FWIW. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
There has been a major copyedit in the article about Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil since you reviewed. I'd like to ask you to take a look in it and see if your complains were adressed. Whatever you might find that you regard as wrong, I'd like to ask you to point them out to us in the FAC nomination so that we may correct them. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Re your post. I made an edit where I changed, removed or added publishers and locations within refs. Raintheone has challenged me with what has been said to him at FAC. I just found one such FAC, and would like clarification. Am I understanding it correctly that you would expect all instances of publishers or locations to be populated, or none at all? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Substituting with a location is often necessary as removal of the link would also remove clues to a journal's location (where the context isn't sufficiently strong, or where there is no url to follow). This would be particularly true of journals such as The Telegraph, and The Times; in particular The Nation is often linked to the wrong article. There are other 'Daily Mail's, and although possibility of ambiguity isn't enormous, I added the UK because it is not immediately obvious from the journal name; also it resides on the same line of script that adds location dabs for The Telegraph. I generally only unlink major newspapers in each territory. As the refs are never read independently of the body, one link usually suffices. For the article in question, Daily Mail already appeared in the body text. It was also linked repeatedly in the refs section; the publisher field in each occurrence was populated with Associated Newspapers. I see the latter as being largely unnecessary because The Mail so well known, and Associated constitutes a 'chain link' when adjacent to the Daily Mail. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, I do not believe in the necessity of linking journal names, nor of populating publishers fields in the majority of cases. You have remarked on the existence of the publisher field (which I would only really want to see used for books), and the propensity of editors to populate these in some anal-retentive fashion, or do so in the misguided belief that it is required by FAC or GAN, or simply " because it's there". Most of the time, use of these is unnecessary – the sources we tend to use tend to be tier-one. As to linking, I frequently come across articles where The New York Times is linked in excess of twenty, thirty, forty times. Go figure. I already use a script to ensure consistent formatting of titles by ensuring website names of traditional journals (e.g. Guardian Unlimited) are rendered as the traditional name (e.g. The Guardian). I also ensure the correct field name is used to give the italicisation, while taking out links to such articles. I have been building the list of journals as I go along. It is here. Your feedback would be most welcome. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria thanks for your help :) figuring out how to solve the issues that put the article YB Music labeled as "listed for deletion".. Since Nov 2010 several improvements were made, but no feedback was given since then. YB Music is the label that's releasing the new independent brazilian music for 10 years. Best 2010 Album by brazilian Rolling Stone magazine; 2 out of 10 Best of 2009 albums, also by Rolling Stone magazine. I understand it is a company, but companies related and creating culture definitely should have their space in Wikipedia; labels as Mute, Warp, Ninja Tunes are all there, and with good reason any suggestions on how to make this work? Unfortunately, lots of the references may be in portuguese; but surely some first page reviews in main newspapers in Sao Paulo and Rio... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2sambabom ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have chosen to work on Winters v. U.S. for my main Wiki project. I am suggested to ask for your comments on this choice and article. 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misstbird ( talk • contribs)
I think we're all OK except the one ref I commented on, on the FAC page. Perhaps one way of dealing with that is deleting the template and doing it as a normal reference. Let me know what you think, there. I appreciate all your work, and am sorry I left so much work for you.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria,
I was wondering if you could take a look at my replies to your review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epsilon Eridani/archive1? There's a few points that I'd appreciate if you could clarify. Thank you.
Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you please revisit your comments on images in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosendale trestle/archive1? I believe your image review may be the only remaining issue on that FAC. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 00:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to review Netball. I've never been through the FAC process and I found your edits and comments regarding what needed fixing to be extremely helpful. While the article may have failed, the feedback was insightful, on point and offers a clear route to addressing issues in the article. Speaking for myself and other regular contributors, we'll definetely be addressing the problems raised so that at some point in the future we can renominate it and get it passed. Thanks again for the assistance! -- LauraHale ( talk) 00:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for finding out the issues Nikkimaria. I belive I've fixed the issues, and have left replies. Once again, thank you. Novice7 ( talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria! I'm trying to find mentors for each of the groups in the Energy Economics and Policy course. Would you be willing to mentor this group? If so, please sign up on the course page and introduce yourself to the students in the group. If not, let me know so I can find someone else. Thanks!-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 15:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see "Japan"'s discussion page about Christianity Kim-Zhang-Hong ( talk) 10:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. I've addressed your image review at the FAC for Flowing Hair dollar. I did have a question for you, though, because I'm not sure which copyright tag to use on the Spanish dollar picture. Thanks for the review!- RHM22 ( talk) 13:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosendale trestle/archive1. Also, I added another image to the article ( File:Close up of engineer on Rosendale trestle.jpg) after its OTRS was filled. I hope I've provided good enough answers for a support, and I'd like to thank you for reviewing so far. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 01:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
you've recently added categories to a bunch of Commons images, and those file description pages were now marked for speedy deletion.
Typically, categories that are not specific to enWP should be added at Commons, not at the locale file description page. Since they are presumably all collected in
Commons:Category:Wikipe-tan I'm going to delete those pages here.
I do agree that it would be very useful to see the commons categorization here on enWP, and there already is a bugzilla issue somewhere asking for that. But duplicating the categorization on all MediaWiki projects is in my opinion not a useful workaround.
Cheers,
Amalthea
11:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lara Croft/archive2, and was hoping you'd provide further input. I also wanted to let you know that I added another free image to the article. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC))
Hi, I just wanted to let you know I responded to your source concerns with the Zoo TV Tour FAC. If you could please respond, I would appreciate it. I'm also looking for someone to do an image review, so if you could also provide that, that'd be great. Thank you! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2010 G-20 Toronto summit has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. EelamStyleZ ( talk) 11:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Heh. I had Charles Locock on a list of articles to create. Looks like I was too slow. :-) May try and add more later. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- would you mind revisiting the Fantastic Adventures FAC and letting me know if there's anything else I need to fix? Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed comments on the FAC for Villa Park. I think all the issues have been dealt with now. Would it be possible for you to revisit when you have the time? Thanks. Woody ( talk) 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. The article was not promoted after 8 days on the FA list. Not sure why the quick trigger; the students were in the process of addressing the issues. Rather than resubmit; I request that you allow us to address your concerns "off the record" and please inform when it meets your satisfaction. At such time the students will resubmit for FA.(Note: we skipped peer review since the article ((with the exception of Genetic Drift)) is the FA version from the past that went through enormous amount of scrutiny.) Not surprising all the the concerns raised in this FA attempt centered around that section. -- JimmyButler ( talk) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. If you have spare time, could you peer review a good article aiming for featured article status? It is about the song " Better Than Today". I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki - I know that the FAR for Rebecca Clarke has been a bit of a long haul, but it looks to be nearing the end. Brianboulton has left a few comments on the review, and I am hoping that you might have some time to address them. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer ( talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You kindly contributed to the recent peer review of Thomas Beecham, following which I have nominated the article at FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Beecham/archive1). Any views you might perhaps wish to add there would be gratefully received. Tim riley ( talk) 10:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. Your comments are greatly appreciated, and I have addressed them all at the FAC for Flowing Hair dollar. Thanks!- RHM22 ( talk) 13:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The close on the recent FAC was that we should re-work the prose and come back in a few weeks. After that we sought help at the WP Guild of Copy Editors, and they made extensive copy edit / prose improvements on the article. We (think we) are ready to to re-submit it. Since you were the main reviewer regarding prose concerns, would you take a quick look at it and give any preliminary impressions before we resubmit it? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am Jivesh. I come from Mauritius. I edit mainly pages related to Beyonce on Wikipedia. I have been amazed by the amazing contributions you make here and you have a nice understanding about prose which is my weak point. I was wondering if you could review an article for after i submit it for a peer review. Feel free to refuse. I won't mind. Thanks. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Already nominated. Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments the FAC for Schenn. It has been / will be shortly be archived due to a lack of supports, but I was hoping you could clarify for me where yuo were going with your comments about the Leafs logo? Or, point me in the direction of someone who can? As I said, I was just following previous hockey FAs which use action pictures featuring logos - I'd appreciate any guidance on this as I try to polish things up a bit further. Thanks! Canada Hky ( talk) 23:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 08:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I know you edit at FAC and comment on reliable sources and the like. I'm being bullied down by a group of self confessed fan boys of GI Joe. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/1, Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#G.I._Joe:_A_Real_American_Hero_.28Marvel_Comics.29 and Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics). There has been a long running discussion on reliable sources. More information on where the sources were contested and deemed no reliable is available in those topics. Anyway I know you are an admin so I thought it was best to seek assistance on what has turned into a dispute. I recently edited G.I. Joe: Resolute (ref tidy, added reliable sources for a reception section, removed weasel wording, cut plot down and so forth) - I was under the impression, well I know, that my edits were contructive. The editor Jake laughed at my edits and ordered me to edit the more known series. No is helping there atm, they are trying to argue. It's worked, I ended up calling one editor a bully, so it is time if you could take a look. Rain the 1 BAM 03:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for agreeing to look into this, it is long winded but I looked over a few admins and decided your knowledge of sources at FAC spoke volumes.. The editor has left you a question on the talk page. Rain the 1 BAM 03:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey I thought I'd let you know you know that I asked another editor of GAR to look over it with you. I think it is perhaps wise if I no longer add to discussion as it seems to produce nothing towards helping the article. I did make a personal apology on Jake's talk page too, it is a shame we couldn't work together in the end. But at the end of the day like you said, it is about the article and not our personality clashes. Do you think that is wise? Thankyou for listening too. Rain the 1 BAM 04:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually in addition to that - When I asked you to help and Siltork (because he does work on GA reassment), I stated that we both seem to be at fault. That outside eyes are better. I didn't think that was canvassing. Have you seen these? This, [2] and this. Ever likley user Boz was quick to assume I had a vendetta, he was told so. I asked uninvolved people from a far, they are going in between themselves. Rain the 1 BAM 04:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'd like to make a comment about the recent "crisis", if you don't mind. Although I complained in the FAC talk page about having assigned you to close the FAC nomination, I want you to know that it's nothing against you, personally. My complains were about how the FAC nominations are handled. I hope you can understand it. -- Lecen ( talk) 18:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I got all your sourcing concerns. I don't know if you normally revisit, so just letting you know and thanks for the review. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 07:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Sorry I was late in getting back to you, but I am currently on vacation. I believe I responded to your concerns. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria - just checking in to see whether any further action re sources is necessary at the True at First Light FAC. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
See this. Raul654 ( talk) 04:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been told this image File:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg is incorrectly licensed. However, the reviewer who told me so refuses to elaborate why. Could you please explain in order that I could fix the problem. Thank you. - Red marquis ( talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Home-Made Barnstar | |
For re-wording the section on Rules in the article O Canada so it was no longer a copywrite problem and was able to stay. I think you deserve this, thank you. Oddbodz ( talk) 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
Do you think I should be taking a break or the person who initiated the personal attacks.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
We'd like to put a column in our monthly Milhist newsletter encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 18:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria,
Per your FAC comment that, "Note: alt text is not currently part of the FA criteria", I have to respectfully disagree. Item 2 of the FA criteria says it follows the style guidelines. The last bullet of MOS:IMAGES states, "Images should have an alt attribute added...". This indicates that Alt text is still required. If this is not the case, then the FA criteria should be making a list of such exceptions available to the editor community.
Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your review of Egyptian temple for FA status. I also want to thank you for FAC reviewing in general—I did it out of a sense of obligation while Egyptian temple was at FAC, and I hated it. Kudos to everybody who keeps the system working. A. Parrot ( talk) 05:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thank you for the source reviews and image reviews that you do. You're always efficient, good humoured and reasonable, and it's work that needs doing. It's very much appreciated. I also need to apologize for committing the same errors over and over again; in my current FAC you've pointed out mistakes that you've pointed out at least two or three times before. I keep thinking that by copying my references from a previous FA I will have a clean copy, but there's always something new or I mistakenly tweak something. I promise that in future I will go back to my prior FACs and look at the source comments and try to do a pass to be sure I'm not repeat-offending. Anyway, I've replied at the FAC, and there's a question about the images, so if you could let me know the right way to handle that I'd appreciate it. Thanks again! Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. Thanks for your comments and reviews at the FAC for Trade dollar (United States coin). I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Thanks again!- RHM22 ( talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria. The above nomination has been around for almost a month. But the nominator is not a significant contributor of the article. Is there a way to close the nomination, like archiving or deleting? Thanks. Novice7 ( talk) 06:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, in Germany I had been completing some incomplete references. In news citations, the city of publication of a newspaper or magazine should be included if it is not already part of the name of the publication. I see that you have removed "London" from The Guardian and "New Delhi" from The Times of India, undoing my work and making the article not conform to either general practice or WP rules. I have put them back again and I hope you will not do this any more. Thank you -- Alarics ( talk) 10:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I am full of admiration for your industry in this area; recently, each time I have been to the FAC page prepared to help out with a few sources reviews, I find you have got there before me. No complaint, of course, but please feel free to take the odd break from this tedious chore should you feel like it. I am always prepared to stand in for a while. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if "Notice of RfC/U related to a Good Article Reassessment" isn't still improperly characterizing it? Although the GAR may have been the final straw leading to the RfC/U, it's not actually the subject of the RfC/U, but simply one piece of evidence within the RfC/U. Thanks -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 04:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Following your review, the problems you have highlighted have been addressed. Would you be able to have a look and see where the article stands now? Harrison49 ( talk) 12:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello there Nikkimaria! I notice you've listed yourself as a possible peer-reviewer for articles related to literature. I've been working on the article for Eveline Hańska, wife of the French novelist Honoré de Balzac, and I'd like to nominate it soon for FA status. Do you have time for a peer review? Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
You're a pretty incisive reviewer. Whereas I tend to focus on the first problem I see, as evidenced in Frank Buckles' FAC, you sweep rapidly across the board. Maybe one day when I grow up I can be like you. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I got a bit of a problem with this one. This is a creation of three seperate images (proper sourcing in the file summary) that I created myself. It essentially made it easier (and with less code) to have them on the page. I, of course, can't say that the image is US Army property, since I made it. So I am confused on how to give it proper licensing and still have the image. Can you help? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you change your "oppose", thanks for the good comments. I guess you're the only reviewer now who hasn't recused, so please let us know whether to give up or be optimistic. :-) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria! I've replied to your comments on the above article. Thank you. Novice7 ( talk) 11:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I guess all of us who made substantial contributions to the SAQ article now have something to be proud of (in addition to any other of our respective accomplishments), and that very much includes you. But that is not why I am writing here. I am puzzled. I noticed that here you protected that page, expiring April 25. And yet, here, an IP editor was able to make a change. How is this possible? What does "protection" really mean in this case? Or am I missing something? And shouldn't there be a protection tag on the page? Regards, Alan W ( talk) 06:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria! I wanted to let you know that Calabozos is back at FAC. Your comments at the previous FAC were rather insightful, and so I'd appreciate it if you could make more suggestions for the article's benefit. The current FAC is here. Thanks, ceran thor 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria - no rush, but when you have time, I think the issues you raised at source review issues for the Olivia Shakespear FAC have been resolved. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 18:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
If you have time, revisiting this FAC would be appreciated to see if your concerns have been adequately addressed.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I see you are online and back from the IRL stuff. I was wondering if you could take a look at the Frank Buckles FAC (linked above) and see if the concerns you had have been taken care of by AYW and myself (among others). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. Regarding this image from the Air-tractor sledge article (which is at FAC), I think it's going to be very hard to source as you suggest. I have found another image (which is also of a poorer quality) here, which could be uploaded in its place. Because it was published in the UK before 1923, my understanding is that it's best uploaded on Wikipedia (rather than Commons) with a PD-US tag. Is this the case? Thanks, Apterygial talk 22:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Due to the Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival going on in my county, the local libraries (all run by one entity) are closed today and will be this weekend as well. I will go to the library for the direct Census sources on Monday. I apologize for this delay. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Since your FA review of National Broadband Network, the article went through main changes. Is there a chance you can revisit your review to provide more feedback? Thanks. — [d'oh] 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki! I've tried my best to remove any close paraphrasing. I was wondering if you could revisit it and post any remaining comments. Thank you. Novice7 ( talk) 16:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I would like you opinion on how to handle page numbers in citations. I notice that in you source reviews on the FAC page you comment "Multi-page PDFs need page numbers". Normally for journal articles I specify the first and last pages while for books I specify the actual page. I believe this is standard practice. As books are often cited multiple times I usually create a "References" section where I give the full details of the books and a "Notes" section with a "Reflist" and generate notes using the sfn or harv templates.(I'm aware that a template is not required) I then have a choice as to how to handle journal references: I can either create the full reference in the Notes section or I can add then to the References and then use a template to generate an entry for the Notes. I'm uncertain as which is the better system. Journal articles can be very long so just specifying the first and last page of the article is not very precise. By putting the full specification of a journal article in the References I can specify the actual page in the Notes section. Is this what you meant by your comments on the FAC page? Many thanks Aa77zz ( talk) 10:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
... on our FAC editorial in the Bugle, including your comments, here. The idea for this editorial was to give a lot of brief statements by a lot of people to convey the idea that there's broad support for the idea that anyone can (and more should) review at FAC. After we see if the editorial has any effect, we can try to do something less scattershot in another editorial. Please let me know if you are (or aren't) happy with any effect this might have at FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if you've already read my responses. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños/archive1. Thanks. Moray An Par ( talk) 11:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Have you done the spotchecks on this one? Not asking you to do them, just asking what it means that you didn't say one way or the other. (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your source review at the FAC for Draped Bust dollar. Thanks!- RHM22 ( talk) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I really appreciate it :) Aar☢n Bruce Talk/ Contribs 15:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I was just wondering when it is appropriate to delete FAC noms that are premature or haven't consulted significant contributors. Is it only articles that are clearly premature that get deleted (ie nomming a stub etc). Thanks, Woody ( talk) 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
On the Taro socks, I'm leaving them there instead of deleting them, hoping some friendly admin will come along and do the honors :) User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Real_Madrid. Sometimes I'm just outtatime to deal with the socks, etc. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for everything, Nikkimaria-- I seem to be the only delegate at FAC nowadays ... I'm going to be very busy all weekend, so I hope you can keep an eye on that Guy Fawkes situation. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki! I'd like to withdraw my nomination of "Irresistible" this time too. I'll ask someone to ce the article and will renominate again. How long should I wait before next nomination? Novice7 ( talk) 04:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much for the article - I need to get my printer hooked up to get it to print to see if there is more we can add. I've added in some other bits from a tourist driving guide, which adds a bit more "non-technical" information. Also added pics, but feel free to move the info around, fiddle with the pics, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria/Archive 8,
Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!
Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) ( talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I know you already do a lot of source reviews at FAC, but if you have time, could you take a look at Anna of East Anglia and give it a FAC-level source review? The editor working on it would like to take it to FAC. I am helping them with content, but I'll never catch all the possible source issues. (Though I have checked to see if there are any references to Connecticut as CN.) Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 07:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, Nikkimaria! You've left several comments on the page and shown the opposition to promotion. I believe now I've addressed your comments. I'm just feeling pretty nervous about my first FAC, so it could be pleasant from you to proceed to the FAC page. Thanks, R8R Gtrs ( talk) 11:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. I just wanted to let you know I responded to your comments at the Homicide (season 1) FAC. Please let me know if this takes care of your concerns. Also, if you get a chance to review the rest of the article, I'd much appreciate it, as not many others have weighed in yet. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 20:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | |
To Nikkimaria for diligently reviewing sources for featured article candidate. Thank you particularly for reviewing True at First Light and Olivia Shakespear and catching my mistakes! Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 00:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC) |
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I had a crack at making the refs consistent at the Covent Garden article and I was wondering if you could have another look ( FAC link). Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 18:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked myself, but folks who have a lot of experience with images and refs have now checked those, and I've checked the prose and MOS. Can you have another look sometime before Sandy goes through again? - Dank ( push to talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Nikki, I understand where your oppose is coming in regard to Yahoo blogs. I have raised a discussion at WP:RSN regarding this, would you like to give your view point on this? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Just so you dont have to re-read everything, i believe all your concerns have been addressed excluding WP:HYPHEN as im still trying to figure out where ive violated it. Hopefully you can cap/strike your concerns. Thanks in advance. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate, little Nikki! [Bishzilla graciously stuffs little Nikkimaria in pocket for safekeeping. ] bishzilla ROARR!! 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
FWIW. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
There has been a major copyedit in the article about Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil since you reviewed. I'd like to ask you to take a look in it and see if your complains were adressed. Whatever you might find that you regard as wrong, I'd like to ask you to point them out to us in the FAC nomination so that we may correct them. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Re your post. I made an edit where I changed, removed or added publishers and locations within refs. Raintheone has challenged me with what has been said to him at FAC. I just found one such FAC, and would like clarification. Am I understanding it correctly that you would expect all instances of publishers or locations to be populated, or none at all? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Substituting with a location is often necessary as removal of the link would also remove clues to a journal's location (where the context isn't sufficiently strong, or where there is no url to follow). This would be particularly true of journals such as The Telegraph, and The Times; in particular The Nation is often linked to the wrong article. There are other 'Daily Mail's, and although possibility of ambiguity isn't enormous, I added the UK because it is not immediately obvious from the journal name; also it resides on the same line of script that adds location dabs for The Telegraph. I generally only unlink major newspapers in each territory. As the refs are never read independently of the body, one link usually suffices. For the article in question, Daily Mail already appeared in the body text. It was also linked repeatedly in the refs section; the publisher field in each occurrence was populated with Associated Newspapers. I see the latter as being largely unnecessary because The Mail so well known, and Associated constitutes a 'chain link' when adjacent to the Daily Mail. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, I do not believe in the necessity of linking journal names, nor of populating publishers fields in the majority of cases. You have remarked on the existence of the publisher field (which I would only really want to see used for books), and the propensity of editors to populate these in some anal-retentive fashion, or do so in the misguided belief that it is required by FAC or GAN, or simply " because it's there". Most of the time, use of these is unnecessary – the sources we tend to use tend to be tier-one. As to linking, I frequently come across articles where The New York Times is linked in excess of twenty, thirty, forty times. Go figure. I already use a script to ensure consistent formatting of titles by ensuring website names of traditional journals (e.g. Guardian Unlimited) are rendered as the traditional name (e.g. The Guardian). I also ensure the correct field name is used to give the italicisation, while taking out links to such articles. I have been building the list of journals as I go along. It is here. Your feedback would be most welcome. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria thanks for your help :) figuring out how to solve the issues that put the article YB Music labeled as "listed for deletion".. Since Nov 2010 several improvements were made, but no feedback was given since then. YB Music is the label that's releasing the new independent brazilian music for 10 years. Best 2010 Album by brazilian Rolling Stone magazine; 2 out of 10 Best of 2009 albums, also by Rolling Stone magazine. I understand it is a company, but companies related and creating culture definitely should have their space in Wikipedia; labels as Mute, Warp, Ninja Tunes are all there, and with good reason any suggestions on how to make this work? Unfortunately, lots of the references may be in portuguese; but surely some first page reviews in main newspapers in Sao Paulo and Rio... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2sambabom ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have chosen to work on Winters v. U.S. for my main Wiki project. I am suggested to ask for your comments on this choice and article. 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misstbird ( talk • contribs)
I think we're all OK except the one ref I commented on, on the FAC page. Perhaps one way of dealing with that is deleting the template and doing it as a normal reference. Let me know what you think, there. I appreciate all your work, and am sorry I left so much work for you.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria,
I was wondering if you could take a look at my replies to your review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epsilon Eridani/archive1? There's a few points that I'd appreciate if you could clarify. Thank you.
Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you please revisit your comments on images in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosendale trestle/archive1? I believe your image review may be the only remaining issue on that FAC. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 00:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to review Netball. I've never been through the FAC process and I found your edits and comments regarding what needed fixing to be extremely helpful. While the article may have failed, the feedback was insightful, on point and offers a clear route to addressing issues in the article. Speaking for myself and other regular contributors, we'll definetely be addressing the problems raised so that at some point in the future we can renominate it and get it passed. Thanks again for the assistance! -- LauraHale ( talk) 00:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for finding out the issues Nikkimaria. I belive I've fixed the issues, and have left replies. Once again, thank you. Novice7 ( talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria! I'm trying to find mentors for each of the groups in the Energy Economics and Policy course. Would you be willing to mentor this group? If so, please sign up on the course page and introduce yourself to the students in the group. If not, let me know so I can find someone else. Thanks!-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 15:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see "Japan"'s discussion page about Christianity Kim-Zhang-Hong ( talk) 10:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. I've addressed your image review at the FAC for Flowing Hair dollar. I did have a question for you, though, because I'm not sure which copyright tag to use on the Spanish dollar picture. Thanks for the review!- RHM22 ( talk) 13:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosendale trestle/archive1. Also, I added another image to the article ( File:Close up of engineer on Rosendale trestle.jpg) after its OTRS was filled. I hope I've provided good enough answers for a support, and I'd like to thank you for reviewing so far. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 01:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
you've recently added categories to a bunch of Commons images, and those file description pages were now marked for speedy deletion.
Typically, categories that are not specific to enWP should be added at Commons, not at the locale file description page. Since they are presumably all collected in
Commons:Category:Wikipe-tan I'm going to delete those pages here.
I do agree that it would be very useful to see the commons categorization here on enWP, and there already is a bugzilla issue somewhere asking for that. But duplicating the categorization on all MediaWiki projects is in my opinion not a useful workaround.
Cheers,
Amalthea
11:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lara Croft/archive2, and was hoping you'd provide further input. I also wanted to let you know that I added another free image to the article. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC))
Hi, I just wanted to let you know I responded to your source concerns with the Zoo TV Tour FAC. If you could please respond, I would appreciate it. I'm also looking for someone to do an image review, so if you could also provide that, that'd be great. Thank you! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2010 G-20 Toronto summit has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. EelamStyleZ ( talk) 11:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Heh. I had Charles Locock on a list of articles to create. Looks like I was too slow. :-) May try and add more later. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- would you mind revisiting the Fantastic Adventures FAC and letting me know if there's anything else I need to fix? Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed comments on the FAC for Villa Park. I think all the issues have been dealt with now. Would it be possible for you to revisit when you have the time? Thanks. Woody ( talk) 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. The article was not promoted after 8 days on the FA list. Not sure why the quick trigger; the students were in the process of addressing the issues. Rather than resubmit; I request that you allow us to address your concerns "off the record" and please inform when it meets your satisfaction. At such time the students will resubmit for FA.(Note: we skipped peer review since the article ((with the exception of Genetic Drift)) is the FA version from the past that went through enormous amount of scrutiny.) Not surprising all the the concerns raised in this FA attempt centered around that section. -- JimmyButler ( talk) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. If you have spare time, could you peer review a good article aiming for featured article status? It is about the song " Better Than Today". I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki - I know that the FAR for Rebecca Clarke has been a bit of a long haul, but it looks to be nearing the end. Brianboulton has left a few comments on the review, and I am hoping that you might have some time to address them. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer ( talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You kindly contributed to the recent peer review of Thomas Beecham, following which I have nominated the article at FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Beecham/archive1). Any views you might perhaps wish to add there would be gratefully received. Tim riley ( talk) 10:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. Your comments are greatly appreciated, and I have addressed them all at the FAC for Flowing Hair dollar. Thanks!- RHM22 ( talk) 13:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The close on the recent FAC was that we should re-work the prose and come back in a few weeks. After that we sought help at the WP Guild of Copy Editors, and they made extensive copy edit / prose improvements on the article. We (think we) are ready to to re-submit it. Since you were the main reviewer regarding prose concerns, would you take a quick look at it and give any preliminary impressions before we resubmit it? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am Jivesh. I come from Mauritius. I edit mainly pages related to Beyonce on Wikipedia. I have been amazed by the amazing contributions you make here and you have a nice understanding about prose which is my weak point. I was wondering if you could review an article for after i submit it for a peer review. Feel free to refuse. I won't mind. Thanks. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Already nominated. Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments the FAC for Schenn. It has been / will be shortly be archived due to a lack of supports, but I was hoping you could clarify for me where yuo were going with your comments about the Leafs logo? Or, point me in the direction of someone who can? As I said, I was just following previous hockey FAs which use action pictures featuring logos - I'd appreciate any guidance on this as I try to polish things up a bit further. Thanks! Canada Hky ( talk) 23:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 08:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I know you edit at FAC and comment on reliable sources and the like. I'm being bullied down by a group of self confessed fan boys of GI Joe. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/1, Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#G.I._Joe:_A_Real_American_Hero_.28Marvel_Comics.29 and Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics). There has been a long running discussion on reliable sources. More information on where the sources were contested and deemed no reliable is available in those topics. Anyway I know you are an admin so I thought it was best to seek assistance on what has turned into a dispute. I recently edited G.I. Joe: Resolute (ref tidy, added reliable sources for a reception section, removed weasel wording, cut plot down and so forth) - I was under the impression, well I know, that my edits were contructive. The editor Jake laughed at my edits and ordered me to edit the more known series. No is helping there atm, they are trying to argue. It's worked, I ended up calling one editor a bully, so it is time if you could take a look. Rain the 1 BAM 03:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for agreeing to look into this, it is long winded but I looked over a few admins and decided your knowledge of sources at FAC spoke volumes.. The editor has left you a question on the talk page. Rain the 1 BAM 03:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey I thought I'd let you know you know that I asked another editor of GAR to look over it with you. I think it is perhaps wise if I no longer add to discussion as it seems to produce nothing towards helping the article. I did make a personal apology on Jake's talk page too, it is a shame we couldn't work together in the end. But at the end of the day like you said, it is about the article and not our personality clashes. Do you think that is wise? Thankyou for listening too. Rain the 1 BAM 04:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually in addition to that - When I asked you to help and Siltork (because he does work on GA reassment), I stated that we both seem to be at fault. That outside eyes are better. I didn't think that was canvassing. Have you seen these? This, [2] and this. Ever likley user Boz was quick to assume I had a vendetta, he was told so. I asked uninvolved people from a far, they are going in between themselves. Rain the 1 BAM 04:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'd like to make a comment about the recent "crisis", if you don't mind. Although I complained in the FAC talk page about having assigned you to close the FAC nomination, I want you to know that it's nothing against you, personally. My complains were about how the FAC nominations are handled. I hope you can understand it. -- Lecen ( talk) 18:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I got all your sourcing concerns. I don't know if you normally revisit, so just letting you know and thanks for the review. -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 07:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Sorry I was late in getting back to you, but I am currently on vacation. I believe I responded to your concerns. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria - just checking in to see whether any further action re sources is necessary at the True at First Light FAC. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
See this. Raul654 ( talk) 04:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been told this image File:Marilyn Manson - Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death).jpg is incorrectly licensed. However, the reviewer who told me so refuses to elaborate why. Could you please explain in order that I could fix the problem. Thank you. - Red marquis ( talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Home-Made Barnstar | |
For re-wording the section on Rules in the article O Canada so it was no longer a copywrite problem and was able to stay. I think you deserve this, thank you. Oddbodz ( talk) 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
Do you think I should be taking a break or the person who initiated the personal attacks.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
We'd like to put a column in our monthly Milhist newsletter encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 18:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria,
Per your FAC comment that, "Note: alt text is not currently part of the FA criteria", I have to respectfully disagree. Item 2 of the FA criteria says it follows the style guidelines. The last bullet of MOS:IMAGES states, "Images should have an alt attribute added...". This indicates that Alt text is still required. If this is not the case, then the FA criteria should be making a list of such exceptions available to the editor community.
Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your review of Egyptian temple for FA status. I also want to thank you for FAC reviewing in general—I did it out of a sense of obligation while Egyptian temple was at FAC, and I hated it. Kudos to everybody who keeps the system working. A. Parrot ( talk) 05:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thank you for the source reviews and image reviews that you do. You're always efficient, good humoured and reasonable, and it's work that needs doing. It's very much appreciated. I also need to apologize for committing the same errors over and over again; in my current FAC you've pointed out mistakes that you've pointed out at least two or three times before. I keep thinking that by copying my references from a previous FA I will have a clean copy, but there's always something new or I mistakenly tweak something. I promise that in future I will go back to my prior FACs and look at the source comments and try to do a pass to be sure I'm not repeat-offending. Anyway, I've replied at the FAC, and there's a question about the images, so if you could let me know the right way to handle that I'd appreciate it. Thanks again! Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. Thanks for your comments and reviews at the FAC for Trade dollar (United States coin). I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Thanks again!- RHM22 ( talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria. The above nomination has been around for almost a month. But the nominator is not a significant contributor of the article. Is there a way to close the nomination, like archiving or deleting? Thanks. Novice7 ( talk) 06:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, in Germany I had been completing some incomplete references. In news citations, the city of publication of a newspaper or magazine should be included if it is not already part of the name of the publication. I see that you have removed "London" from The Guardian and "New Delhi" from The Times of India, undoing my work and making the article not conform to either general practice or WP rules. I have put them back again and I hope you will not do this any more. Thank you -- Alarics ( talk) 10:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I am full of admiration for your industry in this area; recently, each time I have been to the FAC page prepared to help out with a few sources reviews, I find you have got there before me. No complaint, of course, but please feel free to take the odd break from this tedious chore should you feel like it. I am always prepared to stand in for a while. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if "Notice of RfC/U related to a Good Article Reassessment" isn't still improperly characterizing it? Although the GAR may have been the final straw leading to the RfC/U, it's not actually the subject of the RfC/U, but simply one piece of evidence within the RfC/U. Thanks -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 04:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Following your review, the problems you have highlighted have been addressed. Would you be able to have a look and see where the article stands now? Harrison49 ( talk) 12:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello there Nikkimaria! I notice you've listed yourself as a possible peer-reviewer for articles related to literature. I've been working on the article for Eveline Hańska, wife of the French novelist Honoré de Balzac, and I'd like to nominate it soon for FA status. Do you have time for a peer review? Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
You're a pretty incisive reviewer. Whereas I tend to focus on the first problem I see, as evidenced in Frank Buckles' FAC, you sweep rapidly across the board. Maybe one day when I grow up I can be like you. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I got a bit of a problem with this one. This is a creation of three seperate images (proper sourcing in the file summary) that I created myself. It essentially made it easier (and with less code) to have them on the page. I, of course, can't say that the image is US Army property, since I made it. So I am confused on how to give it proper licensing and still have the image. Can you help? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you change your "oppose", thanks for the good comments. I guess you're the only reviewer now who hasn't recused, so please let us know whether to give up or be optimistic. :-) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria! I've replied to your comments on the above article. Thank you. Novice7 ( talk) 11:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I guess all of us who made substantial contributions to the SAQ article now have something to be proud of (in addition to any other of our respective accomplishments), and that very much includes you. But that is not why I am writing here. I am puzzled. I noticed that here you protected that page, expiring April 25. And yet, here, an IP editor was able to make a change. How is this possible? What does "protection" really mean in this case? Or am I missing something? And shouldn't there be a protection tag on the page? Regards, Alan W ( talk) 06:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria! I wanted to let you know that Calabozos is back at FAC. Your comments at the previous FAC were rather insightful, and so I'd appreciate it if you could make more suggestions for the article's benefit. The current FAC is here. Thanks, ceran thor 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria - no rush, but when you have time, I think the issues you raised at source review issues for the Olivia Shakespear FAC have been resolved. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 18:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
If you have time, revisiting this FAC would be appreciated to see if your concerns have been adequately addressed.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I see you are online and back from the IRL stuff. I was wondering if you could take a look at the Frank Buckles FAC (linked above) and see if the concerns you had have been taken care of by AYW and myself (among others). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. Regarding this image from the Air-tractor sledge article (which is at FAC), I think it's going to be very hard to source as you suggest. I have found another image (which is also of a poorer quality) here, which could be uploaded in its place. Because it was published in the UK before 1923, my understanding is that it's best uploaded on Wikipedia (rather than Commons) with a PD-US tag. Is this the case? Thanks, Apterygial talk 22:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Due to the Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival going on in my county, the local libraries (all run by one entity) are closed today and will be this weekend as well. I will go to the library for the direct Census sources on Monday. I apologize for this delay. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Since your FA review of National Broadband Network, the article went through main changes. Is there a chance you can revisit your review to provide more feedback? Thanks. — [d'oh] 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki! I've tried my best to remove any close paraphrasing. I was wondering if you could revisit it and post any remaining comments. Thank you. Novice7 ( talk) 16:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I would like you opinion on how to handle page numbers in citations. I notice that in you source reviews on the FAC page you comment "Multi-page PDFs need page numbers". Normally for journal articles I specify the first and last pages while for books I specify the actual page. I believe this is standard practice. As books are often cited multiple times I usually create a "References" section where I give the full details of the books and a "Notes" section with a "Reflist" and generate notes using the sfn or harv templates.(I'm aware that a template is not required) I then have a choice as to how to handle journal references: I can either create the full reference in the Notes section or I can add then to the References and then use a template to generate an entry for the Notes. I'm uncertain as which is the better system. Journal articles can be very long so just specifying the first and last page of the article is not very precise. By putting the full specification of a journal article in the References I can specify the actual page in the Notes section. Is this what you meant by your comments on the FAC page? Many thanks Aa77zz ( talk) 10:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
... on our FAC editorial in the Bugle, including your comments, here. The idea for this editorial was to give a lot of brief statements by a lot of people to convey the idea that there's broad support for the idea that anyone can (and more should) review at FAC. After we see if the editorial has any effect, we can try to do something less scattershot in another editorial. Please let me know if you are (or aren't) happy with any effect this might have at FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if you've already read my responses. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños/archive1. Thanks. Moray An Par ( talk) 11:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Have you done the spotchecks on this one? Not asking you to do them, just asking what it means that you didn't say one way or the other. (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki. I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your source review at the FAC for Draped Bust dollar. Thanks!- RHM22 ( talk) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I really appreciate it :) Aar☢n Bruce Talk/ Contribs 15:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I was just wondering when it is appropriate to delete FAC noms that are premature or haven't consulted significant contributors. Is it only articles that are clearly premature that get deleted (ie nomming a stub etc). Thanks, Woody ( talk) 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
On the Taro socks, I'm leaving them there instead of deleting them, hoping some friendly admin will come along and do the honors :) User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Real_Madrid. Sometimes I'm just outtatime to deal with the socks, etc. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for everything, Nikkimaria-- I seem to be the only delegate at FAC nowadays ... I'm going to be very busy all weekend, so I hope you can keep an eye on that Guy Fawkes situation. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikki! I'd like to withdraw my nomination of "Irresistible" this time too. I'll ask someone to ce the article and will renominate again. How long should I wait before next nomination? Novice7 ( talk) 04:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much for the article - I need to get my printer hooked up to get it to print to see if there is more we can add. I've added in some other bits from a tourist driving guide, which adds a bit more "non-technical" information. Also added pics, but feel free to move the info around, fiddle with the pics, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria/Archive 8,
Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!
Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) ( talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I know you already do a lot of source reviews at FAC, but if you have time, could you take a look at Anna of East Anglia and give it a FAC-level source review? The editor working on it would like to take it to FAC. I am helping them with content, but I'll never catch all the possible source issues. (Though I have checked to see if there are any references to Connecticut as CN.) Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 07:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, Nikkimaria! You've left several comments on the page and shown the opposition to promotion. I believe now I've addressed your comments. I'm just feeling pretty nervous about my first FAC, so it could be pleasant from you to proceed to the FAC page. Thanks, R8R Gtrs ( talk) 11:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. I just wanted to let you know I responded to your comments at the Homicide (season 1) FAC. Please let me know if this takes care of your concerns. Also, if you get a chance to review the rest of the article, I'd much appreciate it, as not many others have weighed in yet. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 20:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | |
To Nikkimaria for diligently reviewing sources for featured article candidate. Thank you particularly for reviewing True at First Light and Olivia Shakespear and catching my mistakes! Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 00:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC) |
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I had a crack at making the refs consistent at the Covent Garden article and I was wondering if you could have another look ( FAC link). Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 18:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked myself, but folks who have a lot of experience with images and refs have now checked those, and I've checked the prose and MOS. Can you have another look sometime before Sandy goes through again? - Dank ( push to talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Nikki, I understand where your oppose is coming in regard to Yahoo blogs. I have raised a discussion at WP:RSN regarding this, would you like to give your view point on this? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Just so you dont have to re-read everything, i believe all your concerns have been addressed excluding WP:HYPHEN as im still trying to figure out where ive violated it. Hopefully you can cap/strike your concerns. Thanks in advance. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate, little Nikki! [Bishzilla graciously stuffs little Nikkimaria in pocket for safekeeping. ] bishzilla ROARR!! 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC).