time, as shown at Armide and Tolomeo so has the idea of sidebar with picture underneath, as shown at Octavia (opera) so has infobox+sidebar. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Can you just make me understand why you put time and energy in defending and keeping alive a feature that is clearly redundant? (... while the parallel in World War II is about something different, - an analogy for opera would by a sidebar with operatic terms such as act / baritone / libretto ...) - I believe that discussion on a broader level would be needed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikki can you please see if I referenced this YouTube video properly? It was showing many options. Here is my edit /info/en/?search=Old_Time_Rock_and_Roll
Here are the ways it says you can do it. /info/en/?search=Template:YouTube/sandbox
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
|id=
and |title=
, as I've done
here. However, the existence of the YouTube video isn't enough to include the mention because it doesn't demonstrate that it's significant to the subject - see
this discussion.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
17:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Thank you. I had googled how to reference YouTube as I've not done that before. It wasn't showing one like that with the ID. I was able to get the article to go to the YouTube video however by clicking on the link in the Old Time Rock and Roll page Wifey93 ( talk) 09:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
How can grave of his father and paper written by Chuck Norris himself were he tells that his mother will be 99 on 4 May 2020 be unreliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Well at least that I can accept as an fact. But one day when she dies I will add her. Many actors and actresses have their parents dates of DOB and DOD on their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
I created an account on Newspapers for my email address as instructed on 26 March, but I have yet to hear anything since. I commented on my application, but not sure if it got lost. Thanks! PotentPotables ( talk) 02:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
|
Unless you find credible sources per Wp:PW/RS for this article you created and appear to be promoting, the unreliable source tags stay. Dilbaggg ( talk) 14:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, there were a number of passages in the article that Yoninah identified as having been copied from the sources. The nominator has said that the issue has been addressed; can you please check to make sure that indeed no more copyvio or close paraphrasing exists? Thank you very much; I hope you're having a good holiday weekend. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The connection between the Women's Championship (Original Version) and the women's world championship can not be found under any WP:RY, and fails WP:V, thus it is worth mentioning that there is no link between the two and I will report you next time you keep using wp:or terms, the sources in Cora Livingston claims her as just women's champion not women's world champion. Stop pushing personal POV. Dilbaggg ( talk) 21:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Lula_Mae_Hardaway
In this one I noticed the person had plagiarized rather than just showing the reference so revised it Wifey93 ( talk) 09:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Here, I am copying the entire Talk:Josephine Blatt talk page discussion to you:
Yes she may have been the first female champion in the 1890s, but not the first wrestling champion, one of the many early wrestling titles include the American Heavyweight Championship first won by Edwin Bibby in 1881. [1] There are even earlier titles than that. Dilbaggg ( talk) 10:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Look at the 1905 world title and 1881 heavyweight title, they have Ney Work Times edition publishing news of the title victory from 1905 and 1881 respectively: [2], [3] pure WP:V for thenm, while this so called women's championship only has modern day blogs for source, and those aren't even WP:PW/RS and make dubious claims. There are even older wrestling titles before 1881: World Greco-Roman Heavyweight Championship is from 1875, any source that claims Josi's title if at all it existed is the first recognized title, its totally dubious !
User:Nikkimaria is known for the propaganda pushing povs, she even uses unreliable sources, like once she used the pre 2013 bleacher report despite clear instruction to refrain from it on WP:PW/RS, such desperate editors are unsafe for the community ! Here is a prove of her relying on forbidden sources to push her personal pov [4] ! Dilbaggg ( talk) 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
or: the resurrection of loving-kindness -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Nikki - it's been a while since we've communicated. I can't remember who told me quite a while back to capitalize titles in books and newspapers even if the source didn't - and for some reason, I'm thinking it may have been you. If so, does that still hold true? If not, what are your thoughts about it? Atsme Talk 📧 01:56, 13 April 2020 (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)
05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, I noticed you removed the "Cultural References" section to the Nancy Drew page. Was this due to the ones listed not possessing references or pages of these types no longer containing sections of the sort? -- H. Roosevelt ( talk) 05:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
ir? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
It may not be necessary, but I just wanted to say thank you for approving my most recent Wikipedia Library application, as you did for my previous ones. I'm so excited to have access to this latest resource! Have a great day, Moisejp ( talk) 17:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
There must be a gremlin at play. I am utterly confused how I can be adding something when I thought I was deleting it. It was my intention to delete the non-notable parents - I'm sure I saw them there earlier. I think I need to get out and get some air...oh, I cant. Cassianto Talk 23:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
From the article on Lee Fierro, you recently removed the statement "and was survived by five children, seven grand-children and seven great-grandchildren" ( diff). You also removed the link to an article that made that statement. So I'm curious about your reasoning for removing that material. Not disagreeing, just curious. Your edit line said "doc," but that claim was indeed documented in the linked article. If it's not a documentation issue, but a stylistic issue of some sort, would you disagree some of that material could be put earlier in the article? Many bios, for example, mention that people have had children (giving names would be preferable, but giving a number would also seem appropriate if names are not available). I'll look for your reply here since my opinions are unformed, I'm merely curious. Thanks. -- Presearch ( talk) 06:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
That is a beautiful image of a book on the main page, and I see that you were the one who nominated the article at Wikipedia:FAC. Thank you. ↠Pine (✉) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I saw that you removed the Find a Grave external link on the Madame CJ Walker article and did not provide a reason. I and other editors have been watching the page closely due to recent increased interest in Walker and associated vandalism. The memorial is managed by Find a Grave and I don't see anything inaccurate about it. Do you? Do you have a reason for removing this link template? DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 20:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
@ Nikkimaria: It appears as though you have a stalker reverting all your recent edits for no reason. I have placed a message to WP:ANI about it, so feel free to comment there. Tknifton ( talk) 20:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria,
With regards to the recent edit on the Neverwinter Nights 2 page, thank you for providing the link to Wikipedia's policy on external links. This helped me to understand why the link I added previously had been removed several times, often with minimal to no explanation. However, after reviewing Wikipedia's policy on this matter, I believe the external link I provided is appropriate and compliant with the policy.
In particular, the NWN2 wiki appears to comply with section 12., which provides for exceptions of links to normally be avoided (in this case, an external wiki). Section 12 precludes "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." I believe the NWN2 qualifies as a wiki with:
I believe the NWN2 wiki meets the above two criteria as evidenced by the following:
In light of the above, I believe the NWN2 Wiki complies with Wikipedia's policy on external wikis and hope you will see fit to leave this external link in place.
I am happy to discuss further and, if you decide it has to be removed, I will respect the decision and not get into an edit war. This was not my intention, and I apologize for appearances of doing so.
Respectfully submitted, Raelind ( talk) 05:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, As your FA review on the article suggested, I have been attempting to paraphrase certain problematic sections of the article so that it does not constitute as plagiarism. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and let me know if there are any sentences or sections that still need to be adjusted.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, though it is rather difficult sifting through all the sources to see if I did it right (or wrong). In terms of access to the sources which ones did you need?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC) @ Nikkimaria: I thought I would explain my whole process here just to give a better understanding of my whole definition when I say "paraphrasing". Essentially, I am looking at the original quoted and explaining it in terms of what the author meant, with short blurbs in quotations where I am directly using the original author's quote. Hopefully, this is right.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 21:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria! I am working on Category:Wikipedia articles containing unlinked shortened footnotes. I am active in converting unlinked shortened footnotes into something more useful, & plan on training other to do this as well. If you are unacquainted with the power of this, I invite you to examine the Icarians & Oneida Community articles. This is a hidden category & thus not available to readers unless they have the option to turn hidden categories.
In the future, if you have questions about edits that I make that are invisible to the typical user, please ping me first.
Peaceray ( talk) 22:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you know how to go about letting a copyright holder release an image under commons cc; i have told them that they will no longer own it, and will be uploading on their behalf. Article is here. Txs. Ceoil ( talk) 01:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Ceoil, yep, the email and tag you need are at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Nikkimaria. You were kind enough to do a spotcheck for the Meghan Trainor article here. Following which I have worked on the article a bit more and plan on taking it through another FAC. However, the FAC coords tend to be extremely strict and archive my nominations fairly quickly. If possible, I could really use a full source review at the PR page so I get enough time to work on all your comments. It would be very appreciated.-- N Ø 14:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not sure how to know if my Wikipedia library card access to JSTOR is working, do I have to do something on either accounts to enable it? I was trying to access this article which I believe Wikipedia covers access to since I don't think it's part of JSTOR books? Also, about JSTOR books, it seems that the voting page for new library card resources lists JSTOR books with twice with different links, so these votes can probably combined. Thanks, Aza24 ( talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
|
I'm confused by this edit. Why did you remove a valid parameter with information that is sourced in the article? A more detailed edit summary might help. What does "doc" mean? Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 01:29, 14 May 2020 (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)
15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 22:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria,
Thank you for having approved my application for access to JSTOR via the Wikipedia Library card platform.
With all best regards,
Shams lnm ( talk) 23:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the picture that I added of Pascal Langdale correct cause I don't think so.@ NikkiMaria: Pixel Lupus ( talk) 11:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Pascal Langdaleher check please. Pixel Lupus ( talk) 13:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: Pixel Lupus ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Thank you for reviewing the images on the Article Stockport County F.C. Right now it looks like you are seeking clarification on 4 images
As mentioned these are all from the Stockport Image Archive. There are Images on the website with a Y next to the copyright point - the 4 images in question have an N next to their copyright point. The Stockport Image archive states- "© Copyright. Unless otherwise stated, the copyright, database rights and similar rights in all material published on this site are owned by Stockport Library and Information Service, Stockport Council."
So going off this, the images on the Image archive are copyright images if they have a Y next to them and are not if they have an N. I don't think these images were ever published in the United States so I don't think they would come under U.S copyright law and if they did then I would be unsure what they would come under.
I'd be happy to change the copyright status of the images but as I have mentioned I'm unsure what to tag them as going off the guidelines and tag on this page Wikipedia:File copyright tags
Thanks, Wna247 ( talk) 17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
For the Wycliffe Congregational Church photo the Photographer is listed and has been credited as the Author on commons along with the date the photo was taken. For the fire at Edgeley Park photos the Image date is said to be unknown and the photographer is unknown - however the fire was on 23 July 1935 so it can be assumed this is when the image was from give or take a couple of days, but no publishing information is given. For the championship shield photo the Date is given as 28 May 1937 and the photographer is listed as Stockport Advertiser Newspaper so it can be assumed that the image was published in the newspaper on or around that time. Finally the team photograph is dated 1957 with the Photographer listed as Stockport Express so again it can be assumed this image was published. The image does say it from the start of the season, this would have been late August 1957 in this case.
Other than this information I have given you and the Copyright information as provided above in an earlier message, there is nothing else on the website that states anything about copyright ownership of the images in the archive. Hope some of this is useful Wna247 ( talk) 18:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Bit of an update on this after speaking to one of the Libraries and Archives team this is what I got back "At Stockport Heritage library where possible everything accepted into the collection has the copyrights handed over at the point of donation, to prevent problems of untraceable rights holders arising in the future." I was also told that the archive is made up of council works (E.g the newspapers) and donations (e.g the wycliffe church photo) I was told none of the works were published internationally, only locally. Any photos created before June 1957 by council works would have expired copyright 50 years after first publication. Any donations with Y next to the copyright means that the work is still covered by copyright while donations with a N means they have given up all copyright. Unsure if I can post external links but I was sent this link to the chart that the libraries use to work out copyright - https://aranewprofessionals.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/hayley-4.png Will try to get more information if needed Wna247 ( talk) 13:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I have changed them but they might still be wrong or need more information so I will change/clarify if needed. Just so you are aware though the Stockport Advertiser dates back to at least 1842 (there are pages from this year on the British Newspaper Archive). The Stockport Express came around in 1953 before the two papers merged in 1981 to be known as the Stockport Express Advertiser (later shortened to Stockport Express in 1999) The Stockport Express was known as the County Express (a series of newspapers covering Manchester and Cheshire with the Stockport Edition available to Stockport residents) from 1959 until 1961. So with that the Stockport Advertiser is out of publication while the Stockport Express is still in publication but in a different form to its 1953-1959 counterpart. Wna247 ( talk) 23:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I might replace the image we are currently looking for copyright tags for all the tags in the comprehensive list you sent me for the USA say for example "first published" The images have not published in the USA and as I don't live in America I wouldn't know its copyright status in that country. All I know what what the Libraries and Archieve team have told me. Just want to check over these before adding to the article:
/info/en/?search=File:The_Railway_End_of_Edgeley_Park,_Stockport,_during_a_match_in_1994.jpg - Covered by CC BY-SA 2.0 License
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stockport_County_defend_against_Cheltenham_Town,_2011.jpg - This image is under the same license as the image above but commons doesn't seem to like it , would I be better uploading to Wikipedia directly (like the image above) or not at all? EDIT- Original flickr link - https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurencehorton/5698885611/in/photostream/, on the page if you click on some rights reserved it takes you to this page https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Wharton_c1896.jpg - Not uploaded by myself - But may use this image in the Stockport county article as the person pictured did play for the team in 1901. This image is tagged as public domain PD-1923 and Anonymous-EU EDIT - Images source shows getty images and here is the info from that site Date created: 01 January, 1896 Licence type: Rights-managed - https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula#RM Release info: Not released - https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/unreleased-imagery
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1910_Cheshire_ordnance_survey_map_showing_Edgeley_Park_(cropped).jpg - Ordnance survey map as mentioned above, hopefully I have tagged if correctly based on what was displayed on the website. This is the only image of the 4 I have added to the article. Wna247 ( talk) 18:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
No Worries thanks for clearing that up - As picture 2 has been deleted I won't re-upload it. I didn't upload picture 3 and have sent you all the information the source link contains so I cannot be sure when it was published (but again on the source website it says not published), that picture is used on that persons wiki page so I just wanted to run it by you before using it on another page. Picture 4 ordnance survey I have tagged as such and it was published in 1910 so that should be fine as you say. You haven't mentioned anything about picture 1 so I assume that is all ok.
Going back to my original images:
• File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg: the UK tag requires you to provide information about steps taken to ascertain authorship, and to know US status we need to know when/if this was published. If that can't be determined this would likely be considered non-free.
The image was published in the United Kingdom but the photographer and Image date is said to be unknown. But we can gather it was taken on or around 23 July 1935 as that’s when the fire was. And likely to be published in the local newspaper on 24 or 25 July 1935 as that is when the local weekly newspaper was released in the United Kingdom. .– According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date
Possibly "Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.
• File:Stockport_County_receiving_the_Championship_Shield_in_1937.jpg: based on the diagram this may be PD but needs different tagging for sure.
"PD-release"
"PD-US-unpublished"
"PD-anon-60-1996"
"PD-posthumous-50"
Any of these seem relevant as the image was published in the Stockport Advertiser Newspaper on 28 May 1937 in the United Kingdom. – According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date.
"Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.
• File:Stockport_County_Football_Team_1957.jpg: probably not PD in the US based on possible publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
"Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.
This image was can be assumed published in late August 1957, the Photographer listed as Stockport Express. It can be assumed then that this was published in the Stockport Express newspaper in the United Kingdom on or around that time.– According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date.
I can't find any more information of the United States publishing of these images if the archive team have told me that the Images were never published in the United States.
For the Wycliffe Church photo I have added a bit more information to the photos page but I could go and take a photo of it myself and upload it as own work if the information I have put onto the photo page is not enough.
Thanks, Wna247 ( talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
but again on the source website it says not publishedNo, it says not released, which in this case appears to be a model release.
likely to be published in the local newspaper on 24 or 25 July 1935Can this be confirmed?
This image was can be assumed published in late August 1957... copyright expired after 50 yearsIn the UK. But 1957 + 50 would be after 1996 so likely still copyrighted in the US.
OK Still unsure on how an image can be copyrighted in the United states, when it was never published or released in that country (which I have been told by the Stockport Images and archives team) when its Copyright has expired in the UK
I would like to use the 1937 shield photo and/or the fire photo but would be happy to remove the team photo from 1957 due to the copyright.
At the moment I can only speak to the archives team over email but will be able to visit the library and see the archive myself once they re-open - at that point I should be able to confirm that date of the newspaper publications in 1935 and 1937, but that might not be fore a couple of weeks yet.
Can remove them from the article for now then add back in later once I can get all copyrights/publication dates etc. confirmed. If I can.
So the main Stockport county will have the following images in there after the next round of FAC edits:
File:Stockport County FC logo.svg - The clubs logo. Text is yellow on the website but blue on the sourced Document. Yellow is the official colour but the blue version is used on white backgrounds.
File:Wycliffe Congregational Church, Heaton Norris.jpg - I have given all the information I know on this image but I can now go and take a picture of this building myself and re upload. so then it will be tagged as my own work and therefore I'd give up rights to it via CC.
File:1910 Cheshire ordnance survey map showing Edgeley Park (cropped).jpg - Ordnance survey from 1910
File:Stockport County FC League Performance.svg - a version of this file is on most football clubs pages (differs depending on club of course) is tagged as an own work and updated yearly.
File:Stockport County Warm Up vs Cambridge.jpg - Is an Image I took at a match,is an own work and tagged as such.
File:Edgeley Park - geograph.org.uk - 763377.jpg - licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. with Attribution Dave Pickersgill
File:Stockport County fans.jpg - not uploaded by me but tagged as and own work under Commons and GNU Free Documentation License
I may later add to the article:
File:Dave_Jones.jpg - Uploaded via flickr via a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
- former manager of the club in the late 1990s (but this image is from 2010 when he was managing Cardiff City).
File:The Railway End of Edgeley Park, Stockport, during a match in 1994.jpg - Uploaded by me, similar to the Geograph.org image above This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License with Attribution
File:WillemIIManchesterUnited1963a (cropped).jpg - This is a picture of David Herd (who is mentioned in the main Stockport County article) scoring a goal later in his career for another club. - Original not uploaded by me but I have cropped it - Original is under the under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. This photo is a maybe, while it does show David Herd (a former Stockport player) in action its from a match between Manchester united and Dutch team Willem II.
I may also upload a photograph I took of a player at a pre-season match a few years ago and like the Warm Up vs Cambridge. will mark it as own work and tagged as commons.
If these are all ok I will go with these in the article and later add the 1937 shield photo and the fire photo if I can verify the copyright status with the library and archives team but as I said that might be a few weeks yet and don't want to delay the FAC of the article if it ends up coming down to image copyrights. A simple Yes or No for the above images will be fine. Wna247 ( talk) 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
You have removed a Wikidata template from Jean François Denis de Keredern de Trobriand, and I restored it only after adding another source to the Wikidata Q-Item. The source in question is a semi-official webpage of the École navale (the French naval academy). I would appreciate if you did not keep removing it without explaining clearly what it is you thing is lacking about these sources. I understand that you did not like the website from which the portrait comes from, but as it is you are refusing to believe any textual information from that website, while accepting that the portrait is indeed a portrait of the subject of the article, and that is just confusing. Rama ( talk) 20:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Stop removing information as you did on Rhoda Montemayor. Or else you might get further blocked. DustEchos( DustEchos|talk) 12:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC) DustEchos ( talk) 18:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria,
Thank you for taking interest in my major project of whipping the Elizabeth Cosson article into shape (given the collection of dead links, outdated and incorrect information, and rather clunky writing it had). It is a mammoth task and even though I’ve been spending eight hours a night on it (it’s my second major project as a registered contributor [although I’ve been a guest contributor for some time now], after rewriting and improving Nursing Service Cross) there is still much work to do.
I would encourage you to please abide by WP:RVREASONS when making anything other than minor edits. One word or blank edit summary reasons, for anything other than a minor edit, are contrary to WP:RVREASONS. It is good practice, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to discuss significant changes on the Talk page, to recent edits before hitting the publish button. Because I don’t have any understanding of your reasons, and the removal wasn’t a minor edit, I’ve temporarily rolled back your changes for now.
As this article is undergoing a major re-write, and is still a work in progress, it is preferred contributions by other editors are held off on until 2 June 2020, unless there is an urgent compelling reason to do so (emergency edit) [I’d prefer review is on the finished product as reasons for content may not be clear without looking at the whole]. But if you have time to explain your reasons for each individual removal, my metaphysical door is always open and my welcome mat is out. Thanks for taking the time to drop by for a lighting visit and I look forward to taking the time to talk together. Kangaresearch ( talk) 05:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, please be responsible and follow WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. It’s important for all Wikipedians to adhere to WP:5P4. I draw your attention to the following [6]. I have rolled back your changes temporarily again until you follow Wikipedia policy and discuss them first as they are now clearly contentious. I have asked you to discuss in accordance with WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Please discuss IAW WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Kangaresearch ( talk) 14:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for showing some restraint (after getting a bit hot), and I am sorry if you felt changing the new subheading you added without any discussion was harmful to your feelings (I’m just trying to keep the open subsections in alphabetic order for ease of navigation, which changed when it became C after I). And while it appears you feel differently, the change of the title field in the info-box (remembering the info-box is only were I was up to when you dropped in) to lower case is the primary concern of case change - these should be uncontentious things in normal circumstances but I acknowledge your sensitivities. I am glad it didn’t devolve to the farce of earlier though, before we put a line under it (I mean subheadings on a talk page, not exactly the fields of Flanders). As mentioned let us try to be productive, after all, all activity is on the talk page now, not the article (which doesn’t progress us far). I feel like (now) I just get you in bad moments sometimes, as at times you can progress things along (like with the paypoint, even though it got pretty bogged there for a while), but at other times - not so much. I just wanted to let you know there is no urgency in these discussions - if it is not a good time, feel free to come back to it later. It doesn’t concern me much that you personally have these firm views, as long as you can express them as best as you can to me, fairly, so I have no ambiguity on them it is enough (you are always clear whether you want something one way or not, but not always in terms of why, except in generalised statements - and those are the ones I try to tease out a bit more, as sometimes you say something pivotal when that happens). As for myself, I don’t treat these conversations as battles to be won, but there are things I think need a little more, so anyone in the future can track why or why not things were done with some precision. I feel like, from very poor beginnings, we improved things in 48hrs (not an easy task) so that is worth protecting. Let us work in the interests of the article, because I know I was just about take a step rather reluctantly the other day, then suddenly saw a more measured tone and having just previously thought there is no way this will self-resolve, you changed my mind. It shows it is possible, and I appreciate you don’t normally spend time doing this (as normally you are focussing on copywriting, then moving to the next thing - not engaging in conversations), so I acknowledge the time you have provided (but as I said, if you want to take a moment, please feel free to do so - the article will still be there). Kangaresearch ( talk) 18:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WP:TPO & WP:OWNTALK disregard and repeated blanking of content without discussion, despite repeated request to do soWP:OWNTALK "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user" WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection" Re:
Elizabeth Cosson
Disruptive editing
|
Hello, I see that you removed part due to non-RS. I believe I found a RS to replace the non-RS: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1453326/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv Is this RS? Is it OK for me to re-instate that part using this RS? -- Dr.bobbs ( talk) 00:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Most of this edit, which you explained with a laconic "ce", removed quote fields from references.
I wrote a user essay where I suggest every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.
If you know of some guideline, or longstanding convention, that generally deprecates the use of quote fields, then could you please link to it for me?
If you don't think quote fields were generally deprecated, but you think my use of them lapses from some guideline, or longstanding convention, then could you please link to it for me?
In general, going forward, could you reserve the laconic edit summaries of "ce" for edits where the purpose, and justification, is actually obvious?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, since you've already an image review for the this nomination at FAC, may ask you to perform a source review as well? I'd really appreciate it, Shahid • Talk2me 19:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
My time is limited. Yet your [8] may do more harm than good without sufficient reason. Also note that unapproved alteration of national anthems may even be a crime in certain places, like Chinese Macao since 20 December 1999, though not Canada nor the USA.-- Jusjih ( talk) 19:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (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)
04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi can you please check the layout as I can't figure out what's wrong with it as it's the same as the other Duggar Family member pages. I had to add to the Jana Marie Duggar page that I made in 2018 as someone had edited it and took out the beginning. The page is also missing a picture of her and it won't let me insert it . Here is the page /info/en/?search=Jana_Duggar
Thank you Wifey93 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Wifey93 ( talk) 00:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to add a picture of Jana but it give an error and it also is saying the page isn't valid but I thought I had fixed it Wifey93 ( talk) 00:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It will not add any of the first five pics https://www.google.com/search?q=jana+duggar&client=tablet-android-lenovo&prmd=niv&sxsrf=ALeKk02ryXAuCqSOMIUIxSVgSf-JsyGbxA:1592182609417&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj55-e2zoLqAhWgRzABHa95D4YQ_AUoAnoECBsQAg&biw=602&bih=964 Wifey93 ( talk) 00:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi also it's telling me the page isn't notable as it shows the too two messages on this page /info/en/?search=Jana_Duggar Wifey93 ( talk) 01:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It's funny because I went through her other sibling pages and they are fine but not sure why this one came up as the notability.... I had to fix the page because it was missing the facts for the biography like where she lives, how old she is etc. I tried to add a different picture and it won't. It also reverts back to the Duggars family and Jim Bob Duggars page for some reason and I can't seem to fix that. Yet if you notice this page of her sibling works /info/en/?search=Jinger_Duggar_Vuolo Wifey93 ( talk) 02:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I also had to add info and references as the page was lacking /info/en/?search=Jana_Duggar
I don't notice this issue with the other sibling pages Wifey93 ( talk) 02:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikki I can't figure out why there are issues with the page as her sister's page worked with no issues but Jana's page is saying it's not the right format. Here is her page /info/en/?search=Jana_Duggar. I already had to make a new page for her a second time because Wikipedia didn't recognize the first page I made.
Her sister's page is working tho and they do connect them with all of the other siblings and parents
This is her sister's page /info/en/?search=Joy-Anna_Duggar_Forsyth Wifey93 ( talk) 04:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey Nikkimaria, you had helped me with this article's sourcing a while back. Wanted to point out that I have gone ahead with its FAC nomination. Since you are renowned for this, I would be immensely glad if you could provide a source review. Thanks.-- N Ø 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to Robert H. Locke mentioned Wikidata already being linked in the sidebar. However, I'm not seeing any such sidebar or link after your edit (I'm checking using a vanilla Firefox browser in desktop mode). Is this an error in your Javascript, or are you planning to add a sidebar? - Vandraedha ( talk| contribs) 03:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The Minute Man | |
Thank you for your assistance with getting The Minute Man to featured article status. I could not have done it without your help. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
— Bruce1ee talk 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Good evening! Just looking to see if you have any more feedback for the Space Shuttle FAC. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 12:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I'm considering submitting Cymmer Colliery explosion as FAC and saw you listed at WP:FAM. I'm a first-time FA nominator and would appreciate your guidance if you had the time/interest. Even if you were not able to mentor, a peer review or any feedback on the article would be very welcome please. In particular, the last section of the article uses bullet points – are these a definite no in a FA level article? My experience is in more technical writing where they are common. In this case, their use avoids the seemingly unnecessary inclusion of padding words to make each point a paragraph as well as the repetition of the same citation for each of those paragraphs. (Full disclosure: I made a similar request to another editor listed at WP:FAM a week ago but have not heard back.) Cheers ~ RLO1729 💬 02:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC has been archived in the middle of my ongoing discussion with Gog the Mild. I have messaged the editor at User talk:Ealdgyth#Archiving Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC and would appreciate your thoughts/input. IMO, this lack of careful consideration is one of the reasons editors leave Wikipedia. ~ RLO1729 💬 19:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
What made you revert my contribution to the Germany page? It was a very helpful information. Davidjimnez ( talk) 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I don't think you ask consensus for every time you edit a page... Davidjimnez ( talk) 15:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Would you please explain why you deleted parts of the article on Imani Perry? 89.103.125.162 ( talk) 10:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your recent editing history at Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. Apologies for the random message. I was wondering if you could do an image review for my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I recognize your reversion of my addition of an infobox is due to its delicate history and previous discussions on the talk page, albeit from 7 years ago. However, I really don't care if it has one or not, what I do care about is that for the soon to be nominated featured topic, all of the Monteverdi Operas use the same infobox, whether it be this template, the current "Identibox" on L'incoronazione di Poppea or the one that I inserted. At the moment the latter is present in every Monteverdi Opera except L'incoronazione di Poppea and there is quite literally no reason for this one to be different than the others. How can I go about standardizing them? Should I bring up a vote on the Opera project page between using this template, the current "Identibox" or the current infobox used on the other pages? I don't mean to dredge up old conflicts but frankly, it is pointless and meaningless for the articles to be formatted differently in this respect. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 05:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." There was an Arb case on this very point back in 2006, and the practice has held since then. I don't see any discussion on the article's talk page or any other form of consensus, and the reason you have given above seems to fall squarely into the examples of why not to change. - SchroCat ( talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 14 reviews between April and June 2020.
Peacemaker67 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk)
00:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Hi Nikkimaria, I'm considering making my first FAC nomination, and I want to ask if you would be willing to mentor me in preparation for that process. The article I want to nominate is Honey Davenport. Would you be interested in taking a look? Thanks, Armadillopteryx talk 07:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I have withdrawn the nomination for Everything I Wanted because some reviewers recommended a copyedit and peer review. I will put up a new nomination in a few weeks after both the copyedit and peer review are done, so I hope to see you there! Thanks a lot! DarklyShadows ( talk) 01:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I wrote a Wikipedia article on Mary Louise Day, a young teenaged girl who disappeared from her home in CA in 1981. She remained missing for 22 years until ultimately being found alive and safe. I’ve noticed two notes on the top of the page regarding the article tone and the sources. I’ve used all possible sources that reflect the information in the article and I’ve tried to the best of my ability to fix any errors that go against the Wikipedia tone. Can someone please help me, I’d hate to see the article be removed. Strangemysteries2004 ( talk) 00:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok thank you!!! I’ll rewrite that and whatever else sounds like that Strangemysteries2004 ( talk) 04:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, hope all is well! Could I use an image from this book in Fabian Ware’s article uploaded to enwiki under {{ PD-US-expired-abroad}} or am I missing something? Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, for wiki-historic reasons BWV 105 is the only cantata without template (I think Gerda was involved in an infobox arbcom case so, as a result, there was no obligation to have any infobox). I added the missing template using the same method as BWV 140, knowing that the libretto was anonymous. It is listed as so in the book of Dürr & Jones. As you can check I created the images of the manuscripts on the Bach archive: and in 2008 I started and created most of the article for BWV 105. The fact that the libretto is anonymous is recorded in Dürr & Jones. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 11:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
|
It has become clear during the FAR that the project and I have different ideas over the way the season should be laid out, as a result, I have recused myself from the review. Jason Rees ( talk) 21:12, 11 July 2020 (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)
11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Please explain your changes. They new infobox lacks information, and all the information from wikidata is backed up with reliable sources Germartin1 ( talk) 14:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I found your name in the edit history for the Lemonade (Beyonce) article. Given your experience, if you're interested in issues of sourcing, perhaps you can chime in on such a discussion --> Talk:Lemonade_(Beyoncé_album)#Possible_OR/POV_violation. isento ( talk) 10:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for catching my error at the Unconstitutional constitutional amendment article. I meant to cite this link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2649816 but for some reason accidentally ended up citing the "Besse Cooper" Gerontology Wiki article instead (which I was simultaneously looking at as I was writing this article). Anyway, I have now put the correct source into this article. Futurist110 ( talk) 06:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, Would like to understand what further I can provide to sufficiently confirm the edit? I watched the episode last night, and it was quite a thought provoking episode paying homage somewhat to the artists work. Due to a lack of 'reliable sourcing' available online, I wanted to contribute. Are you able to assist? Unsure how to reference video content which has limited reliable internet, text based references.
here is a video source:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6s6yyr
appropriate timecodes: 16:50 - lady in red appears 17:04 - lady in red sites with man in a booth 18:22 - artwork appears in book 18:40 - characters introduce artwork 19:45 - characters discuss the artwork 21:49 - lady in red talking with man in background in a booth 27:53 - lady in red with man in foreground in a booth 37:36 - lady in red talking with man outside of diner 41:14 - shot of diner, clear similarities
in fact, other Edward Hopper artworks featured with similar impressions and discussions throughout. 17:28 - Hotel Room, 1931 17:49 - New York Movie, 1939
as discussed on forum:
https://filmboards.com/board/p/1150094/
has also been mentioned on a wikipedia banned website (peoplepill) on edward hopper
and is also mentioned on another wiki page, but felt odd to self reference: /info/en/?search=Edward_Hopper. "...Hopper's painting New York Movie was featured in the television show Dead Like Me; the girl standing in the corner resembles Daisy Adair." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.232.18 ( talk) 14:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (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)
14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I know you could pick up your adminship at any time you choose to, but I respect your decision to refrain. Nevertheless, would it make your editing easier if you had permissions like template editor or page mover, etc? I'd be more than happy to grant you any of the unbundled permissions if you ever thought you might find them useful. Regards -- RexxS ( talk) 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, might Elizabeth Throsby's family form one of those "unusual" cases "worth highlighting" per MOS:SURVIVEDBY? I included it because of the sheer number of them, unusual even for that time. She was the only survivor of the massacre to go on to have children, and by the time of her death, she had produced a family that outnumbered those who perished. I think these are extraordinary stats. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 05:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
When changing |publisher=
to |newspaper=
or |magazine=
as you did in
this edit, a good thing, please make sure that there are no lingering aliases of these parameters in the template (as seen
here and
here) so that others don't have to cleanup after you.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you. If I were to renominate The Masked Singer (American TV series) for featured article status, would your image review on the first archive still count, and can it be mentioned in the description? I haven't added/edited any images since your review. Heartfox ( talk) 03:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. Why did you delete it? -- Jbaranao ( talk) 04:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for your query as to the significance of the addition I made to the Dick Turpin page. To me it is a point of interest relating to the appearance in popular culture, through folk music, of the character of Dick Turpin, perhaps especially because the song seeks to portray him as he really was, rather than the romanticised version of him as a dashing hero. When compared with the other items in the Legacy section, the fact that a song has been written doesn't seem any less significant to me than the other entries. Of course I see that a play or a film is a larger work, but the song is still a representation in the arts, and therein lies the significance. (The fact that the song was played in the Royal Albert Hall is perhaps not especially significant, and the only real reason I included that was because I had a reference to it.) Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer. Muonmo ( talk) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria,
Please consider that the presence of the first contact with the west is crucial for what happens afterwards in japan from the consolidation of kingdoms and the subsequent expansion of the japanese abroad (korea etc) I understand that some of the paragraphs may go on to another article such as the history of Japan, but this information is succinct information of the presence of a century of the Portuguese in Japan, where both civilizations suffered linguistic influences, in art and knowledge.
As for the map, please consider complementary information, being framed in the context of contact with the outside. I didn't understand the principle of Good Faith, do you need more references from the author of the map? Thank you -- Hugo Refachinho ( talk) 10:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work you've done on the Wikipedia Library project. I've just begun to collect sources to improve and expand the Fanny Lou Hamer article. I am amazed at the number of articles available from JSTORE that should be helpful.
At first I could not find a way to use the 'Workspace' tool without a unique identifier. I thought about asking you, but then chose to use the support link within JSTORE. Sent the request at noon, got the correct answer within an hour! — just sign up for an individual free account anD the JSTOR platform will link the wikipedia account with the free account and allow persistent 'Workspace' collections — I am very happy. — Neonorange ( Phil) 20:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I hope you're doing well. I had a question about this blog entry and if it's reliable. Normally I wouldn't dismiss it without hesitation but in this case the author/owner of the blog is a well respected musicologist (professor at University of Oxford as well) so I was wondering if it is still usable because of that. If not it's not a huge deal since the blog itself links to plenty of sources that are reliable/published. Best - Aza24 ( talk) 01:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw that you deleted some text and unreliable sources. However, the funeral is evidenced by other, reliable sources. You "threw the baby out with the bathwater".May I please put the text and RS back? Bearian ( talk) 20:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria. My apologies. I had somehow overlooked your first edit where you removed the external link (EL) to The Peerage website and the Appendices heading. I did not mean to enter into an edit war with you. I still consider myself a novice and am on a seemingly endless learning curve, especially with regard to the knowledge and understanding of the MOS. I see you are an FAR coordinator and have more than 140,000 edits.
With regard to the EL. The Peerage is a self-published website but usually reliable. It is often cited in biographies of British aristocrats. It cites sources and so I try to replace it by a citation from the relevant source given in it and (until now) moved the reference to EL as I try not to entirely supersede what other Wikipedians have done. I found the link to The Peerage in the EL useful to check facts against it. However, as you insist on deletion, I will take your word as a really eminent, experienced and influential Wikipedian. The great majority of the articles on my watchlist have this EL. I will remove them as I crawl around my watchlist for other improvements, otherwise you can certainly make a pass through my contributions and remove this EL everywhere, earning about a hundred edits in the process. But if you prefer and find it urgent, I will go through my watchlist and do it ASAP.
With regard to the heading "Appendices". I found that the headings from the appendices often take too much importance in the table of context. By introducing Appendices as a 2nd-level heading and demoting the various appendices to the 3rd-level I wanted to help readers. I see now that MOS:LAYOUT insists that the standard appendix headings must be 2nd level. So I must comply. I learned a lot from you. Please accept, dear Nikkimaria, the expression of my highest consideration, Johannes Schade ( talk) 08:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi!! Please notice that I have undone your undoing of my edit on the Wikipedia article about Consuelo Vanderbilt Balsan, as I think that my edit and the new information about the life and character of Mrs.Balsan found therein was well-founded and I brought citations enough! Don't you believe that it is not educationally accurate that an entire article should be almost drawn by the work of one person (a Mr.Stuart)? In any case, would you please take some time and read the Daily Mail article I cited on the bibliography? It was rather illuminating. Happy Days! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeofCleveland ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Dahlias in Walsdorf |
---|
I like today's Main page, with the TFA (thank you the image review!) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria, would you please consider doing an image review for the article Pepi I Meryre, which is currently at FAC ? The article has been posted there a while ago and as received only one text review so far, so I am worried about it failing for want of reviews, in particular image and source ones. Thank you. Iry-Hor ( talk) 10:37, 10 September 2020 (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)
12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Hey Nikkimaria, is there by any chance you could restore Fagerbakke's "Personal life" section back in the article again? because I've been constantly requesting it in the talk page to be restored back in the article again. But no matter how many sources I keep on providing to help restore it, they still won't add it back. I was just curious if you could restore it back? If that's ok? I've been trying hard to provided the best sources I could, but they still won't count, as I've been told. 2600:1000:B046:332A:9843:9F32:493E:74 ( talk) 20:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Well there were some other ones I found, but I've been having trouble trying to show them on the talk page. whenever I tried to post it, I keep getting this message saying that it's been disallowed. So I don't know what other replacment source I could find, because those were the only best ones I can find for now. Until you told me it's a dead link.
P.S. I actually ment to say "article" not "infobox", I just made a mistaje in my typing. And yes, I do mean that same sentance as before. But does the Hollywood Reporter count? Here: https://www.hollywood.com/general/actor-bill-fagerbakke-splits-from-wife-59442806/ 2600:1000:B051:E1A8:C435:632A:39C8:C30C ( talk) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
What about "Filmreference.com"? Because that one actually shows his info of his marriage to her and his two daughters. The problem is, I can't share the link here because it won't allow me to post it. That source is currently used as the source for his date of birth in the article. 2600:1000:B06D:53A0:5DF9:6786:3966:5D9C ( talk) 01:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
You reverted my external link on Neutral Milk Hotel and wrote "See WP:ELNO," but after reading I fail to see why the link is not valid. It certainly gives more information about the band than what is written on the Wikipedia page. TheThingy Talk 02:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you very much for forwarding my application for access to Springer Nature journals. I seem to have easy access to all articles in all publications save one—Scientific American—also listed under "Nature Research journals" at the Springer Nature website'.
As it happens, I am discussing a rewrite of the lede for Anthropic Principle with another editor who wishes to simplify the lead. I believe our views mesh, but I wish to be carful to avoid compromising accuracy. I am familiar with Scientific American—it would be a great resource for improving ledes.
Scientific American has published dozens of articles related to the 'anthropic principle. I'd like to get clues from these articles to help express a competent summary in the lede.
I can not find an appropriate link at Springer Nature to ask for assistance. Am I missing something? I may be able to get access through my local library—closed now by the pandemic. Do you have any suggestions? — Neonorange ( Phil) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
In your opinion, is it ok to keep "fourth oldest person ever" without a reliable source? The "editor" with the IP address 141 126 101 68 has added this on many occasions and it has been reverted by myself and others as many times. MattSucci ( talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the article cites "Adams 2010" but there is no such reference in the bibliography. Can you please add? Thanks, Renata ( talk) 00:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there by any chance you coukd respond to this talk page request I made here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Michael_Angelis#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_September_2020_2, because there's a mistake in the article I wantee to be fixed so badley abd it still hasn't been corrected yet. 2600:1000:B033:2B98:94F3:F07E:BD35:DC86 ( talk) 21:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Would you please care to tell us where you are reverting the find a grave links on Baden-Powell grave. -- Bduke ( talk) 01:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hey I saw you removed climate change from the Japan article. I added it again as it is quite an important subject and just explains a bit about how climate change affects japan and the goals of the government. Finn.reports ( talk) 06:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not covered in the environment section. It doesn’t say anything about the goals of the Japanese government concerning climate change and what the effects are for japan. So a little section for climate change is needed as it is an pretty important subject for japan and any other country. Finn.reports ( talk) 11:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The topic is not really covered in the environment section. There is nothing about the goals of the Japanese government or the effects of climate change in japan. It is an pretty important subject so I don’t get why it can’t be added to the page. Finn.reports ( talk) 11:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your copyedit at the BBQ page--but I always had the impression that the "proper" way was the other way around. What's the relevant MOS guideline on this? Thanks Kingoflettuce ( talk) 13:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
When you revert someone who was welcomed just a few days ago, could you perhaps supply a bit more of an edit summary than "per talk". I remember that in the beginning, I didn't even know that articles have talk pages. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Why did you remove my Hubert Laws contribution to "Amazing Grace" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyScholar ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
You deleted cause of death here. For whatever reason. The page had been somewhat improved by me because I came over from the list of prominent Covid deaths that exists. There the person got an entry, so is notable. Did a good job, bad job? I'm not sure what to say, honestly I don't think you did. Fix it. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.72.62 ( talk) 06:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
NantucketHistory ( talk) 01:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Three images were downloaded onto Commons and used in the article this past June, the source being http://www.acolumbinesite.com/. I went looking into the sourcing for the one with Brooks Brown but now I think all of them are lacking the proper permissions and the permissions seem...well, to not be quite right. AColumbineSite's FAQ states
But then the editor who uploaded the photos onto Commons claims that
I nominated the Brooks Brown photo for deletion because of the permission issues but am now thinking that all three should be nominated to go...but am I wrong on this? Anyway, would appreciate someone with more expertise - such as yourself - to look into the situation. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Hello, the Biblioteca Marciana was promoted at FA, and I want to thank you for all of your time in reviewing the images and helping me to resolve the problems. Kind regards, Venicescapes ( talk) 15:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your feedback. I'm learning how to contribute to Wikipedia and appreciate your guidance on my contributions to the article of Jenner. Would just like some of your help on how I could better improve some things I did say, because I believe adding information about Jenner's relationships are important to the article and notable about her life. Thanks, Emilywillingham ( talk) 17:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that you've been removing my content from Amelia Earhart's "in popular culture" section, citing "unreliable sources". I can understand how the Wikia source could be seen as unreliable but how was my IMDb source unreliable? I'm not a veteran editor by any means so, if you can explain that to me in a way that makes sense, I'll take your word for it and drop it. DaveA2424 ( talk) 15:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. You have revert my edit. Thanks for the reminder. But, did you read the article or the reference that i type? Griffith reference is only one source and the journal was deleted on the source. The journal was also only book review of the book that i cited, so i think what i cite is more valid that the previous reference. I add the readable link also and it was the same book. May you reconsider your revert? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agus Damanik ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
For your massive improvement of the problematic Disney family article. Theroadislong ( talk) 07:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
Hi. Why do my links to find a Grave keep getting deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.241.109 ( talk) 15:35, 14 October 2020 (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)
12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, I recently saw your review of my FA nomination of Stephen Dee Richards and how it did not pass because of the issues you listed. I have addressed most of those issues as the following:
Reworded statement.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What kind of reference should I use to round up the money value?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
For the original amount, I used the source provided. The adjusted amount was done through a website that adjusts money for inflation. Not sure I can cite it though.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
There are a couple of sites that might be reliable enough to cite. The best is In2013Dollars.com, which give a more accurate explanation of the adjusted money.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Will remove it then.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Done.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Meaning it applies to all shortened cites right? And should I italicize all newspaper publications when sourcing them in sfn format-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Done-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I fixed it now.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Rearranged reference list to sort periodicals by date published.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
There are only 2 or 3 books that are multi-edition, fixed it to include editions.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Finally corrected the problem-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, an image that I personally photographed in Israel is being questioned for copyright at Template:Did you know nominations/Hadassah (dancer). Are you familiar with copyright law in Israel for outdoor street art? Images of this and similar street art portraits are posted at Solomon Souza and Mahane Yehuda Market#Artwork. Thanks for any enlightenment you can provide. Yoninah ( talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
In The Maid of Orleans (opera), you replaced an image related to the opera by one showing the composer. Project opera promotes images related to the opera in the top position, and an image of the composer only if none is available. Consider self-reverting. If not, please explain, and restore the other image to the opera article where it was. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I know HOI4 content is generally considered content unfit for Wikipedia as most people are not aware of the content of mods. However, Bill Hammons himself has acknowledged his prescence in Red World numerous times and is in contact with numerous mod devs. Therefore, I think this fits according to Wikipedia's policies on notoriety.
Thanks, 73.234.135.49 ( talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, It has been a while since I have talked about the article on Begotten. I Just want to let you know that I have been working with Brandt Luke Zorn to try and get it up to FA status before it is renominated. I was wondering if you could give me your assessment if you think it is ready for renomination?-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Looking over the sources, I did find some that might be considered questionable. I am going to list my response to each one here (If I missed any please let me know):
It gives information such as radio interviews, podcasts, speaking events, and his past journalistic endeavors for Vice, and Boing Boing. I am not sure if it confirms the reliability of the interview with Merhige, but it does give more room to suggest the possibility.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 17:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I have made more progress with the sources now. SmellsLikeScreenSpirit has been removed and replaced by a more reliably sourced interview (CHUD.com). The Nightmare on Films Street site I have looked into and found that they are a branch off of Bloody Disgusting's network.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 18:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria, You removed the find a grave link to William McIntosh in the External Links section of this article. The information you deleted does not seem to be redundant, and might be regarded as useful. Could you explain your reasoning? Gulbenk ( talk) 17:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'm not sure whether you saw my ping here, but it's clear that there is some significant close paraphrasing, if not copyvio, in the Marian Anderson article, which was unfortunately not found during the article's GA review. Now it's at DYK, and the nomination has run into trouble because of what's been found so far. What I'm wondering is how severe this is overall. If what's been found is the basic extent of it, then this can go forward. If there's more of it, then the article probably needs a reassessment. Can you please take a look and see how much of a problem this is? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your welcome! I noticed that you reverted the edits I made to the Aragorn and Arwen articles. I just reviewed the guidelines here on linking to external websites, and was wondering if you would be willing to point me to which specific policy you believe was violated? I wouldn't add links to random fansites, but believed links to the LotR wiki would be acceptable given its size and wide usage. Thanks! Bitterhand ( talk) 00:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you said that my addition to the article on Guy Fawkes Night did not require a new section. I can understand why you said that. I looked for a place in the existing structure to add it, but could not find it.
I feel that its non-observance in York especially and, to a lesser extent, other parts of Yorkshire is a significant fact and would be of interest to many readers. (On a personal note, I can remember being told by a teacher at junior school in Wakefield that we didn't burn guys in Yorkshire.) Is there somewhere else that it can go in the article? It is just two sentences. Can it not be fitted in somewhere else?
Thanks. Epa101 ( talk) 10:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
You removed the link to Find a Grave from the external links section of Bruno Bertagna. You cited “EL” which doesn’t tell us much. I see nothing under EL “ Links normally to be avoided” that would suggest this use of Find a Grave is improper. In fact it supplies burial info not otherwise found in the article, which is specifically cited as a reason for including a Find a Grave in external links. As we are told on the entry for the Find a Grave template HERE:
To comply with WP:ELNO, only place [the Find a Grave template] in External links section if the website contains unique information not already mentioned and cited in the body of the article and is not a WP:COPYLINK violation. Remove from External links if Find a Grave is already cited in main body, if burial information is provided in main body by a more reliable source, or if the page contains any unlicensed copyrighted information (e.g., professional portrait photography or copies of obituaries from a newspaper). [Emphasis added]
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
“US” after city, state is not a requirement of WP:MOS and further isn’t consensus for infobox templates for baseball, basketball, football and NCAA coaches. That’s why I removed them. Rikster2 ( talk) 14:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this. Go look at MOS:TIES. All these infoboxes by definition are for athletes who are strongly connected to the United States and therefore should comply with formal written American English. And formal written American English is (1) concise and (2) uses U.S., not US. When it's clear in context that the article's subject is an American (because it's stated in the first paragraph of the article), there is no need to add US in every infobox. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 04:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your tireless review work. I am specifically thinking of ACR and FAC image reviews, but this is only scratching the surface of your contributions. I don't know how you do it all, but it is all much appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, it is regarding
this edit. According to the template documentation, the |birth_name=
parameter can be used if it differs from the |name=
parameter. In the article
John Witherspoon (actor), it is clearly mentioned and sourced that the subject changed his surname from "Weatherspoon" to "Witherspoon". I believe it should reflect in the infobox as per the template doc. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
09:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
At WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant genus names (L–P)/archive1 I've got a request to "standardize" the format to either mention the country or not ... "Portland, OR, US" vs. "New York, NY". Looking at a bunch of recently promoted FACs and FLCs (other than this one), I don't see anyone asking for "New York, NY, US" ... is "New York, NY, US" ever required at FAC? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
†
|
|
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)
15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Nikkimaria. I tried to renew my Library access to Fold3 back in September and I see you approved it and sent it off to them, but for some reason my membership there isn't yet active, it just has me as an expired "free" member. I'm reaching out for help :) ♟♙ ( talk) 20:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please do not start edit wars. It may result in you being banned from Wikipedia.
Have a great day. Politialguru ( talk) 20:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I know you don't know me from Adam, but I have [Biblical criticism] undergoing an FA review that is stalling for lack of a source review. The coordinator says they will archive it if it doesn't get more response soon and to go look at frequent reviewers and ask shamelessly! So I am! I see that you are a frequent reviewer, and I read your requirements and have no problem with any of them. You sound tough but I think that's absolutely necessary. I respond quickly, with a good attitude and cooperation - or at least a really good reason for compromise. ((Smiley)) Please come and help get this important article what it needs to be among Wikipedia's best. Thank you! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Why are you removing the location parameter from references? This is valuable information, both for identifying references and evaluating their context. — Michael Z. 04:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this will make you feel better about consistency in the article’s citations: I went through and added missing information. — Michael Z. 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:CITE#Generally considered helpful discusses the difference between citation format and content, and makes this explicit: “The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information.” Please restore the place of publication in the article, and any others where you’ve removed it. — Michael Z. 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I posted an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#RFC: Does following style guidelines on consistent citations mean consistent inclusion of “place of publication”?. I tried to ask the simple question without specifics about this article, and without advocating. Let’s see what others think, okay? — Michael Z. 21:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind assistance. FunkMunk and Czar were very helpful. Venicescapes ( talk) 07:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI, I'm conducting an experiment with a Find a Grave listing for a "famous person" who also has a WP article. The listing has no biographical material, so I've suggested some bare facts (gender, POD, and bio data) to describe the person. I'm curious to see how long the material gets incorporated (e.g., approved by FAG editors) into the listing. And, BTW, I've reviewed the edit history for James Garrard. This was a TFA on June 7, 2013, at which time it had FAG listed in the EL section. And the FAG page did not contain photos of his burial site. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
You asked about IWGPP. Here is their FAG contributor page: [9] and here is their website. Another major contributor to FAG is the War graves. These are institutions with huge databases. when you dismiss FAG links without looking beyond the basic source you are dismissing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I see you created this 11 years ago, but I don't think it would survive WP:AfD, and it has been edited extensively by a SPA that appears to be the subject. Bearian ( talk) 19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you think about working up together a general WP:URFA/2020 message (after US Thanksgiving) to be posted across WikiProject talk pages explaining the process and encouraging editors to tune up and comment on FAs, and at URFA/2020? Sort of like what we would do in a FAC newsletter, or FCDW Dispatch, if we still had one. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
i know your always being asked to do things...so will ask but with the intent of starting in the new year. Long ago - ten years Aboriginal Canadians passed its GA review....thinking its time to redo the article. Would you be interested in overseeing my edits and perhaps doing an informal review after fixup?-- Moxy 🍁 03:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the display of extra large images, as at present on top of BWV 37: I don't think we should have them at all. For whom and what? Everybody needing a pic larger can click on it. IF larger, why not within the infobox? IF any reason for not in the infobox, why not below the infobox? But back to the beginning: I'd go for a normal-size image (not larger than upright=1.3) IN the infobox. IF a specific image should be shown larger (to make detail visible at a glance), it could go to the context in the article body, and a different one could be lead image, no? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you. I currently have an article at FAC at which a user has stated their opposition to a lack of images. I have a number of player images available, such as File:Hardy, Billy.jpg, which I've avoided using because I'm doubtful they would pass under their current licence. You've provided image reviews at a number of my FACs previously, so was hoping to run these by you to get your thoughts? Would they pass as they are? Kosack ( talk) 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so very, very much. You are absolutely the most amazing person. You could have dumped me at any point, but you never quit and never even yelled at me once - which surely you must have felt like from time to time! If this succeeds, I feel as though it is more due to your work than mine, because I could not have done all of this on my own. You are just wonderful, your work is wonderful, and I am a permanent fan. It would be nice to think I could repay the favor someday, but I know the likelihood of me being able to help you with anything is pretty low, but if you ever need a friend, please count me as one. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
As said in some edit summaries: the opera sidebox which duplicates the navbox, often has a picture of the composer at a "wrong" age, and has no picture related more closely to the opera, is no service to the reader. Could you please NOT restore it for operas mainly edited by VivaVerdi (who is dead so can't object, but before added infoboxes to all Verdi operas) and Voceditenore whose vote is clear? ... while I leave Handel and Offenbach alone, for respect of editor's wishes? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your question: "Why apply that to this one and not to the other?" - this being the opera composer sidebar, the other being the composer navbox: because this has accessibility flaws, and the other is the normal navigation on Wikipedia. I don't mind both in one article, as I have accepted for years, but to deprive readers of the normal and accessible form is not acceptable. Please self-revert your reverts of my reverts. Primefac may be interested. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for editing the article Bagger 288! Sorry about the random image lol.
Ilikememes128 (
talk)
15:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Here As Barbas do Imperador. There was more information in the automated infobox. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
|subject=
is appropriate for non-fiction.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
02:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
|website=Campaign
).
Nikkimaria (
talk)
21:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for processing my Wikipedia Library application. I'm sorry but I realize I applied for the wrong collection: Nature instead of Link. Should I "return" the Nature and make a new application for Link, or is there some other procedure to switch it? Thanks! Levivich harass/ hound 19:36, 13 December 2020 (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)
22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought of both Bach Cantatas Website sources as posts. This is apparently the misunderstanding.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to get consistent, useful cites. User-duck ( talk) 17:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks like you are WP:FOLLOWING my edits and removing the FindaGrave ELs. Why? Because you are an editor who doesn't like findagrave. And it doesn't matter when the site is posted simply as an interesting and useful link for readers. Here is an example [11]. The particular findagrave link is maintained by Findagrave. That is, FAG has active editorial control of the page. Accordingly it is not WP:SPS in the sense that any FAG contributor can change it. Any data that needs changing must be suggested to FAG -- they review those changes. You ignore the fact that some readers who conduct genealogy via FAG. E.g., they can use the website to locate relatives. (And some readers are interested in their famous relatives with WP articles. For example, someone is interested in Ely's children or grandchildren. FAG is a useful tool in this endeavor. But you are obscuring the starting point. Why? Because you simply don't like FAG, and nothing more. Such edits are WP:BATTLEGROUND in nature, inhibit the WP:ENJOYment of editing, and do nothing to improve the quality of WP articles. Please stop. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Question for you. Cokie Roberts is buried at the Congressional Cemetery in Washington DC. I've just added her Find a Grave listing to the EL section. Roberts is listed as a famous person and the listing is managed by Find a Grave. The photos of her gravestone were added by the Historic Congressional Cemetery Archivist. Is it improper to have Roberts' Find a Grave link as an EL on the article page? If improper, then why? And if proper, then why? Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 10:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Because your edit summary said " rm non-RS" at Robert Alter and the source was a dead link, I interpreted the addition in the diff and read it as a removal. I thought I was adding it back with an updated source. Sorry about the confusion. BiologicalMe ( talk) 16:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I just found out you approved my application on the wikipedia library, and then 4 minutes later sent it to partner. What does that mean? How do I log in to get access? Thanks in advance, Ghinga7 ( talk) 22:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC).
Hi Nikkimaria, the ongoing FAR drive that hit Japan will no doubt hit Cameroon soon, which is in a much sorrier state. I noticed you saved it in a 2013 FAR, so I thought I might elicit your opinion on its quality and viability. Personally I feel that it would take quite substantial work to bring it up to current standards, and there's not really anyone looking after it well. Best, CMD ( talk) 12:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
{{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}}
to your friends' talk pages.(Sent: 05:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC))
Hi Here's my source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6MDXQ6KAsY&t
Please watch the whole film, but the specific number is stated at 5:50
I hope we can correct this, if 15,500 aboriginal children were in residential schools in 1977 (cited in the article), a place they would often stay for less than two years. The numbers don't add up. That number only includes children in residential schools for that year, not the hundred years this practice happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.138.5 ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't because all the 'verified' sources are from western newspapers that downplay the numbers massively. You only have to look at the history to know that that number of 20k does not match the hundred-and-fifty years these schools operated.
/info/en/?search=List_of_Indian_residential_schools_in_Canada
There must be something you can do in terms of separating the official number published by the government and the supposed true extent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.138.5 ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I have seen that you have changed the correct access-date
in multiple articles to the older format of accessdate
. That is the same with archive-date
and archive-url
. Unless I'm mistaken, a quick review of {{
Cite web}} will support that claim. Also, it is considered rude to revert without notify the editor.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|editor-last=
for full names and in some cases multiple names.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
20:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|editor-last=
for full names, which is an error.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays | ||
Dear Nikkimaria, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy".
|
Season's greetings! | |
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2021 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive.... Modernist ( talk) 15:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
Natalis soli invicto! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of your recent boldly stated, well reasoned and stalwart comments at FAC. They are noted and appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hello, thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia nice. We appreciate your effort, but you are unnecessarily flagging David Salzman's page. There are a sufficient number of citations; IMDb is one of twenty-five sources. A. Julian 23:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, but I am only citing IMDb when I am referring to his role in the production of movies.A. Julian 01:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
IMDb is considered credible when referring to movie credits. I had many other sources supporting other aspects of his life. A. Julian 01:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC) IndyBoy IndianaBoy33 ( talk) 01:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
IMDb is niche and known to be reliable in the entertainment industry. Please stop. A. Julian 01:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
The way I used IMDb was appropriate. I used it as "a tertiary source for hard data on released films." Because of this fact, I am allowed to cite IMDb when referring to movie credits. Also, I added in even more citations to back up the article. I did what you asked, so I hope you now find this satisfactory. I understand you want to keep Wikipedia great, but the page should definitely not be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you actually read the articles cited before you flag pages. Everything cited supports the page. A. Julian 18:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
Is that all? You could have been more direct. A. Julian 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
You clearly did not read the source because it says, "Salzman grew up in the Flatbush section of Broklyn, N.Y., a few blocks from the baseball sandlot known as the Parade Grounds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history " Military Historian of the Year" and " Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Gottlob! nun geht das Jahr zu Ende is quite a good private comment, - perhaps I should not have made more of it. I confused two cantatas, one that I just heard - Ich freue mich in dir, BWV 133 - and this one to come today (31 December already where I live). I wanted to expand both, but better stick with one. Wishing you a good 2021, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
This is enough. You have effectively ruined David Salzman’s page. You should be ashamed. A. Julian 01:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
Leave his page alone. A. Julian 02:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
This is the last time I tell you. I went through everything you noted, and I added additional citations. Leave me and the page alone; this is embarrassing. I have been so nice, and you have turned out to be the most disrespectful editor I have ever encountered. I am not trying to shame you here, but your behavior is not okay. Edit other pages, and leave it up to me to fix the page if an actual problem arises. Happy New Year. Goodbye. A. Julian 18:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you look through my new citations? You have my word that they covered each problem. Can we just move on from this? I will keep fixing the page, but it will not work if you keep interfering. Thank you. A. Julian 18:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor ( talk • contribs)
Talk page stalker: User:A.JulianEditor take your issues to article talk. And please avoid the kind of personalizing and WP:BATTLEGROUND statements you have made above. You will find that Nikkimaria is quite experienced in evaluating sourcing and source-to-text integrity, so I suggest that you try to understand instead of insulting. Watchlisting the article; if you again add text that is not supported by a source, it will be problematic. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria
I wish you a Happy 2021 (while it's still January...).
Thank you for processing and approving my application to use Sabinet (via the Wikipedia Library System) on Dec. 6/7, 2020.
The message I've received on December 7, said:
I'm quite new to the application process, assuming the above is just the ordinary standard message.
But then everything fell silent (I've also checked my Spam-box). Fair enough, I assumed, it was December, after all.
Therefore I have a few questions. I've only read Wikiproject:Sabinet today, and the following sentence struck me:
At this moment, the 20 "slots" are already filled, [according to the page https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/50/].
So, just for clarity, I'm now officially on a waiting list? Meaning the moment someone's 'time window' expires during 2021 and becomes open again, the next Wikipedian on the list 'fills' it? And then you will receive the necessary access details, etc. etc.?
I don't mind waiting my turn at all, I'm just unsure about the procedures (or if I skipped a vital page of reference). And whether the access details were already sent to me, etc. There could be a thousand reasons, perhaps an error from my side. Or those of the partnership(s).
And moving on with the process, after your time has expired and you are planning to renew your 'membership', it means it's back to the application form once more?
That's quite a lot of questions, but thank you for your patience. Suidpunt ( talk) 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 is {{ in use}}, please respect that. Tx. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Please discontinue your massive content deletions at the BWV 53 article. If you think something should be removed, please take it piecemeal, explaining each step. Please remember:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria! I noticed your edit here and was wondering if you could explain what the alt text and genre removal was about. Checked the infobox documentation but can't work it out. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk) 19:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
|genre=
is used for fiction, and this work is non-fiction. As for alt, it would probably be better to replace it with a more extensive description, but I don't think simply repeating the title is likely to be useful.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
[for non-decorative images,] the only situation where blank alt
text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked
. But after re-reading the policy, I agree that a description of the front cover is ideal here, so I've had a go—is this broadly what you imagined? —
Bilorv (
talk)
22:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
|
|
Hi, Nikimaria; in [], you used the term "disinformation", but I am unable to determine to what it referred. As I'm more opposed to disinformatsiya than most (particularly on Wikipedia), I'd be gratified if you would provide me with your meaning of the term in that context. Many thanks, -- Quisqualis ( talk) 15:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, why were edits about the British folk revival reverted in the page linked above? Certainly mentioning in passing the artists that recorded ballads about the subject is significant in the context of the section of the article that talks about Turpin's cultural legacy. The source given is very interesting IMO and the article benefits from it, so i wanted to know how to better represent notability? YuriNikolai ( talk) 12:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that - please also see the revision history of .950 JDJ where the same editor did the same thing and got snippy in edit summaries upon being reverted. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If you have the time, could you give a source review (a spot check has already been done) on Paper Mario: The Origami King? It's getting really close to promotion at this point. Le Panini [🥪] 15:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Stumbled across Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 – had no idea it existed. Thank you for a fantastic, interesting and unique article! - Aza24 ( talk) 21:09, 14 January 2021 (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)
00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, wanted to ask about this edit on Arthur C. Neville. This is maybe the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen someone delete Template:Find a Grave from an article in the last couple weeks -- is there some guidance I'm missing? What's the point of the deletion? -- Asdasdasdff ( talk) 04:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my edit [12] regarding Peter Sellers and Melvyn Douglas regarding it's "significance". The instance of meeting Sellers in Burma during WWII is mentioned in both the page for: Melvyn Douglas#Career and in Being There#Filming. Coincidence? Yes. Insignificant? No. It's not merely a piece of trivia but something Douglas and Sellers purportedly bonded over during the filming of Being There, and as it exists in the other two pages I deemed it worthy of mentioning in Sellers' article. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 17:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW, the title of these journals isn't "English Journal/Journal Français", but rather either "English Journal" or "Journal Français". Databases like PROJECT MUSE will display a combined title because they want to show it can be cited as either and generate citations with the combined title because they don't know if they are being cited in French or in English, or simply don't bother choosing which of the two titles to use.
Case in point, if you go at the bottom of the first page of that article, you'll see
And not
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Listed separately, as two distinct titles, one in English, the other in French. This is no different than listing the date on the website as "Fall/automne 2014". In French you would say Automne 2014. In English you would say Fall 2004. Same for listing number/numéro 3. In English you say "number 3", in French you say "numéro 3". Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm the only keep vote but even I read the discussion as consensus to delist. (courtesy ping: User:Casliber). DrKay ( talk) 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I cannot locate the page where we have guidance on sentence vs title case in titles on citations ... cluestick? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikki, the citation cleanup at Wii is proving to be quite a chore, and I need more guidance re things that have been fiddled with in the templates since the days when I used to do extensive citation cleanup at FAR. Wii has a nasty mess of one of everything (missing authors, missing dates, wrong titles, partially linked publishers), but the worst of the mess is a mixture of work= , publisher= , website= and even others, almost none of which are correctly italicized. Rather than approach it as I have been (editing every single citation), I will need to do some of it globally. So, it is clear I can switch all instances of The New York Times, for example, to work= to render italics. Ditto for The Guardian. Both are hard print sources. I believe I switch all instances of BBC News (some of which are listed incorrectly as just BBC) to publisher= as it is not a hard print source and should not be italicized. I will have to check everything that looks like a magazine to see if it is a magazine or a website, that is, whether to use work= or publisher= for italics. Then we get into websites. Engadget is a website. Why do the cite templates italicize websites? To switch it to non-italics, I guess I have to switch website= to publisher= and that solves that. But then it gets tricky with things like Eurogamer. Eurogamer is a website, just like Engadget. So why is our article italicized while Engadget is not? There are issues like this everywhere. This work is going to be horrid; I am looking for a way to search on each source used multiple times and fix them all at once. Advice? @ ImaginesTigers and Panini!: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Masem: let's all get on the same page before continuing ... sorry I didn't ping you in here, Masem ... Panini, I am willing to do all of this in a coordinated fashion, so let's get sorted first. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope it is clear now why I am done rubbing elbows with MOS warriors. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there,
An editor keeps removing sourced content on the Moorgate tube crash article, and I don't think they are right to as the information is sourced to the Me, My Dad & Moorgate documentary. I've seen you've edited on the page recently, could you perhaps give me an indication of whether the info is okay to be there or not? 217.137.43.61 ( talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria, I understand that Find a Grave does not require references, and it is not considered a reliable source for information, but a high percentage of deceased twentieth-century entertainers have Find a Grave in the list of External links, so I thought that it was acceptable to include such a link. (Just now I looked at articles for the first 10 deceased performers I could think of, and 50% had a Find a Grave link.)
When I created the new article Jack Prince (singer) I knew that I could not find a photograph of him that would be without copyright restrictions, and so my thinking was that providing a link to Find a Grave would also provide a link to a photograph of him. I understand that no article "belongs" to me, and other editors are free to change anything they feel needs changing. I do not want to obtain a reputation as a troublesome editor, and so I will make no further attempts to attach External links to above-named article. Karenthewriter ( talk) 03:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'm confused by your reply, for I said I will make no further attempts to attach External links to the article. If others wish to expand the article they are free to do so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karenthewriter Karenthewriter ( talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nikkimaria, I hope you are well. I have just finished copyediting The Fables (band), and was made uncomfortable by its closeness to a Canadian Bands source I found—said source had not been included in the references, though it is now. I have done my best to put things in my own words, but I'd like someone who is not familiar with the article to take a look and make sure there is no close paraphrasing remaining. (Not that I'm all that familiar with it: I knew nothing about the band before I started my copyedit.)
Thanks for anything you can do (and there's no rush): if further editing is required, I'll be happy to do it, but right now I'm just not seeing any issues. (If you can point out all that remains to address, if anything, I'd appreciate it; if it's a quick fix, by all means do it yourself rather than have to type out instructions that would take you longer.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mathsci Iban violation. Thank you. You aren't really involved in any way, but I'm notifying you as I mentioned you because Mathsci mentioned you in their defence on their talk page. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah a minute after I removed that, I realized something's weird with the metismuseum PDFs. Once you look at one, any others I followed the link to seemed to only load the original, even when I directly copy/pasted the URL in my browser. So I was looking at a totally different PDF even though my browser was showing the URL to the correct one. Super weird. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I began a discussion on project opera. The image of old Handel on Rinaldo is misleading. That article is supposed to show our best content. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
happy Valentine's! - As for BWV 1, I don't expect major changes. Heard BWV 159 today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
"This wasn't the standard when it was promoted" - sure, because it wasn't even a possibility in 2009. The template infobox opera was created in 2013, Brianboulton approached me using it that same year (for L'Arianna). It is the standard in Carmen, the Monteverdi operas (featured topic), The Bartered Bride, Nixon in China, all while he was alive. Please revert your revert, or we really discuss. You probably know that I asked all arbitration candidates the same question.
Also: this was the promoted version, and yours also differs from it. But please please please lets not return to that old thing. This is 2021. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This goes for Agrippina (opera) and Rinaldo (opera). A discussion will be on project opera, if necessary. I hope not. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)