Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria

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

Arianda Sodi

[edit]

I'm gonna be honest, I knew the source wasn't great when I cited it, so that's my bad. I'm more knowledgable with football, but wanted to try and edit some other stubs other than just football ones. Hope that clears that up. :) RossEvans18 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iran‎ +26,222‎ +8,552‎ +6,812‎ etc...

[edit]

Not sure what can be done here.Article being overloded. Posted on their talk the other day about size but to no avail (reply) User talk:HereIAmNow1379. Moxy- 18:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - the post at article talk got a bit of traction but didn't last. Would be nice to get more eyes in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About Iran article again Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyrus-Gg1 Moxy🍁 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know - we'll see what the result is. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora McDonnell

[edit]

Hello. I've noticed you removed the link to The Peerage on Flora McDonnell. I don't understand you reason given as "rm EL". Is there something wrong with the source? Thanks. Seaweed (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seaweed, yes - this website is deprecated per community discussion, which means that its reliability is considered to be highly questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: part of

[edit]

Thanks for removing those. I never understood why people used them on those types of articles. It's not like it's some sort of military front... PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - definitely agree. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rechtman Surname list

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria - -you edited large portion of an entry on the Rechtman Surname. The issue, it appears is some formatting guidelines. Instead of editing out, can you tell me what the issue is or even better just fix it? Not sure what exactly is the issue here. your "rv" is not clear. So please fix or be explicit. Thank you. Rechtman (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rechtman, the issue is not formatting, but more fundamental: that section, and to a certain extent the article as a whole, represents interpretation of primary sources rather than a summary of secondary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. I have a question about the Elvis Presley article: for the cause of death section, I wonder if we should fix the potential {{blockquote}} format issue? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjones23, could you clarify what format issue you're referring to? The blockquote looks pretty standard on my display. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the paragraph regarding E. Eric Muirhead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still not sure what you're asking about. I see a blockquote attributed to Muirhead, but as I said it looks like a typical blockquote to me. Can you be more specific about what problem you're seeing or what you would want to see differently? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking if we should use the {{blockquote}} template or keep the HTML coding? Sorry for any confusion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thanks. I don't have any particular preference between the two, but if you'd like to change it I have no objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request for peer review

[edit]

hi! i found you through the list of peer review volunteers, and i was wondering if you would have any broad suggestions for improving the book article (review request here). it's in a pretty bad state right now and i'm not personally deeply knowledgeable on books so i probably have large blind spots as to what's currently missing.

thanks, LarstonMarston (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of addition

[edit]

Why did you remove my addition? SanDiegoCerberus (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SanDiegoCerberus, user-generated wikis like Fandom are not reliable sources. For additions like this you need secondary sourcing indicating the significance of the entry. Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any sources "confirming" its THE castle unfortunately, it just bears a resemblance. If its any better the twitter/X account for the castle tweeted about the resemblance. https://twitter.com/domainechambord/status/1177496895112929282 SanDiegoCerberus (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Rutherford - edits and options?

[edit]

Thanks, I appreciated your detailed scrutiny of the additions to the entry for Frances Rutherford.

I understand that the information about her family history was removed because of an unreliable source (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rutherford-1050)  and too much detail about her relatives.  

Two important details are now missing:  that Rutherford was a descendant of early British settlers in New Zealand and the first cousin, once removed, of Ernest Rutherford, the nuclear physicist.  Her relationship with Ernest Rutherford was noted in the ‘early life’ section of the original entry which stated that she was a cousin.   I traced her family tree to verify and explain this relationship.

I would like to offer two options for adding this information and ask your advice about whether either would be acceptable.

Option 1:  adding information in a shortened form and different citations, under ‘early life and education’

Rutherford’s great grandparents were early British settlers in New Zealand.  Her great grandfather, George Rutherford emigrated from Scotland in 1843.  Her father,  William Rutherford was ‘the uncle of Lord Rutherford, the eminent scientist’ making Rutherford the first cousin, once removed of Ernest Rutherford, the nuclear physicist. https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/rutherford-sir-ernest and https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19350312.2.113

Option 2:  Putting the paragraph which explains her relationship with Ernest Rutherford in her Talk page. This was

Rutherford was a descendant of early British settlers in New Zealand and the first cousin, once removed, of Ernest Rutherford, the nuclear physicist.  Her great grandparents George Rutherford (1804-1876) and Mary Rutherford, nee Adie (1807-1877) arrived in Nelson in 1843, two years after New Zealand became a colony within the British Empire. They had three daughters and six sons including James Rutherford (abt. 1839-1928) and William James Rutherford (1848-1935).  James Rutherford was born in Dundee.  He married Martha Thompson (abt. 1842-1935) in 1866 and they had had twelve children, including Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937).  William James Rutherford was born in Nelson.  In 1874 he married Emma Louisa Kearns (1876-1963). They had four daughters and four sons, including Charles William Rutherford (1876-1963).  He was Frances Moran Rutherford’s father and Ernest Rutherford’s uncle. 

Thanks again for your help and I look forward to hearing your suggestions.

Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Occupational Therapy History Matters, Option 2 would be acceptable and would require no further discussion - if you'd like to do that go ahead. For option 1, I'd want to explore more why this detail requires inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. Option 2 is fine. When I promote Rutherford's entry, I will encourage people to refer to the Talk page. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin C FA review

[edit]

I do not understand what "needs a US tag" means for the image of James Lind. Working on the other comments. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2024

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Source usage

[edit]

Thanks for correcting me on my lacklustre source usage. I reopened the discussion of the section at Talk:Germany#total 17 million people were systematically murdered. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding excessive detail

[edit]

In this exchange, the point I was trying to make is that the detail you removed was the only content preventing that section from sliding into full WP:UNDUE. You've removed the only critical analysis of LBJ's use of the Silver Star and left in a rather substantial character count of one POV. I agree that direct quotes aren't needed and that there are additional supporting secondary sources that can be added (e.g. this), but can you please explain how if reducing detail is the mission while still respecting the neuterality of the encyclopedia, you've left in extensive direct quotes from laudatory sources and removed any balancing content? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orange Suede Sofa, as I said, if you'd like to address reducing existing content, I have no objection; I just saw the excessively detailed addition appear on my watchlist. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not interested in mechanically reducing content, and I'm astonished how my thoughts above could possibly be interpreted that way. I'm more interested in ensuring that the existing content remains balanced, and this response indicates to me that no substantial thought has been given to the impact of this content on the article. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO its impact is not positive regardless of what else is there. If there is a balance problem with the existing content, then the existing content should be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So, when balancing content is added, then we should just mindlessly remove it without any awareness of the subject matter and let other editors clean up after ourselves, including reverting editors that actually are familiar with the content. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's very much not what I said. If the existing content is hagiographic as you suggest, simply throwing in some negative commentary doesn't fix that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mindlessly removing new content doesn't fix existing balance issues. If you have a thoughtful explanation of why that content needed to be removed in the pursuit of addressing excessive length and detail, I'd love to hear it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That particular addition would have been excessive if the article were half its current length or if the section were overwhelmingly negative. Neither adding new content nor removing those additions addresses the existing content and its flaws. I've taken a stab at doing the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look, and I want to make sure that my concern is heard. The existing content was not overwhelmingly negative, but overwhelmingly positive. This is the root of my concern; not only did you remove content without substantial analysis, but you reverted an editor who gave a meaningful justification for keeping the content. I've interacted with you before and I'm confident that you respect WP:N, and all I want to do is to ensure that our edits to the article are carefully made with regard to all pillars of our encyclopedia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the perspective you've put forward, but it sounds like we have the same goal, so hopefully the new version addresses that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Cecilia Strzyzowksi

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm always made a bit nervous about edits that are said to deal with Earwig numbers (in this case to shut Earwig up), and the more so when the edit that did so, as best I can see, didn't really make the sort of significant rewording that would deal with close paraphrasing. Can I ask you to please take a look at this approved nomination to see whether there are, in your opinion, close paraphrasing issues? Thank you for whatever you can do; I realize this is a long article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, that article's sources are almost entirely Spanish, which I unfortunately do not speak, so I'm going to be of very limited help there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look, Nikkimaria. Sorry I didn't notice that this was Spanish-language heavy. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello, I think your edit summary "rm EL" means remove external link? But I am not sure why because our Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources seems to allow the link for this purpose. I will not add the link again, but I am hoping to learn more about why the link is not allowed. Bruxton (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct - could you elaborate on why you think should be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually include that site if there is a headstone pictured in the link. Bruxton (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? And particularly, why for this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the photograph was the missing child. But if it is not allowed for that purpose I understand. I may have misunderstood Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Bruxton (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Turkish baths changes

[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your interest and suggestion alterations, some of which I disagree with, and some I am grateful for.

1. Removal of totally: absolutely. It's tautological and unnecessary.

2. Thank you for your substitution, which I am happy with pro tem; the sourcing was clumsy and lazy. However I shall in due course replace "Although many British bathers prefer bathing in the Turkish bath without costumes, or just loosely covered with a towel" when I have sourced it better; I am replacing "[N]udity became rare after many local authorities outsourced the operation of their baths" as this is a simple observable statement. I will neverthe less add sources when I get back to my database.

3. Again I am happy with your removal of footnote 14. I tried to get it again this morning and it led only to their main page. It was, in any case a bad source mentioning 'financial' reasons which locals know (probably from the council minutes) referred to the extra staff requirements. But it is also widely known that they tried not to give this as a reason, instead citing "inappropriate behavior" among male bathers (indicative of poor staff training) and, the latest, "striving for inclusivity" (which is strongly contested). No mention was made of the gaoling of a masseur for inappropriate behaviour! I will, however, probably replace this when I have found my original list of possible sources.

Thank you for your help in improving this revised page. Ishpoloni (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I've further trimmed the item on nudity in the VTb after consulting some senior people in BN. Although there is a general belief that this is the case, they agree with you that there is no hard evidence. Thanks again for drawing this to my attention and for your interest. Ishpoloni (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issei Sagawa

[edit]

Hi, why you remove Sagawa's height, nationality, cause of death and relative Alon Alush (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alon Alush, according to the template documentation, height should be included only "If person was notable for their height, or if height is relevant", cause of death only "when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability", and relatives only "if independently notable and particularly relevant"; none of those criteria are met. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Sagawa's height is very relevant in this context, he was a very short man, and cannibalized because he felt short and weak, to "absorb someone else's energy" according to his own words. I believe that his height is very relevant to the topic. Alon Alush (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it makes sense to include his relatives in the infobox, his father, Akira Sagawa, was the owner of "Kurita Water Industries", and was a very rich man. He played an important role in the release of Sagawa, paying a settlement to one of his previous victims to get Sagawa's charges dropped. Alon Alush (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being rich doesn't make someone notable - any sourcing to support that that's the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikEd

[edit]

This diff suggests that you are using WikEd (zillions of buttons in the toolbar) and got bit by one of its bugs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, yep - would you happen to know a fix? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there's nothing you can do about it. The maintainer is largely inactive, and was told about this years ago, so I don't realistically expect it to get fixed. It seems to be a kind of WP:GENFIX thing ("It's not a bug; it's a feature!") that might be better handled as a namespace-sensitive action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Italy

[edit]

Hi, do you have time in the next few days to finish fixing the article Cinema of Italy in order to remove the tags at the beginning of the article? Greetings. --LukeWiller (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Unlikely. You had mentioned asking another editor - any luck there? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't ask any other user. Why do you ask ? To finish fixing the article I ask him why you don't have time? --LukeWiller (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, sorry for the idiotic question I asked you, now I understand what you meant. I had a better idea: try reading here. Regards. --LukeWiller (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

FAC and images at Vegas Golden Knights

[edit]

Howdy,

After promoting the Vegas Golden Knights article to GA, I'm hoping to eventually get it to FAC (though I'm not in a hurry to do so). As part of this, I nominated it for peer review, which @Matarisvan is currently working on. As part of the review's initial comments, they noted that the logo and jersey images in the infobox could possibly be an issue for FAC, and directed me to ask you for advice. Neither are CC-licensed, but both have credible non-free-use rationale. The Kip 04:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Kip, a couple of thoughts on that. First off, as a general rule, the more non-free content you want to include, the stronger the rationale is needed for each for them to be justified. For example, I see you have two non-free logos with essentially the same rationale - I'd want to see reasoning why both are needed / one is not sufficient. The other thing to consider is to make sure the rationale covers all of the criteria. For example, the uniform image just gives the uploader as the source, which falls short of the recommendations around 10a. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the uniform source with credit to the Golden Knights, and two references (respectively for the grey/white and gold uniforms) to back up the credit. As for the rationale - could you elaborate further? I'm not quite sure if I understand. The Kip 05:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good non-free rationale should clearly identify why the image is necessary. If you have two images with basically the same rationale, it naturally raises the question of why you need two images to do the same thing - to include both, there needs to be a clearly expressed reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how they have an identical rationale, though - the uniform states
To denote the uniform of the team. The uniform is described in detail in the article and is a visual identifier of the team equal to (and in some sports more important than) the logo. It is standard to display uniforms of a sports team in the infobox.
while the logo states
The image is used to identify the brand Vegas Golden Knights, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey.
The logo's rationale denotes that it represents the brand, while the uniforms' rationale denotes that it is as if not more important to the brand than the logo. The Kip 07:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the uniform, the two logos. First one:
The image is used to identify the brand Vegas Golden Knights, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey.
Second one:
The image is used to identify the brand Vegas Golden Knights, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey.
Those are word-for-word identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad - I'd forgotten the alternate logo was in there. I'll try to revise the descriptions. The Kip 09:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the descriptions to denote why both the primary and secondary are important to include - please review whenever you've got a moment. The Kip 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better. I do question whether we want the "assure the readers that they have reached the right article" verbiage in the secondary logo rationale given that this isn't the one positioned where readers will see it on arriving at the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove it, just had it included as the default non-free rationale language. The Kip 03:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

A.D.Hope (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red March 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301


Online events:

Announcements

Tip of the month:

  • When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
    and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is A number of small but frequent deletions take place.. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a formality; nothing serious. Sorry I pinged you earlier too. Somehow, mentioning without pinging seemed worse. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping them out, Usedtobecool :) . Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggles

[edit]

Hi, Nikki

I noticed that you removed the reference from the wiggles in "Baa Baa Black Sheep". I was just doing what MichaelMaggs told me. I have to put a reliable resource there. Niveithika1999 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niveithika1999, user-generated sources like Fandom wikis are not reliable sources. If you want to include this mention, you'll need secondary sourcing that demonstrates its significance to the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Niveithika1999 (talk) 23:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February music

[edit]
story · music · places

My story today celebrates a woman's birthday. She sat right in front of me when I took the picture at a lovely concert, celebrating her son's 60th. I thought she was 90 today, - no, 91 already. You can listen, starting at the piece he dedicated to her, Op. 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hey Nikki.

I have a question. Is it possible to move my things on my new account? Such as Files I uploaded on commons, my user pages, etc. Dr.Ayzkao! 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ayzkao, I'm not sure I understand your question - could you clarify, maybe with a specific example of what you're hoping to move? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is everything. Files I uploaded, and much more I can't explain to you, lel. Dr.Ayzkao! 03:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a process for moving files at Commons according to uploader request, outlined here. On this wiki, you can generally move things around within your userspace; however, if you're looking to change your username it would probably make your life easier to rename your account. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi Nikki - hoping I can get your wisdom on a(nother) copyright question.

Concerning maps, archaeological diagrams and so on: I understand that simply copying a chart or plan made by another person would be a derivative work, and so not permitted unless that diagram was itself in the public domain. However, how does this sit versus the idea that bare facts -- such as, for example, the location of a wall -- cannot be copyrighted?

In this specific case, if I've got a published site plan like this guy, which itself is described at great length in the accompanying text, how much room is there for me to make a plan of the same site without falling foul of copyright, and is there any way I can help ensure that the resulting diagram ends up on the right side of all the necessary rules? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, the key would be to avoid incorporating any original element from the published diagram - if you can forget you saw it entirely and create your own based only on the text, that would be ideal. (Alternatively, is the chart old enough to be PD?). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki -- no, the charts aren't old enough, sadly (the site was excavated in 1939), but at the same time it seems ridiculous for there to be no way to map the site just because someone else has already made a map. Normally, you could just trace it from Google Maps, but there's a roof over the building. I assume the key word there is original: that is, if the two diagrams coincide simply because they describe the same physical thing, that's fine, but any reconstruction, symbology etc is considered a creative act which has copyright protection? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically any choice that could be considered original to the chart creator rather than inherent to the facts underlying it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting that another way: any choice that a chart creator could reasonably not make? Thanks, Nikki -- this is helpful. I'll give it a go: do you mind if I run what I come up with past you? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Beethoven with the Manuscript of the Missa Solemnis

[edit]

On 4 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beethoven with the Manuscript of the Missa Solemnis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Stieler's portrait of Beethoven (pictured), the composer's arms "are not convincingly attached to his shoulders"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beethoven (Stieler). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beethoven with the Manuscript of the Missa Solemnis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great hook! Made me laugh out loud. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
story · music · places
I came to say the same, and that it is also featured on Portal:Germany. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), at least the first day, - and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing Canadian peacekeeping for GA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listen to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message to Nikkimaria

[edit]

For some reason, I was particularly tickled by your DYK running today. Thanks for being one of many inspirations in my pursuing excellent work on here. Remsense诉 10:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

  • Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
  • 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Great job your doing at Iran. Keep up the great work. 😀 Moxy🍁 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - will get there eventually ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take immediate action on Iran's religion numbers on the infobox

[edit]

Hello. Unfortunately, there are users who are trying to destroy some sensitive information on Iran. I know that this discussion already exists in the Iran's talk page, but I want you to personally take action on the situation since you are paying close attention to the page. Religion numbers on the infobox has been fully destroyed by some newly-created accounts in an intend to change the facts with unreliable sources (using an anti-Iranian/opposition website as their source...) and reject the country's official general census, which was on the infobox for literally years. Please remove the religious section from Infobox once and for all, *and do something that no one revert it this easily with false info*. Most country pages do not even have religion numbers on the infobox for this exact reason: to avoid such discussions in the talk page, and since the Iran's talk page is on fire with tons of people wanting this to change, please do something fast. This is a massive problem on Iran's page and it needs to get resolved immediately. Farnaj57 (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it per the talk page, but unfortunately I don't have the ability to guarantee no one will revert it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2024

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Free access/doc

[edit]

Template:Free access/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

Wondering if your interested in small review Talk:Canadian peacekeeping Moxy🍁 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can take a look in a day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Richardson Bass

[edit]

Hi Nikki. I made a few edits to my cousin's, Perry Bass, page to add the names of his parents and to add info regarding our family history and roots in Texas through Benjamin Roland Bass and Susan Green Bass. I added it in support to a quote from Perry's grandson in which he made reference to his family's multi-generational history in Texas. I therefore added the information regarding our common relatives (Ben and Susan Bass) who migrated from Tennessee to Texas in about 1855. As support, I included links to the 1850 census showing them in Tennessee, and also a link to the 1860 census showing them in Texas (which also noted that they had a child born about 5 years earlier who was born in Texas, thereby establishing the time frame of about 1855 . . . I have some property records as well since my grandmother inherited part of the land they originally acquired, but that would be a bit more tedious to run down). I also included information about the family's linkage back to early 17th century Virginia and the Nansemond Nation. With respect to this latter part, I can see why that would be removed for lack of reliability. I don't even know where I would start in adding all of the documentation around that, so probably not worth trying. I am confused, however, regarding what additional information you would be looking for to support the information regarding Ben and Susan Bass. I included links to their "Findagrave" locations, which if you click through their child Porter Bass, to his son, Dr. E. Perry Bass, it will take you to Perry Richardson Bass. I figured that would be sufficient, but I am knew to making edits in Wikipedia so I may be missing something. It is possible that I am looking at things with a less skeptical eye since I personally know, and am part of, that shared portion of family history. Thanks for any insights. Ksquared73 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ksquared73, an important thing to be aware of is that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. This means that unpublished sources, like family recollections, cannot be included at all, and user-generated sources like Findagrave are not considered reliable. It also means that there are significant limitations on how primary sources can be used - they have to be reputably published and they can't be combined or interpreted in any way. The practical effect of all of that is that (outside of people like royals whose genealogy is a subject of significant study) it can be very difficult to appropriately source extended family linkages. This is part of the reason why genealogical entries appear on the list of things that Wikipedia is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent summary. I very much appreciate it. There are actually some other references that exist on this (newspaper articles, and at least one book that I know of), so I will try to dig them up. Thanks again! 2600:1006:B1A1:3B7:5CB1:EC04:89B4:4A39 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming Ulysses S. Grant

[edit]

Thank you for your edits to Ulysses S. Grant. Your approach to reducing the size of the article, trimming one sentence or paragraph at a time, and with only the most minor sacrifice of actual sourced material, is one that I had not had any confidence in, but your results have been impressive. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation removed

[edit]

Hello there.

I noticed that you removed a citation that I added on the 'Parachute regiment in media' page. it was about cars 2. I felt that the citation from the cars wiki was reliable, but if you think it wasn't that alright, but I'd just like an explanation for future reference when I'm adding citations.

All the best,

Sgtnugg Sgtnugg (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sgtnugg, I'd suggest having a look at this page, which details the level of reliability of various commonly encountered sites. As you'll see there, the wiki you cited is generally considered unreliable since it is user-generated. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you Sgtnugg (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Gadaski

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I noticed that you deleted the death section of George Gadaski. Understand that you deleted the link because of an uncertain refernce. In the future use other links such as the artilce published from SlamWrestling instead of deleting everything.

Thank you,

Kingzwest Kingzwest (talk) 23:39 17 March 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greenback.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria,

When tagging pages for speedy deletion (or PROD or AFD), it really helps if you make use of Twinkle. It's an editing tool that makes so many different tasks so easy. It basically knows all of the useful templates so you don't have to memorize them or go look for the correct one. It allows you to tag articles for problems, welcome new editors, report vandals to noticeboards, set up AFD discussion, it even maintains logs for you. Best of all, if you set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", it will post a notice on a page creator's talk page, letting them know what is going on.

The reason I bring it up is that you tagged an article as a CSD G5 and when you tag that with Twinkle, it provides a field where you put the name of the sockmaster. That way, when a patrolling admin reviews the article, they can easily see who the sockmaster is and go look at the relevant SPI. Also, if an article is deleted, it will have the name of the sockmaster in the deletion summary at the top of the page. I encourage you to try out Twinkle if you haven't used it or tried it but didn't stick with it. I use it to do almost all of my administrator tasks and it's made the job much easier. Give it a shot! Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will look, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of source

[edit]

What is "non-MS"? Braintic (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Braintic, "non-RS" is in reference to citations that are not to reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please suggest what I am to do about sources from this long ago. On the one hand, someone else is telling me that every entry needs a source. On the other, there are very few online obituary sources from back in the 80s, and any newspaper articles are typically hidden behind a paywall. And now I am being told that I can't use the only source I could find. All of these entries are connected to a Wikipedia page, and most of them also don't have sources for deaths. Please indicate what the "right" thing to do is when faced with this dilemma. Braintic (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Braintic, if you are not able to identify a source for a claim, you should omit it. Links to Wikipedia articles aren't substitutes for sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the 1990 deaths, which I am not responsible for compiling, and 42% of deaths there are unsourced. For 2000 it is 37%. Are you saying that I am within my rights to delete all those death entries?
Even in 2010, which is mostly sourced many of the links are to memorabilia pages or player profiles on sporting sites, many news articles state "died Friday" or "died over Christmas" and many are to blog sites.
And I am not sure why you regard the Find a Grave site to not be reliable. It is owned by Ancestry.com, which is just about the most reputable genealogy site and has been around for almost 30 years. It is certainly infinitely more reliable than all of those sources I mentioned from 2010. Braintic (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest having a look at this page, which outlines several commonly used sources and links to discussions regarding them. If there are sources that are not on this list that you think are questionable, I'd encourage you to open a discussion at WP:RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of inline external link?

[edit]

I apologise if I'm not following the correct procedure for addressing my query regarding a recent edit (removal of external link). This is my first time using Wikipedia's 'User talk' feature.

The specific page in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydenham,_London

I contributed a whole paragraph and photograph to enhance the description of an area I have personal knowledge about. There's one notable residential street in the London suburbs with a particularly unique layout, which I recently extensively created as a One Place Study (OPS) on WikiTree. I chose this platform because it allows for direct linkage from property census information to new or existing family trees – essentially, it answers the question of 'who lived where and when.' Its focus and remit is different from Wikipedia's, as it primarily deals with ordinary people in the context of social history, rather than those who have achieved a certain degree of fame or notability that might be approached from a less obscure perspective.

In my opinion, someone reading about this area on Wikipedia might find the content of the WikiTree OPS intriguing, and I created what I believed was a responsible link to this resource.

I fully comprehend the importance of monitoring content on Wikipedia to maintain its ongoing significance as a repository of knowledge. I also acknowledge that external links should not be utilised to promote commercial enterprises or favour information vendors of a dubious nature. Earlier on the same Wikipedia page, there is a link to a major UK retailer, which, in my view, falls into a grey area.

If I have misconstrued the rules regarding the use of external links, I would greatly appreciate an explanation of my mistake. Conversely, if I've made a compelling case for the inclusion of the link, could it please be reinstated? Shoepepper (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shoepepper, our External Links guideline indicates that external links should not be included within the article body, regardless of the content of those links. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I learnt something very useful, clarifying a basic function that I totally misunderstood. Shoepepper (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted tag in Quantum mechanics

[edit]

Hi. I reverted your claim that the article needs more references. Since there are 80 refs it's not a generic problem with the article.

Please add citation needed tags to sentences or better open a Talk page topic and explain. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Just a courtesy note to let you know you have been mentioned in this thread. It does not concern any actions you have made, but rather the insulting language used about you by another editor. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Thanks for dealing with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey FAR reopened.

[edit]

Hello. I have reopened the FAR for Mariah Carey. Please take time to re-review the article if it still meets the FA criteria. Thanks. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 23:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Laurel

[edit]

Hello.

My usual thought, in common with those many who think it but who don't speak it, is Oh dear ! The truth is to be found by third-parties, within the shared exchanges. It's eternal, and survives denial .

I suppose it could be added that it manifestly shows though Content creation and reviewing ..., though it may be thought to be an Editor's First love , isn't, in practice, their very ' First ' love . That particular Love may be deduced, (as it can be in all men), by observing what or whom they serve.

However, thank you, anyway. Heath St John (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider curation to be an essential part of content creation and reviewing. If you disagree with the particular change which prompted this post, I'd suggest you take it to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope you're keeping well. Can I check on an image that's just been put into an FA? The change can be seen here. The current version is a cropped copy of the previous version, but whereas the previous version is still under copyright in the UK, the new version is claimed to be free of copyright by virtue of being published in the US. It seems odd that it's still under copyright here, but isn't elsewhere, so I thought I'd best check.

The current version is poorer quality and doesn't show as much as the original version, so I'd prefer the older one back, but I'm not sure I'd be allowed if there is a free replacement. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, the new version is credited to the AP, which makes things a bit more complicated than that tagging would suggest - per Library of Congress "works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office". From what I've seen Commons has typically deleted such images under the precautionary principle citing that LOC guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria - much appreciated, as always. I'll tag it at Commons and see what they have to say on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red April 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304


Online events:

Announcements

  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Reverting addition of country code for Canada

[edit]

May I inquire the reason for reverting addition of country code for Canada in this change: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&oldid=1216200569


You have specified "Not needed" as a reason for change, however:

1) Almost all articles on counteies have this infobox field filled out.

2) The country codes are standardized under ISO 3166 standard and are acceped as "needed" worldwide.

3) The country infobox template has a field for the country code, so clearly the template creators were not thinking that it is "not needed".

4) There is no wiki policy which states that the countey code is "not needed", if you can point to such policy, I will gladly rest my case.

Please reconsider.



lea reconsider.se Nyq (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page jaguar)
  1. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—these things can vary between articles to a degree, depending on local consensus and the needs for each.
  2. Not really what was meant
  3. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, redux.
  4. WP:INFOBOX, provided consensus decides the code is not key to the particular article.
Seems like something for Talk:Canada, not this user talk page. Remsense诉 23:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rversions and clarity

[edit]

Hey there, as a relatively new editor it is quite often hard to spot the reasoning behind reversions you make. Not that I fault you for trying to save time, but a reference to some kind of policy, or an essay in absence of official policy, would help not only the people you're correcting, but also those trying to understand what is being fought over. Like MOS:Images.

Writing because I saw 'causes layout issues' multiple times now (most recently at Germany) and have no idea at all what you meant in any of those cases. Especially because the relevant diffs seemed fine on PC. JackTheSecond (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - see the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 at Milena Harito

[edit]

I WP:BOLDly removed this because I believe there has been edits by editors over 6 years. Maybe an AfD is the best route? TLAtlak 04:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2024

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Kristin Chenoweth

[edit]

Various suggestions for changing the Lead and adding headings have been made on the Talk page (changes were initially made in the article, which I reverted pending discussion). There are some areas where I have suggested compromises, but the proponent and I disagree about most of the changes, and I think we have each set forth our arguments thoroughly. I would value your review and comment on the Talk page. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Rules To Improve Uniformity

[edit]

Thanks for helping me to be a better Wikipedia editor. When you deleted the summary of Notable people for University of Pennsylvania from lede/lead ("Lede") even though the other 7 Ivy League schools and peer institutions such as Stanford, Duke, UChicago etc. (collectively, "Ivies + Peers)" were not deleted. I wrote to you to ask you to please identify which Wikipedia rules ("WikiRules") require such. I also wrote in my heading that if I was shown such WikiRules I would help you delete the Ledes for all Ivies + Peers. I did not (as you requested that I) ask the question in your Talk page and apologize for not following your request as you have a lot more experience (over 50 times more experience) than me. Per your 2nd request, I am now writing this in Talk section. Please reply with WikiRules requiring deletion of Summary of Notable people in Lede and, if I agree, I will help you delete Ledes in all similar Summaries of Notable people in Ledes for all Ivies + Peers. I will reference reason for deletion being you, Nikkimaria, and WikiRules you cite (which you educated me about). Thanks for helping me to be a better Wikipedia editor. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The specific "WikiRule" at issue is WP:LEAD: the lead section is meant to provide a neutral, balanced, high-level overview of an article's contents. What you're proposing is to take up a quarter of the lead with notable alumni (a balance issue), including calling out specific individuals (which isn't suited to a high-level overview). Also, be aware that just because other articles do something, that doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quite reply. I
read rule you cited and it is not black and white rule to delete what you deleted. It does say to limit to 3 or 4 paragraphs, which has been done.
That being said,
I will not revert Penn's lede if Ledes of all other peer schools have same rule applied. I understand that it violates Wikipedia rules to not apply rules uniformly. Please delete Lede language you deleted at Penn from the other Ivy and peer schools. If not so deleted in next month or so I am likely to revert and put back Penn info you deleted.
Leie of all other peer schools have same rule appli It violates other Wikipedia rules to not uniformity apply rules.ed. OneMoreByte (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence in my reply was a mistake and should have been deleted OneMoreByte (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what rule you think is being violated? While of course all articles should be written as well as they possibly can be, the reality is that many are in need of improvement, and there is no deadline to getting that done; the fact that other articles may need work is not a reason to undo work done here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for engaging in the dialogue. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i submitted a long reply that did not show up. I used visual rather than source . Is there a limit to length of my Talk reply? OneMoreByte (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of, but I don't use Visual Editor - you could try asking at the Help Desk where editors may be more familiar with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well visual edit to my reply showed up. I must have inadvertently deleted. I will rewrite next time I have time.
In short, you are honoring my request to delete all summary of accomplishments of notable people from rest of Ivy League and already deleted such summaries from Brown and Columbia. If no cogent arguments to persuade you and the Wiki to stop you deleting the remaining 5 Ivies, then you have proved your point and the Wiki has spoken! In such case
will
ll NOT revert. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
last sentence should read.
"In such case, I will not revert! OneMoreByte (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y
You cited SOM that you thought supported that all 8 Ivies should have portion of their Ledes that summarize Ivy alumni and faculty and trustees be deleted.
ummary of accomplishments of notable people from rest of Ivy League and already deleted such summaries from Brown and Columbia. If no cogent arguments to persuade you and the Wiki to stop you deleting the remaining 5 Ivies, then you have proved your point and the Wiki has spoken! In such case
revert. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
last sentence should read.
"In such case, I will not revert! OneMoreByte (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
i agree with Elkevbo's  reversion and welcome you and Elkevbo to figure out whether all 8 Ivies should be treated uniformly about issue they share and makes them successful
.
PreferencesShare feedback about this feature OneMoreByte (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the Mozart article

[edit]

Hello, I see that you have reverted a great deal of the work that I did on the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article (work which was the result of a serious application of my time and effort). The instructions seemed to say that the material in the infobox was the material that required discussion before edits were to be applied. On the article's Talk page, I have provided a brief explanation of my reasoning, for some of the changes I made to the article, if that would serve any purpose relative to your intent. The edits I made to the article were all syntactical, I did not add or remove any facts, nor did I change the structure of the work that was already present. If you know the process by which I must have my edits considered for application to the Mozart article, then please share that information with me. If you do not know, then if you can instruct me regarding how I might accomplish that goal, then you would be doing me a great service. Thank you. —catsmoke talk 05:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catsmoke, I'll address the substance of your edits on the talk page so others can weigh in, but regarding process, there is a hidden comment in the article specifically regarding the lead: "Please do not edit this lead section without discussing first on talk page—it's the result of a consensus that involved some work to reach." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source correction

[edit]

I appreciate the source correction of oriel high school. But given that the source is reliable as the local newspaper for the area i would appreciate if it were returned 2A02:C7C:7D8B:4900:1E3:9506:726D:23A9 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, that source has been deprecated by the community, so we're not able to use it for sourcing content like this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Manitoba

[edit]

Hi, I think the pronunciation is not necessary. See MOS:PRON. WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WizardGamer775, I've read it, and I disagree - the average non-Canadian reader would benefit from having a pronunciation included. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that non-Canadian readers should know the pronunciation. For places like Saskatchewan, I think the pronunciation should be included. But for Manitoba, Alberta, etc. I think the pronunciation can be inferred. It’s not an unusual word. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alberta is derived from English; Manitoba is derived from an Indigenous language. And while it would be nice to think that the pronunciation should be obvious, I can say from listening to people butcher it that it is not. No harm in clarifying. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll go and restore it. I see your point of view and I agree now. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. In regards to this, there is a 20th-century male category as well. See Category:21st-century professional wrestlers also, which is basically empty beside the male and females cats. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiOriginal-9, the same rationale would apply for that category - gendered categories are generally non-diffusing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it doesn't really look like anything in Category:21st-century people by occupation is non-diffusing. They're not tagged as non-diffusing either. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some are - I just clicked a few at random and found that Category:21st-century businesswomen, Category:21st-century male musicians, and Category:21st-century women scientists are all tagged as non-diffusing. (Some of the others have no gendered subcats at all). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the non-gendered parent categories for those three are empty though. I don't mind either way. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for London, Ontario

[edit]

London, Ontario has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  750h+ | Talk  08:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox country status

[edit]

I see a parameter I've not seen used before being used now as seen here or here. I don't think it's a new parameter but have we talked about this before? This seems like a can of worms we should avoid in infoboxs. This seems like prep work not to call countries a country by way of recognition of one organization. Moxy🍁 00:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall a specific discussion about it but it's definitely not intended for identifying organizational recognition - it's more for flagging things like dependencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: and @Mzajac:..... Ping a few others.... What do yous think? Should we simply nip this in the butt..... Are you thinking requires a long conversation?Moxy🍁 00:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't any other edits along those lines - have you? If it's just one confused user I don't think it warrants going into detail, but I might be missing something. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen it used before.... this parameter have something to do with the RFC about microztates that recently took place? Moxy🍁 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it existed before that, and the outcome there doesn't use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it could be a pain, but maybe it's worth brainstorming another name for the parameter. "status" seems designed for ambiguity. Remsense诉 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable..... Wonder if it should be cuddled altogether. Would love to do a large review and remove a whole bunch of these parameters.... like driving side. Moxy🍁 00:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usage I've seen has been to identify status for non-sovereign entities, like Gibraltar. It doesn't make sense for states, and even for partially recognised states the |sovereignty_type field is used. How can we remove driving side when we still have | patron_saint and | patron_saints? CMD (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're looking at a broader cleanup I'd nominate |antipodes=. Looks like saints are in the parameter check but not actually part of the template display? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate on Copyvio?

[edit]

Hey there,

I'm just curious for my own edification. Recently you reverted an edit on Amagasaki Serial Murder Incident with your edit summary reading "rv apparent copyvio." I'm not as up to date with editor lingo as I should be, but does that mean the sources the reverted edit linked to were copyrighted sources? Are paywalled newspapers not acceptable sources for Wiki edits? Again, I'm just asking because I want to know for the future. I give Wiki edit-a-thon assignments in some of my university courses, so I want to be able to direct my students in a way that will keep their edits from being reverted in future iterations of the assignment. Thanks! Kurtishanlon (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurtishanlon, using copyrighted sources is fine, but the material in them has to be summarized rather than copied. For example, if you look at this source, you see "Meanwhile the citizens of Amagasaki, a rough-and-tumble industrial town of 460,000 on Osaka's western periphery, have been aghast at the negative publicity dumped on their town in the wake of the Sumida affair. In the latest fallout, Aera noted that when 15 middle school students from neighboring Nishinomiya were scheduled to tour local factories earlier this month, only three showed up"; that's nearly identical to the material at the bottom of that diff. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhhh, I didn't even think of that possibility. I was grading so many wiki edits in a row that I totally forgot to compare for regular ol' plagiarism (my brain gets a little fried, ya know?). Thanks so much for the clarification, Nikkimaria. That's definitely on me for forgetting that some students haven't yet learned that's not acceptable, so thanks for checking that edit so closely. Kurtishanlon (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria!

I have submitted an edit request on the Iran's Talk page, but no one has seen it yet, I wanted you to do it if possible, thank you. Farnaj57 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Farnaj57, the update you've proposed was made, but was reverted - see here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but those statistics needs to get fixed immediately, the 2023 numbers are completely wrong:
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/April/weo-report?c=429,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2022&ey=2029&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1
The 2023 GDP was $403b, not the one that is mentioned on the infobox ($366b). See IMF for yourself, and compare it to the numbers on the infobox, you can clearly see everything is wrong with that. Could you just update the whole thing to 2024 please? If not, at least correct the 2023 numbers. But I suggest you to update all of it to 2024 since all country pages are doing it. Pretty much all the economic statistics of the country pages' infobox have been updated to 2024, but with Iran, I don't know why no one's catching the false info, its flat out wrong and it could mislead people. Please Just update them all together to 2024 so it's over once and for all, and please say in the description that all countries have updated the statistics to 2024 so that no one reverts it again. Farnaj57 (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing source supports the given number for 2023 - do you know why there's such a difference between the two?
As to 2024, the objection raised was that the numbers provided are projections not actuals, citing WP:CRYSTAL - do you have a reason why that objection should be overridden? "Other articles do it" doesn't mean it's the best approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know they are projections, but I'm seeing that almost all countries are updating to 2024, so I don't know why Iran's page should not be updated. If you don't update it, someone else will come and do it eventually. Anyway, what needs to change ASAP is the current info: The *2023* GDP (Along with PPP and all) are wrong, at least correct that. I sent the IMF link that $366 billion for 2023 is false, please correct it, its literally misinformation. And don't forget to update the ratings aswell.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/April/weo-report?c=429,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2022&ey=2029&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 Farnaj57 (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know why the two sources give different numbers? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the first/old source is from October of 2023 (the one on the infobox), and the other is from April of this year, published just a few days ago:

October 2023: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/October/weo-report?c=429,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2020&ey=2028&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1

April 2024: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/April/weo-report?c=429,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2022&ey=2029&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1

Both dates are mentioned in bold at the center of the website. Those expired numbers on the infobox are from October of last year, and IMF has just published the new numbers, which I put above for you. Farnaj57 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the 2023 numbers, and omitted the per-capita for now since it appears to be less certain. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Why did you remove the GDP & PPP rankings? Its like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

You also removed the green marks... Would be grateful if you return them. Farnaj57 (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rankings on that page are based on a different dataset from the one we're using. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bring back the green marks, They showed that the economy is on the rise. Farnaj57 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee's Drug Use

[edit]

You have repeatedly reverted to a version prior thus deleting the below addition "Drug Use". Why? The sources are many and three are cited here. The main source, over 40 letters handwritten and signed by Bruce Lee is far better than most sources. It was also sold for $462,500 at [[Heritage Auctions]] having to verify the letters authenticity to enable it to be sold especially for such a large sum. Additionally another one of the sources [[The Times]] is a British daily national newspaper based in London. It began in 1785, 365,880 an average daily circulation of 365,880 in March 2020. Central16 (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Central16, handwritten letters are not the best source in this case - Wikipedia articles are meant to be summaries of reliable secondary sources. Of the ones you cited, one is a press release and another is a tabloid. The Times is better, and I've included a shortened version using it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walden

[edit]

You seem to do this a lot, and rather than trying yourself to contribute a more reliable source, you seem to just remove the whole addition entirely. You claim to be doing this to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia's editorial standards, but it just seems flippant and gatekeeping in effect 80.44.184.192 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's appropriate to exclude your proposal at Walden, yes. I appreciate you might not agree. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you dignify me with a bit more of a response than that? I'm passionate about the metatopic as an academic, and the topic I contributed to. Explain why you think it's appropriate to exclude my contribution when I can see plenty of contributions that can equally be counted as "irrelevant" based on your logic. 80.44.184.192 (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to your post at the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source editing for Natashia Williams page

[edit]

Hello, I was wanting to get consensus on the edit citations I’ve added to some of the credits on the page, namely the one in the first paragraph for ‘She Spies’; I’m stumped as to why the IMDb references is not a good one to use? I pray my contribution is not considered vandalism. Thank you for helping understand. Best SinghRyder2011 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SinghRyder2011, I'd suggest having a look at this page, which summarizes previous consensuses regarding many common sources. As you'll see from the entry on IMDb, it's been discussed on many occasions, and the consensus has generally been that it is not reliable because it is a user-generated source. This is especially problematic for articles like Natashia Williams which focus on living people, since there are more stringent requirements for sourcing of material related to living people. Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; Thank you SinghRyder2011 (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson

[edit]

Please explain why you reverted the paragraph that I added to Thomas Jefferson. What does "rv, undue" mean? Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates that I reverted your paragraph because I felt it was undue relative to the topic as a whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation and for alerting me to was undue, which I've now read. I disagree that my paragraph was undue relative to the topic as a whole. undue speaks to addressing viewpoints, whereas my paragraph presented facts. They were facts that were intended to supplement the facts in the preceding paragraph, which state that Jefferson favored colonization of Black people because he believed that they had innate human rights. Foner's facts provide balance by showing Jefferson's lack of concern about breaking up slave families. As a compromise, I have put back only part of my paragraph. Note that I removed the phrase "[Jefferson] who frequently waxed sentimental about the idea of family," because Foner is laying it on a bit thick there, essentially criticizing Jefferson, even while sticking to facts. See what you think. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced that a bit further. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

  • IEEE and Haaretz now available
  • Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
  • Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve a section on the Iran's page

[edit]

Hey! I saw that someone recently edited Iran's page with the Iranian attack on Israel (at the very end of the history section). There are some major problems with the wording of that part, and it doesn't include some critical info, or include false info. Please improve it, and edit it to this so the users know what happened:

"On 1 April 2024, Israel's air strike on an Iranian consulate building in the Syrian capital Damascus killed a senior commander of the IRGC, Gen Mohammad Reza Zahedi. In retaliation, Iran launched a major attack on Israel with UAVs, cruise and ballistic missiles on 13 April 2024. Several countries in the West Asia closed their airspaces a few hours before Iran launched its standoff attack. The American, French, British and Jordanian air forces and navy helped Israel to shoot down the Iranian drones. At least nine missiles struck two Israeli air bases, namely the Nevatim and Ramon. It was the largest drone strike in history, intended to overwhelm anti-aircraft defenses, the biggest missile attack in Iranian history, and its first ever direct attack on Israel. It was also the first time since 1991 that Israel itself was attacked by a state force. Israel retaliated by executing limited strikes within Iran on 18 April 2024."

Israel never attacked Isfahan itself, they targeted an air defense facility, and its even mentioned here with reliable sources. The part also says that the attack was intercepted, while its literally mentioned here that at least nine missiles hit Israeli airbases. Again, all well-sourced. I did my best to summarize what happened while still including all the important and critical information. Some of the citations already exists on the article body, but here's more if you nedeed. You can also take the citations here:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/us-helps-israel-repel-iran-124610945.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/15/iran-attack-shows-israeli-deterrence-policy-shattered-netanyahu-critics

https://news.sky.com/story/all-out-war-or-not-in-the-middle-east-bidens-test-at-the-most-dangerous-moment-13114955

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-israel-war-2667774489/

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iran-s-attack-stark-reminder-of-lost-us--israeli-deterrence

https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/50/1203/522025/AlAhram-Weekly/World/Israel%E2%80%99s-deterrence-strategy-collapsing.aspx

https://www.rusi.org/news-and-comment/in-the-news/iran-attack-shows-israeli-deterrence-policy-shattered-netanyahu-critics-say

https://www.semafor.com/article/04/16/2024/israel-urges-iran-sanctions-as-it-calibrates-response-to-attack

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4593202-bolton-labels-iranian-strikes-as-massive-failure-of-israeli-and-american-deterrence/

https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/washington-sold-out-israels-deterrence-to-save-irans/

https://jcpa.org/to-respond-or-not-to-respond-is-that-the-real-question/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/14/true-promise-why-and-how-did-iran-launch-a-historic-attack-on-israel

http://iranpress.com/aliaspage/277652

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/analysis-three-takeaways-from-irans-attack-on-israel/article68064678.ece Farnaj57 (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest raising this on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For updating the GDP stuff, I requested it on the talk page before I came to you, 3 days went, and nothing happened, didn't even get a reply. I'm asking you because you are active more than anyone. I will be grateful if you do the editing, or reduce the protection level so I can do it myself. That page needs multiple updates and fixings ASAP, some info are getting expired. Do this one fixing, I'll do the other improvments when the page's protection level reduces. Farnaj57 (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to reduce the protection level, but you can request that here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to request for the third time, just to be rejected again lol. Look, if I haven't gone through everything, I wouldn't contact someone like you directly for edits. I did everything and no one answered, that's why I'm asking you personally, and if even you don't improve the pages, maybe its time for me to just let it go and leave Wikipedia entirely. This website is truly becoming useless and outdated, like, what's the point of it when the infos are either false or expired, and the pages are locked, making it impossible for people to improve. No wonder why tons of people, including university professors are saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, they're %100 right... Absolute waste of time to even read, let alone contribute. Farnaj57 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the request for reducing protection is refused, you have a couple of other options. You can add {{Edit extended-protected}} to your talk-page posts (without the nowiki tags) to add them to queues for response, or you can continue editing as you're not that far off the mark where you'd be able to edit extended-protected articles directly. For the interim, I've condensed the section. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many edits should someone have to edit extended-protected articles? (and where I am?) Farnaj57 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
500, and you're at 350. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red May 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
    is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

[edit]
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little Moreton Hall

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria.

When you reverted the infobox of Little Moreton Hall to the last stable version you said that this was "pending further discussion". I can see that you haven't commented further on the LMH talk page or in the Montacute House discussion I directed you toward; do you know when and where this further discussion might take place? The issue isn't settled, that's all. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the issue hasn't captured the interest of any additional editors on the article's talk page; I can't say when or if it will, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2024

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Image review

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, mind image reviewing this Featured Article candidate? Thanks and best, 750h+ 09:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC image review

[edit]

Hey Nikki. Do you mind reviewing my second FAC for AC/DC? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

Hi. Given your expertise in handling DYK nominations, I thought you probably could help with resolving the potential issue that I'm experiencing with this one. I nominated the article soon after it was promoted to GA status and to the best of my knowledge the hook has not appeared on the main page, however, the nomination itself does not appear under the DYK "Current nominations" list either. Is there a reasonable explanation for this? Keivan.fTalk 06:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keivan.f, it's listed at Template talk:Did you know/Approved, which is the holding area for approved nominations pending appearance on the main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the prompt response. Even though I have worked on some GAs in the past this was my first DYK nomination so I'm not entirely familiar with the process. Many regards Keivan.fTalk 14:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TSS Duke of Lancaster (1955)

[edit]

Hello, I'm Blue Riband. I did some work on the TSS Duke of Lancaster (1955) article which needed some bare URLs fixed and some updating through RS. I noticed that you had removed some poorly sourced material as UrbExa had sourced to deprecated sources. When we revert a relatively new editor it might help to drop them a line or two to let them know what they did. It will help point them in the right direction so that they don't keep repeating the same mistakes. He/she probably has no idea that The Sun and The Mirror are a deprecated sources. Blue Riband► 04:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blue Riband, my understanding is that additions of deprecated sources trigger an automatic warning for the user, without manual intervention. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A check of UrbExa's talk page history didn't turn up any deprecated source warnings. The editor started in November of last year and seems to have had other edits deleted for not sourcing or using ones that are not reliable. When I was a new editor I found it very discouraging to have had my contributions reverted while not understanding why. Hopefully UrbExa will follow the links that I provided and learn. Blue Riband► 17:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red June 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Image review at FAC

[edit]

@Nikkimaria Thank you for conducting the image review for the article Catherine, Princess of Wales. In your most recent comment, you mentioned that you do not find any quality concerns regarding the other images. Furthermore, I have since then requested further suggestions from you. As this is my first FA nomination, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the image review. I am eager to ensure that all images meet the FAC standards and any suggestions you provide will be taken into consideration. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any further comments at this time - best of luck with the nomination! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Thank you for your time and response. Has the image review concluded, or is it still open for discussion? I just wanted to clarify this with you. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective it has concluded, though of course other reviewers may choose to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Given that the image review has concluded from your perspective, would you mind leaving a closing note about your thoughts on the image review? Of course, I am open to other reviewers' suggestions as well, but your closing note would be greatly appreciated. Have a great day ahead. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maple syrup

[edit]

Well, after all that, I can't run it at TFA on July 3 because that would give us 4 reruns in a row. Does July 8 work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to wait for a future year. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Adams

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Thanks for your great edit on Robert Adams. I noticed you took out this:

"Interestingly, before news organizations traced IRS records to Avantae (Michelle), few people knew that Michelle was now known as Avantae Devens. This revelation led to the discovery that Nicole Adams’ real name is Leonie Maxwell, who was 95 years old when hospitalized in April and passed away on May 21, 2024.[1] Further research revealed that"

Did you find the citation incorrect? Do you have a suggestion for how this may be improved, added or cited. I think it is a true and important paragraph. Many people will want to know that Robert Adams' wife passed away and how it was discovered that Leonie Maxwell is truly Nicole Adams. Welcome650 (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker here Welcome650. Your edit cited Findagrave.com. Unfortunately Wikipedia considers that to be an unreliable source because it is user-generated and lacking in editorial oversight. Here is a link to a list of citations commonly used by editors:WP:RSP. These range for sources considered reliable to others with such a poor reputation that they cannot be used at all. If you can find a better source that verifies Nicole Adams' real name then by all means re-introduce that information. Blue Riband► 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Maxwell, Leonie. "Recently Deceased". Findagrave.com. findagrave.com.

Portrait of Robespierre

[edit]

The reproduction of the portrait from the German Historical Museum published here is not a copy of the portrait from the Musée Carnavalet . This is an independent  work that allows us to draw conclusions about Robespierre's appearance. The topic of this politician's appearance is still causing serious controversy and the presence of additional, different from the well-known images created during his lifetime is very important for the study of this topic. This is not a duplicate or unnecessary information. This is a fact that allows us to replace existing theories and correct the perception of his image.

The portrait I am offering was recently found by the German Historical Museum in a private collection . It significantly influences the perception of the famous portrait the Musée Carnavalet  and casts doubt on its originality. Therefore, this information should be published. It is important for historians.

If you have any questions about the content of my answer or doubts about the need for publication, write to me about it. Thermidor58 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thermidor58, you could consider creating an article on the portrayal of Robespierre. However, this level of detail is excessive for the main article, which is already quite lengthy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transferring information about a new portrait to another article will significantly reduce the audience that can learn about it, which can lead to errors in historical research based on knowledge of only one portrait.
I have corrected my addition to the article. If this option is not suitable, please write how need to edit this text and illustration so that the fact of the appearance of a new portrait is displayed in the main article. Thermidor58 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thermidor58, in my opinion your addition does not belong in this article. If you feel it does, you can propose it on the talk page and see if you can gain consensus for its inclusion from other interested page-watchers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if you would indicate the objective reasons for the refusal to publish this information and the criteria by which its value is determined. Thermidor58 (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DETAIL. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Jay Schieffelin

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

I am writing you, because I saw, that you sometimes edited my articles.

I would like to ask you if you could review my article about “William Jay Schieffelin”, and judge which class this article would be suitable for?

Thanks, and best regards,

Michael

MichaelScheufele (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MichaelScheufele, I've changed the rating to C-class. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria,
Thanks a lot!
What is your opinion regarding this article?
How could the rating of my article be improved?
Best regards, Michael MichaelScheufele (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MichaelScheufele, to be frank, I don't think it's of very good quality at the moment. Here are some things you could do to improve it:
  • The article includes material directly copied from the oral history interview - it needs to be verified first off whether that material is in the public domain, and if so it should be attributed. (If not it needs to go).
  • Address the cleanup tag
  • Rework the article's structure to flow more logically
  • Expand the lead to be a more complete summary of the topic
Hi NikkiMaria, thanks for your hints!
To address the first issue: I saw the copyright label from 1972, inserted into the oral history interview transcript. Therefore, I sent them an Email and asked for permission to quote/cite on Wikipedia from the Transcript of the “Oral history interview with William Jay Schieffelin, 1949”
The answer was the following (Oral History Archives at Columbia):
Hello,
The catalog record for many oral histories says “Permission required to cite and quote.” However, permission is no longer required for non-commercial use and access that qualifies as fair use. Scholarship is non-commercial use.
An example of the repository's suggested citation format is:
Reminiscences of Christian Franklin Schilt, Jr. (1967), pages __________, Marine Corps project, Oral History Archives at Columbia, Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Columbia University in the City of New York.
Additional citation examples can be found on our FAQ.
Best,
OHAC Staff
So, as far as I could understand, they provided the permission to use the material for Wikipedia (non-commercial), but they did not explicitly say the material is “public domain”.
What shall I do now? Shall I attribute it in my article as “public domain”, as it seems to be required in Wikipedia? Or, shall I mention this permission on the Talk page of my article?
Thanks, and best regards, MichaelScheufele (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MichaelScheufele, unfortunately, neither of those. Non-commercial licenses are not considered free for use on Wikipedia, so this kind of copying wouldn't be allowed either way. Only limited quotation can be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NikkiMaria, thanks for your clarifications!
What does “Only limited quotation can be used” mean?
Does it mean (worst case) that I must delete all text directly copied from the oral history interview?
Or could I rephrase the quotes and try to say it in my own words?
Or could I keep the text as it is by adding a “Creative Commons Licenses” label (e.g., CC BY-SA …)?
(I feel like I did nothing wrong because I asked OHAC, and they gave permission to use the material non-commercially, and I quoted as they suggested in their example. My intention was to convey William's personality authentically.)
Best regards, MichaelScheufele (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't add a label that doesn't match how OHAC has chosen to release the work. If they were open to it you could request that licensing, but at the moment although you're acting in good faith, that's not what you have.
With the current licensing, you need to treat the text as effectively being non-free. WP:NFCCEG outlines how non-free text can and cannot be used. Limited quotation is allowed, but not to the extent that is happening here. Paraphrasing is allowed, but you'd need to avoid adhering too closely to the source text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks again for your clarifications and help!
I would like to suggest the following proceeding with my article:
1)     I would save a copy of the current version of the article (would it also still be available in the version management on Wikipedia to possibly be restored later?).
2)     I would delete the text adhering too closely to the source text, keep limited quotation only. I would publish this reduced “stub” version of the article on Wikipedia.
3)     I would ask OHAC, whether they would be open to me publishing the article like it is in the current “full” version. If yes, I would request proper licensing from OHAC.
4)     If OHAC refuses, or have concerns, I would like to go ahead with the reduced “stub” version by adding paraphrasing text and limited quotations only.
Would the proposed proceeding OK for you, or do you have concerns or other suggestions?
Thanks, and best regards, MichaelScheufele (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steps 1 and 2 look good. For 3/4, I'd suggest having a read of WP:COPYREQ for some guidance on how to approach requesting permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria,
Now, I tried to improve my article. I have shortened the text and tried to avoid extensive quotations and instead express the topics briefly in my own words. I have also expanded the lead to include a summary of the most important topics.
Please check the article and give me feedback.
Thanks, and best regards, MichaelScheufele (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly an improvement on quoting (disclaimer: I haven't checked the paraphrasing). I would suggest structure would be the next priority for improvement. For example, "Social Network" is not typically a section included in such biographies - significant connections are instead woven into the narrative where relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria,
I have shortened the text considerably and paraphrased the rest of the text, except for the quote in the "France Forever" section, which I would like to leave as it is. However, if you say that it is a no-go, then I will paraphrase or remove this quote as well. I have removed the "Social Network" section and inserted the content appropriately into the other text.
In my opinion, the article is minimalistic, but it covers most of the topics Schieffelin worked on. That's why I like the article and would prefer to leave it as it is. But I'm also open to further cuts or improvements. If necessary, I could remove more quotes.
Best regards, MichaelScheufele (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MichaelScheufele, it might be a good idea to post a query somewhere like WT:BIOG to get a greater diversity of opinions about how best to structure the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan thurston

[edit]

(JTAcademy) of which is he now the Managing Director. I think it should sound different Geneo97 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geneo97, could you clarify what you think it should sound like? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2024

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpin map showing relative world location of NYC

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I am baffled by your removing the world pushpin map from the NYC article. It’s been there for over 100 edits without objection. The London article contains the same feature. These are the two highest-ranked cities in most global city rankings, and so the world position is clearly WP:DUE. But truthfully, it could relevantly go on all global cities’ articles, including Montreal, for example; it simply takes some effort on the part of the editors who normally edit those articles frequently. Why does it bother you so much that it’s specifically on NYC’s article, especially when it’s such an innocuous edit? Why not just enhance, for example, the Montreal article with that feature? Castncoot (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another editor has also reverted this change, so let's centralize discussion at the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria! Can you please archive the topics of Iran's Talk page? With no edit request, the topics are either finished, answered or old, and unfortunately, I don't know how to do it. Farnaj57 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Farnaj57, there's a bot that will do that automatically as long as the comments are dated - I've added a couple of dates that were missing. If you want to you can also change the bot's settings by adjusting this part at the top of the page:
|minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(45d)
The first of these sets how many threads must be left on the page, and the second sets the age of the threads at archive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italy&diff=prev&oldid=1227164512; I don't judge your edit, but many things have been removed (over 21,000 bytes less is too much); for example, you removed 26 references (before: 470; now: 444). But you have more experience than me, you surely made the right choice. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Size for some comparative stats. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However, the thing that seems very strange to me is that, according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italy&diff=prev&oldid=1165632544, the Italy article had almost 600 references (now "only" 444), while in articles such as United States new references are continually added (565). JacktheBrown (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the case that more refs = better article, particularly for a high-level article like this one. Of course we want more than a handful, but we're well past that in either case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it; so, probably, the United States article (which is already a good article) also needs to be "condensed", even and above all regarding the number of sources. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but be aware that different referencing styles can cause differences between the number of footnotes and the number of sources. Also United States is a former GA, not a current one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ELNO?

[edit]

Greetings, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istaria:_Chronicles_of_the_Gifted you reverted links per ELNO but I don't understand why. Can you explain what's your reason for them to be ELNO?

Thanks, 

 Dominik Dominik Maus (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dominik, open wikis are not generally considered appropriate external links unless they are quite substantial (eg Memory Alpha) - those links aren't in that ballpark. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Goodman

[edit]

"Lets Dance" radio show succeded in popularizing the Big Band Swing of Benny Goodman

see edit:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benny_Goodman&diff=prev&oldid=1229605731&diffonly=1

if you think it improves the article, please restore it 2601:646:201:57F0:D793:FF5E:60F3:9030 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I'd suggest taking that suggestion to the article's talk page. I don't have a particular preference on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Shearonink

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade § Recent edits.... (This present issue with whoever is restoring the unsourced section might be one of the long-term SPAs that seem to haunt this article from time to time.) Shearonink (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US colleges and universities

[edit]

Stop removing governance - public or private - from the lede sentence of articles about US colleges and universities. That is critical information that should be among the very first things that readers learn and unquestionably belongs in the lede as demonstrated in nearly every existing article about a US college or university. ElKevbo (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of MOS:SEAOFBLUE has been explicitly discussed and rejected by multiple editors. If you strongly believe that the previous discussion came to an erroneous conclusion or doesn't represent a consensus, you're welcome to open another discussion. But until then your edits are in clear violation of documented consensus and are thus disruptive so please stop. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElKevbo, the discussion I believe you're referring to was specific to the infobox template, not the text - please correct me if you're thinking of a different conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the conversation I'm recalling. The context is a bit different but the rationale is the same.
And sorry for being so snippy yesterday. That was uncalled for and unhelpful! ElKevbo (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ElKevbo, that's appreciated. Given the specificity of that context, I wouldn't agree the rationales given there make sense here - there are so many more options for different ways to present information when you have the flexibility of extended text in which to do so. Is there an approach that would be more acceptable to you? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's absolutely critical that governance and basic institutional type be included and linked in the lede sentence of an encyclopedia article about a US college or university. Those facts are as foundational and fundamental as they get for a sentence that introduces readers to the institution.
As always, you're welcome to open a discussion in a different venue to get opinions from other editors. WT:UNI would be particularly appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So could you clarify your objection to this, which fulfills that preference? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Historically black university" and "historically black college" are phrases similar to "liberal arts college" which aren't typically preceded by a conjunction when another adjective is also used in the same sentence. I'm not a linguist so I can't explain exactly why formal (American?) English does this. ElKevbo (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be happy with any other formulation that keeps both of those claims in the first sentence? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say for certain without having seen all other possible formulations but probably not. The current formulation certainly seems like the most straight-forward way to go. ElKevbo (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately though the present formulation isn't workable. Will play around a bit more with options. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you object to the format that is used in the lede of nearly every article about a U.S. college or university. Instead of slowly poking at one article at a time, often with questionable results and over the objections of other editors, the responsible and productive thing is for you to open an RfC to get a clear consensus for your preferred edits to the ledes of these articles. ElKevbo (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted, I don't have a "preferred edit" - there are many potential ways in which this could be addressed, and as above if you have suggestions I'd be open to hearing them. But either way, I think the more responsible and productive thing would be for you to simply stop reverting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapinsay

[edit]

If there is anything you think I can do to overcome the lack of movement at FAR please let me know what this might be. Thanks for your good work there. Ben MacDui 13:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben MacDui, I've left a talk-page note for the most recent commenter to revisit. Other than that, you can try reaching out to WikiProjects/active editors in the area, as long as your messaging is neutral. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie/archive2

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria,

I didn't hear from you again, and I presumed you were busy. Please you may complete the image review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie/archive2 when you are free, though I am afraid of it getting archived soon. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SafariScribe, unfortunately it may be archived anyway since it hasn't yet picked up any general support. Wrt to the image review, could you clarify where specifically that mural is located? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will be easily archived. I have invited more editors who can help out. However, the image (mural) has been removed by me for the sake the review. I believe other images are good to go, and the review needs you support. Since they say, when a problem is somewhat blocking others, remove it speedily; that I have done. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ouroboros

[edit]

Hi Nikki why have you removed the bit about broken sword 5 in the gaming section? Sagesitaara45 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sagesitaara45, open wikis are not considered reliable sources and do not demonstrate the significance of that reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • A foreign language biography does not guarantee notability for English Wikipedia.
    Check the guidelines before you start.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Haruma Miura

[edit]

I have a question about Haruma Miura and I know we briefly talked about this before. The infobox template states "Cause of death. Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability; It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness." He did not die from old age or routine illness. His death was compared to Kim Jong-hyun, Sulli, and Goo Hara as stated in this article due to all of them being around the same age dying from the same cause within a span of a few years of one another, as well as discussions as to why this was so. Also, those three I mentioned also have a cause of death listed (as well as several other celebrities like Sayaka Kanda, so I'm not sure why Miura can't have it too. lullabying (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lullabying, while it was not related to old age or routine illness, it also does not appear to be significant for his notability. I have no objection to looking at removing it elsewhere, but its existence elsewhere does not support inclusion here per WP:OTHERCONTENT. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Indian residential school gravesites

[edit]

Canadian Indian residential school gravesites If you have time or any interest.... could you put this on your watch list and keep an eye out. Getting some odd content removal with questionable reasoning. Moxy🍁 02:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2024

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G Gundam

[edit]

Good evening, I see you've deleted my entry for the RS reason, care to point me in the direction for a valid cite I can use when listing gundams back story and the gunpla kits made for them? ParTripod (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ParTripod, the editors at the Anime and Manga WikiProject may be able to help you with specialist sources in that area. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, I posted on their page and I'm waiting a response. Just a heads up I do plan on making an update on the page with each individual gundam from that show with their name. Hopefully with a cite from the recommended talk page. ParTripod (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good afternoon, me again. sending you an update to my game plan. I posted on the page and have not received any feedback, I've been giving it some thought and what I am going to do is link the Gundams to the episode they appear in and cite that as where I got the information. I feel like this would be the best case moving forward. hopefully this is a good enough cite. take care. ParTripod (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

  • One new partner
  • 1Lib1Ref
  • Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Botha

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria just for interest, is Wikitree references for genealogical puposes, eg. family, children etc. frowned upon or not? ShiningWolf (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShiningWolf, user-generated sources are considered generally unreliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It makes sense. ShiningWolf (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

[edit]

@Nikkimaria, I have addressed all your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie/archive2, but you haven't either opposed or supported that the images are good to go. I have also pinged you but you don't seem to respond. Is there any reason for that? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally support on images alone, but have no further suggestions. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria

I know you have a strong track record of fixing bloated articles and trimming them down.

I think the Conservative Party (UK) could be trimmed down a bit. The page length is 241,549, which is rather large. 2A0A:EF40:EFE:5801:E08F:739D:5EDB:B758 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria
Thank you for your help! I would just say, there areas of that page that feel a bit unneutral and make the page feel bloated. For example, under Jobs and welfare policy, the bit on Universal Credit The Universal Credit system came under immense scrutiny following its introduction... feels unnecessarily and takes up space. I would personally remove that part to clear some space. Feels more of an attack in some ways on the Universal Credit itself. Viewers can read into its problems on its own page.

This was removed from the page months ago but restored back by somebody a few days ago, for no clear reason.

2A0A:EF40:E37:4201:BC55:1A6F:E4D6:6A03 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I think that whole Policies section could do with a revamp - while there are issues with bloat and possibly neutrality, the most significant problem to my mind is currency. The section is heavily focused on 2010-era policy with some bits even older, when it should instead be a summary of current policy. But that's not something I would be able to take on any time soon. Perhaps someone at the Politics project might be interested? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

  • TBD

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thomas Munro (solicitor)

[edit]

Hi. Can you explain why you keep delinking Ross-shire on this article? Counties are generally linked. Countries are not unless they are particularly obscure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp, counties generally shouldn't be linked when a more specific location is included - see MOS:GEOLINK. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what it means, especially when the county in question no longer exists! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for input

[edit]

Talk:Flag_of_Canada#Reverse_Copyvio_Report. Moxy🍁 01:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moxy, the Canadian Encyclopedia source included that phrasing by 2015, not 2019. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill

[edit]

Please link Wikipedia's guidelines for your reversions or at least attempt to explain them. It comes across as ownership and personal dislike when you don't provide actual reasons for your reversions. AnotherColonialHistorian (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page jaguar) That's understandable and I personally can do better, but likewise please keep in mind we find ourselves repeating the same links and remarks over and over—patience and assumption of good faith is ideally mutual here. Remsense诉 19:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith, that's why I'm asking for better summaries. Complete reversions, instead of constructive edits, are an indicator of poor editing. This is one of reasons new people give up on editing. AnotherColonialHistorian (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I felt it was worthwhile to elaborate that repetition and exhaustion is another potential reason. Remsense诉 19:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The loss of productivity to the platform outside of the 1% of established editors who chaperone most of the content will become an issue when that 1% no longer has the capacity to edit the encyclopaedia. AnotherColonialHistorian (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference the relevant guideline is WP:OVERDETAIL (plus WP:NOTCATALOG). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:OVERDETAIL have applied? The section was titled ancestry. The ancestry was notable and useful to a reader interested in the political ancestry of Churchill. (I've since removed 'ancestry' from the heading, since it does not mention his ancestry.) AnotherColonialHistorian (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the linked main article would probably benefit from retitling, but it does cover his ancestry and would be a better place to discuss the details. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtmacsherry Harbour Lifeboat Station

[edit]

@Nikkimaria

I refer to your deletion of a find-a-grave citation on the Courtmacsherry Harbour Lifeboat Station. Whilst I appreciate that Find-a-Grave may not always be relied upon as a reliable source (goodness knows why)?, the use in this case was a secondary reference to highlight ONLY, that the name of the lifeboat Kezia Gwilt was derived from the name of his wife. It was referenced in the documentation I have, and backed up by Find a Grave.

No dates or specific details were used

I think it would be more reasonable that you should take some time to consider each and every citation before embarking on a process of "How fast can I delete all these entries".

MartinOjsyork (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, what documentation do you have to support that claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to get into a battle.
My source from the Lifeboat Enthusiasts handbook shows Kezia Gwilt as the lifeboat on service. The history of the station shows that the boat was funded by Alfred Gwilt. Find a Grave backs up that Kezia Gwilt was Alfred's wife, including pictures of the gravestone. QED, the lifeboat was named after his wife, which is very relevant to the subject.
I'm sure I could go to the extreme length of ordering marriage certificates, but that just seems like going to the extreme length of finding further references to justify what we already know, and to be honest, doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
It's not like its the family history of someone well known, which maybe why Find a Grave may not be suitable in some circumstances.
I just really take offence that something I have spend many hours creating is casually deleted by someone who clearly isn't reading the topic. I see you made 5 deletions in 5 minutes on wildly different subjects. So it would appear that you aren't taking the time to see the relevance of what is there, and just blindly deleting what may be perfectly acceptable... and that isn't right.
MartinOjsyork (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The gravestone is hard to make out, but as far as I can tell it doesn't identify the relationship? So the marriage record would be a better source, although not as good as a secondary reference that directly links these claims. I've swapped in the marriage record for the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review request

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I've noticed that you're quite prominent at FAC as a leading image reviewer, and I'm reaching out to see if you would be willing to provide an image review for my current FAC on Album covers of Blue Note Records. A majority of the images used are fair use, but there are some PD images included within the article. Of course, you are in no way obligated to review, and in any case, I thank you for considering my request, and I look forward to your response! Hope you're having an amazing week so far. joeyquism (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard wagner birthplace edit

[edit]

Why did you reverse my edit presenting which state/country he was born and died in. Cashdeer (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC found consensus for a version which did not include that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

[edit]

Hello,

I replied to a comment of yours on the talk page of the ADHD article, demonstrating why the International Consensus Statement should remain in the controversy section. However, you enacted an edit anyway removing it. This is thus intended as a notification incase you didn’t see the reply. Please acknowledge the evidence before editing. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation consistency

[edit]

There's something going on with citation consistency that may interest you generally. It's not a big issue at the particular article where this came up, and I don't have time in the middle of the election debacle to take this on and don't want the distraction there, but ...[1] You might want to look into the documentation at Template:Cite Q. You were probably already aware, but I've been out of action. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, good to see you around - yes, have seen that, and others have noted similar concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As expected :) Thx, Nikki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Sure, can take a look tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fluid Ounces albums

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Fluid Ounces albums indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2024

[edit]


Headlines
  • Albania report: For what matters most for your community
  • Argentina report: Mid-term digitization update
  • Brazil report: Structuring Wiki Loves Monuments through a Wikidata portal
  • Canada report: CCA Hosts Inaugural Wiki Edit-a-Thon
  • Germany report: The flight over the "Rosinenbomber" - drone deployment for Free Knowledge; Kicking off a German-language community of practice for building cultural heritage linked open data with the wikimedia projects
  • India report: GLAM partner ventures into 'Digitisation Plus' programs with Wikimedians
  • Kosovo report: Prompting what's most important - our community in Albania and Kosovo
  • New Zealand report: WikiProject International Botanical Congress 2024, a presentation to the Natural History Museum, London & Kew Gardens staff and a Research expeditions edit-a-thon
  • Switzerland report: Swiss GLAM Programme
  • UK report: Translations galore
  • USA report: Wikicurious WikiNYC Civic Hall; San Diego 111; #5WomenArtists campaign
  • Biodiversity Heritage Library report: BHL-Wiki Working Group July monthly highlights
  • Special story: GLAM GLobal meetup & GLAM Global Calls
  • Calendar: August's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

learning English

[edit]
story · music · places

In my vocabulary, "excessive" is a negative term, - what does it mean to you? You used it as the only edit summary when reverting the addition of detail (to Vivaldi) by a seemingly new editor. What does that express? Trying to understand. I'm going to send the editor a welcome message. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it is a negative term, thus the revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree that when you revert what someone who might be new added thinking they improved the article, a bit more of an explanation might be polite? Possibly on the user's talk page, because I remember that when I was new it took me days to understand the concept of looking at an article history and read edit summaries. I just saw that my edit had disappeared, and thought I did something wrong, and tried again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a few days' editing I'm not convinced that welcome template is very helpful, but YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A horse flogged to death by relentless tedium
That welcome template helps others to see that this may be a new editor. I saw discussions on the talk page, telling me they edited for some time. - Discussing the welcome distracts from two things that I would like to see clarified:
  1. How can you do justice to new editors who may never have heard that some editors still find infoboxes or certain parameters contentious?
  2. How can you express that, while you may find parameters "excessive", it is not an objective view?
Just today, we see Richard Wagner on the Main page, where by RfC an infobox exists which includes a list of his compositions, and where precision about the places of birth and death were added, and another RfC was closed, for Shostakovich, which accepted inclusion of his wives. The community seems not to see these parameters as "excessive". We have been told to "maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes", and a one-word "excessive" seems (to me) not ideal communication in terms of clarity and civility. - In your next revert, you said "see template doc", with a link to the monstrous documentation of infobox person. How do you expect the rather new editor (who perhaps doesn't know what "template" means for us) to find there what you may mean by "excessive". -Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect someone provided with a link to compare what's at that link to their edit. If you see that as not civil, I don't think we're likely to arrive at agreement about much of anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that "see template doc" was "not civil". I didn't even say "excessive" was "not civil", but think it's too ambiguous to be clearly understood. I know that you like short edit summaries, and agree that they save time between users who know how to interpret them, but someone new may need a bit more of explanation. Runnung {{infobox person}} vs. the edit, which added birth name, death cause, list of works and style: to my understanding of the doc, all these are marked as optional. Your one word verdict left open if you found just one excessive, or any number up to all. I personally would not add birth name if the only difference is a middle name but the doc providess no such caution. I would not add death cause, ever, and agree that for him, it's not what makes him notable, but "excessive"? I'd add the works with the "works" parameter (vs. notable_works), but it's asking much from a new user to understand the difference, and could simply be changed instead of reverted. There seems no doubt that his works make him notable. I'd not include style, but "excessive"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would not add most of what was added, I would indeed interpret that as "excessive". If that is not what you meant, I don't think the added words have improved clarity anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to agree that my understanding of the word is different, and I would not use it as the only word of recognition of a good-faith edit. Back to music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query about old image: Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria, I've got a question about taking a photo of an old image. I'm using a book about the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for some sources. It was published in 1982. It reproduces a drawing of the council chamber that was used by the Privy Council, in the 1880s. I assume the original drawing was made around that time. Is it consistent with Wikipedia image policies if I take a photo of the drawing from the book and then put it up on Wikimedia Commons? I assume that if it was public domain when the image was reproduced for the 1982 book, that it is still public domain to copy it now from that book? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, the situation is a bit more complicated because of the overlapping jurisdictions. I'm assuming the book you're referencing is from the UK? Or elsewhere? To be uploaded to Commons, the image has to be free/PD in both the US and country of origin, and the rules for each can be different - something could be PD in the UK but not the US (or vice versa). Do you know if the image was formally published in the 1880s? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the dates wrong, a bit. The book is The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 1833-1876, published by Cambridge University Press, 1979. The illustration is from a print, "discovered in the Privy Council Office's Judicial Department", showing a case being argued in 1863. Since it shows the appellant arguing the case in person, that suggests it was drawn in 1863. Artist unknown, publication unknown, but if it is a print, that suggests more than one were created, which I would think would support the argument that it was published. The reason it is of interest is that it shows the members of the Judicial Committee sitting on two sides of a long table, consistent with being part of the Privy Council, rather than sitting at a bench, like a normal court. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can demonstrate that it was published circa 1863, it would be PD in the US due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the illustration, listed in a catalogue for Vanderbilt University Library; reproduced in "Making of Modern Law: Trials: 1600-1926", which is an online database of some sort. I guess I would have to access that database to find out. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://catalog.library.vanderbilt.edu/discovery/fulldisplay/alma991033517929703276/01VAN_INST:vanui Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same work? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it, but it doesn't have the illustration. Thanks for looking. I've found a much grander coloured illustration than the one I was looking for, in the Guardian, but it doesn't have any publication info. There's a B&W version of the second illustration in the same book I have, which says it is reproduced by courtesy of the Sir John Soane Museum trustees. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/feb/17/soane-museum-battle-of-iron-wills-fractious-world-of-architects-clients Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Courtesy of" images are tricky - it can mean that the entity being credited could be contacted regarding copyright permission, but it can also mean they just have a copy. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. I think I'll give it a rest for now, and maybe try again later to find a workable source. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging?

[edit]

Hi. In Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rutherford_scattering_experiments/archive1 you said:

  • File:GeigerMarsden-1913-4.GIF: what is the basis for the tagging here?

Can you help me understand the word "tagging"? What kind of basis is needed?

Thanks, Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnjbarton, copyright tags are used to indicate the copyright status of an image. In the case of this image, the tagging doesn't make sense to me: the description states it's an image that appears in a 1913 paper, but the tagging indicates the uploader has released the image under Creative Commons licensing. How did the uploader get the right to do that if this is an image taken from another publication and not the uploader's own work? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Webb (painter)

[edit]

I'm new to editing, and I note you've just removed an edit as "non-reliable source", which I understand. However, I'd just like to request you review the removal of text identifying the place of burial (Brompton cemetery). The source you are happy to retain is the burial record of the cemetery, which also names the place of death (City of london Asylum). The reference you've removed as unreliable is a secondary corroborative record (image of the gravestone), which for me nailed the connection (the other family members named on the gravestone). 2A02:C7C:A20A:B600:E062:C0FE:13A3:B3FE (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to editing, and I note you've just removed an edit as "non-reliable source", which I understand. However, I'd just like to request you review the removal of text identifying the place of burial (Brompton cemetery). The source you are happy to retain is the burial record of the cemetery, which also names the place of death (City of london Asylum). The reference you've removed as unreliable is a secondary corroborative record (image of the gravestone), which for me nailed the connection (the other family members named on the gravestone) Alicemilner (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James Webb (painter) Alicemilner (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alicemilner, I assume the other source you're referring to is the ancestry.co.uk source? I can't access that, but if you're saying it confirms the place of burial, it would be fine to restore that claim and just move the ancestry source to the end of the sentence to make clear what it is meant to be citing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help - I understand better and have made the appropriate exit Alicemilner (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the Iran page please

[edit]

Hey! 1- The Iran page has gone through some significant changes recently. The "History of Iran" template is now acting as the article's history section. Due to the deletion of the all sections related to history, there are images left from sections that no longer exist, making the article overwhelming. The image from etymology section is also now in the history section, with multiple images out of frame. Please delete the images of the history and etymology section, its a chaos over there... 37.19.86.150 (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


2- Please update the World Heritage number at both the "World Heritage Sites" section, and at the top of the article. Its now 28.

United Kingdom

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria. Just letting you know your changes and other changes added yesterday to United Kingdom were completely reverted. The page is still bloated and needs a trim. Do you think you could work it on and try to rebalance it? 83.106.74.133 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I did see that, and it's on my list to revisit - probably later this week. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help. 83.106.74.133 (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Otto Weddigen

[edit]

Hi there,

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I will stand to be corrected.

I have noticed that you removed the only online source which I found with regards to Otto Weddigen spouse. Even though the information came from a tree family heritage site, I feel that the information there is pretty reliable. Therefore please roll back the change.

If you disagree, kindly give me the reasons to your rationale. Benzekre (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benzekre, user-generated sources are considered generally unacceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

Hi! I'm new to this, I know you removed my edit because of the source. Could you if possible give tips or ideas on how to source the manuscript page from the game? This is for the bipolar characters wiki. I'm not sure how to source it. He also narrates this page and it can be seen in the game. I don't know if youtube is a reliable source but it has that section uploaded. I thought the fandom wiki wasn't the best source but I didn't want to link to a random picture of the manuscript with no source or context so I'm not sure how to source it correctly since it comes from a game. It is collected by a playable character and can be viewed, narrated to you, and found in the game files if this helps at all with any ideas. Thank you! Olivettilettera665 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olivettilettera665, we have a template that you can use to create a citation directly to the video game, and you can include a quote from the manuscript page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected it if you want to take a look. Thank you for your time and patience with me. Let me know if there is anything else I need to fix. List of fictional characters with bipolar disorder Olivettilettera665 (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Olivettilettera665, looks great! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howard's adventure

[edit]

Hi, can you let me know why you removed details from Howard's Adventure with the notation "removed non-rs"? Those details have citations and are from independent sources. I have taken care to cite everything. I am trying to learn to be a better editor so I have no clue why these details ought to be removed from this article when they add important information to it. Could you please explain your edit here? Thank you. Nayyn (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nayyn, user-generated sources like Find a Grave are considered generally unreliable so shouldn't usually be used to support claims; life ranges generally should not be included in the article body; and fixed pixel sizes on images should be avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the reference that was removed did not come from Find a Grave. It came from the National Register of Historic Sites, which included the information about the stones on their listing for the property (National Archive source). This was listed directly next to the statement you removed.The dates and ages of the individuals were also verified elsewhere in the contemporary sources that were cited in the article. I cited all of these sources clearly. As many of the people in the family have the same names over generations, the date ranges are helpful to know who in the family is being referred to in the article. Nayyn (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nayyn, are you referring to the source that appears before where the claim was, or a different one? Citations should be placed after the material that they are being used to support.

Coelwald of Wessex

[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted my edit under the pretense that it was not a reliable source. Could you explain this in more detail and explain what are considered Reliable sources. Thanks! Reader of Information (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reader of Information, our reliable sourcing guideline provides more detail about what does or does not generally qualify as a reliable source. In particular, the section on user-generated content indicates that these are generally not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small favour

[edit]

Hi, if you are a Wikipedia administrator, would it be possible for you to delete the second revision of my own user history page? I'm asking for this, since it shows my previous username which was my real name. I wish to have this revision deleted so I can rest easy to remain anonymous. Thank you in advance for your help!~~~~ Benzekre (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benzekre, anyone on this list would be able to help you with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beecham edit 2020

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria.

I'm wondering what your intention was with this edit on 30 December 2020. You removed some relevant and sourced material, and all your edit summary said was "Restore". Restore what? You've actually done the opposite, methinks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2020? Sorry, I don't recall the context there. If you feel the material is relevant I have no objection to putting it back. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive2

[edit]

What is the policy justification for blanking this page? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was out of process. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Out of process is a red link. Wikipedia:Page blanking does not mention this term. Can you elaborate? If there is no policy justification for the page blanking, it should be restored (and presumably archived). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a process for nominating an article for featured article review, outlined at the top of WP:FAR. This nomination did not follow this process - it was created in error. It shouldn't be archived because it wasn't a procedurally correct FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I don't understand why it shouldn't be archived as an error. There is no provision in our blanking policy for blanking a page for the reasons cited. I will restore it; feel free to archive it, rename it or such as you deem proper, but please do not blank (delete) content that is not justified by policy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ps. No prejudice to handling this via WP:MFD is you feel this should just go (this was suggested by the editor who declined your speedy deletion request), although I don't see why a good faithed discussion shouldn't just be archived normally. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on the FAR talk page. It's not "archived normally" because its FA status was neither Kept nor Removed; it wasn't a review, because it was out of process. Which is a polite way of saying someone couldn't be bothered to read the instructions, and we shouldn't create a third option in the process-- with all the work that would entail-- for people who don't read. (While I'm here, ditto to Tim Riley's post below-- Nikkimaria, you have the patience of a saint.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia Seems like a clear speedy keep case. Unless there is a reason for blanking as explained on the blanking page, blanking should not be done. We don't generally blank discussions which were started in error, including a procedural one. If someone makes a naive and incorrect DYK, GA or FA nom, they wouldn't be blanked, as far as I know. If I am wrong and this is a custom I am not aware of, I'd suggest adding a new rationale to Wikipedia:Page blanking, preferably after ensuring consensus via a RfC. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a custom for many many years; not only were out-of-process FAC and FAR pages blanked, they were deleted. It's not an issue I'm interested in pursuing since processes in the bureaucracy have apparently changed, and this happens rarely. But calling it a speedy keep would mess up lots of other things. For example, then you can't re-nominate at FAR for x months, and a speedy keep would imply the article's FA status was independently reviewed, when it wasn't. And it would push articles down the list at WP:URFA/2020 that hadn't actually been reviewed. So I advise just ignoring this one-FAR anomaly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, definitely not a speedy keep. I suspect this article will be coming back to FAR, which complicates matters. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then just don't call it a speedy keep in the close, but nomination withdrawn or nomination invalid or procedural close, etc. Problem solved. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, build in a third option to all of the FAC and FAR processes (a new subset of archives, article history, Featured article statistics, URFA, WIAFA where then we have to explain when an article can be renominated accounting for faulty prior noms), to account for the rare person who doesn't read instructions? More expedient is to move content expeditiously to the article talk page so discussion doesn't occur on an invalid FAR page, indicate that with a Moved to template, and leave the invalid FAR alone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, moving is fine (it's a classic way of archiving). I only object to unjustified and "out of process" deletion attempts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contents were already moved months ago: Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_17#Featured_article_review. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, then all we need is either a redirect or a collapsable closed review that can say something like 'closed due to procedural issues, archived at link'. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Righting wrongs

[edit]

The work you have taken on to undo the damage done to "stage and screen" articles after they were mauled into "screen and stage" articles must have been arduous, and I thank you for it. Bless you! Tim riley talk 17:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soul Supreme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electro.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Stella

[edit]

Hey, which did you revert my edit on Anne Stella Fomumbod? VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VSankeerthSai1609, that edit was previously reverted per this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, noted. Thank you 😊 VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeonmi Park

[edit]

hey so since my source for Yeonmi Park in List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements i found another one. Im just wondering if this source is more reliable: https://www.mk.co.kr/en/world/11099653 WikiFili1898 (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiFili1898, I'd suggest asking that at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for England

[edit]

England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2024

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

  • The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Wikimania presentation
  • New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

[edit]

As someone knowledgeable in MOS:LINKING, you are invited to share your perspective on Talk:A. K. Fazlul Huq#Messing up the infobox and Talk:Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy#Linking. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small request

[edit]

Hello, I need to delete my old username which is redirecting to my page? Can you help me with this deletion? If not, who should I talk to? Thanks in advance. Benzekre (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has gotten sorted? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Another admin help me out. Thanks anyway! Benzekre (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matt Bevin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memphis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Italy#Biased against Italy

[edit]

Hi, I didn't read the whole article. I would like to ask you: do you think what this user wrote is true or not? Almost everything seems fine to me. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is mostly appropriately balanced. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the article isn't even a little biased against Italy, it wouldn't be fair at all. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Kellogg?

[edit]

no need to just redirect it as he is such a popular character and has an entire character arc and should not be reduced to a simple page with no text and a simple redirect. Please answer me as to why you did this WikipedianAncientHistorian (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikipedianAncientHistorian, the article's only reference was to an open wiki, which is not considered a reliable source. It also does not appear that the character has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is what is generally needed to have a standalone article. 20:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

FAC Mentoring

[edit]

I talked to Gerda Arendt on having my article I'm working on (Sarah Geronimo) for FAC months ago, and she said that she is currently busy with other things. Which is why I'm finding a second mentor for FAC. Do you mind checking the article and my sandbox for any feedback, updates, and improvements? Thank you. ScarletViolet tc 12:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScarletViolet, pop music isn't really my area of interest, but I can give some general feedback. Could you clarify your plan regarding the sandbox? Will it replace the current article, or are you going to try to merge the two? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Sorry for the late reply. The content of my sandbox will replace the current article once its complete. Currently, I believe it's 85-90% complete. ScarletViolet tc 12:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

For kind assistance at DYK

CMD (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

what is FAC, FAR, & DYK ? ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) when you see any abbreviation on Wikipedia, try to find out if it is a shortcut link to something: WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working paper numbers

[edit]

@Chipmunkdavis: - @CambridgeBayWeather: Not sure what is best to do here. We have some great infomation from User:John Cummings about forest being added all over...however they are using a working paper not peer reviewed or published in an academic journal or offical yet. In the cases of Canada we have "real" numbers. Though the numbers are close to Canada offical numbers they are a bit off. I plan to fix the Canada numbers..but what about the rest?

Working paper = https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a6e225da-4a31-4e06-818d-ca3aeadfd635/content

The Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper Series is designed to reflect the activities and progress of the FRA Programme of FAO. Working Papers are not authoritative information sources – they do not reflect the official position of FAO and should not be used for official purposes. Please refer to the FAO forestry website (www.fao.org/forestry) for access to official information. The Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper Series provides an important forum for the rapid release of information related to the FRA programme. Should users find any errors in the documents or would like to provide comments for improving their quality they should contact fra@fao.org

Offical numbers = https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/forest/sof2023/NRCAN_SofForest_Annual_2023_EN_accessible-vf(1).pdf - Moxy🍁 12:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy I'm out of town until Sunday, and I forgot my laptop. I'll take a look on Monday. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this pop up on Botswana but haven't taken a closer look yet. As an initial comment, these pushing the same edit over hundreds of articles type missions don't usually lead to great improvement. I'm not opposed to an FAO working paper in principle, but I would not use it over the Canada document you link. CMD (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Chipmunkdavis:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @Moxy:, just to correct a missunderstanding, to clarify:
  • The numbers do not come from the working paper, the working paper is to provide a reference for the terms used in the text.
  • The numbers come from the main UN Food and Agriculture Organization Global Forest Resources Assessment, the data for Canada is taken from this page. The data for the FRA is collated from each government, so there will also be a Canadian government source which also includes these statistics (perhaps the one you reference). The data collated by the UN is published every 5 years since 1948 so its possible that the source you site is more up to date.
I hope that helps
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's not a bad source, but like all UN data it should be treated with care. An odd case, for some reason Italy submits a different official English name to the UN than it uses on its constitution's official English translation. CMD (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think regardless of sourcing, the level of detail being added is excessive for a top-level country page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore ethniticities

[edit]

Regarding the cleanup at Singapore, while ethnicity can sometimes be hard to put figures on, in Singapore it's a strictly regulated system where each person is legally assigned to a race. It would likely be a better reflection of the country for the reader to include that in the infobox instead of citizen vs resident. CMD (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to swapping from me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken gun is a game

[edit]

Shame on you for deleting my edit 36.65.196.37 (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, if there is sourcing to demonstrate the game is notable, then there can be an article about it and a hatnote that points to that article. But external links don't belong in hatnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Subordinate clauses

[edit]

You should pull out a book on English grammar and review punctuation with respect to subordinate clauses. Your undoing of my edits to Stanley Kubrick show that you are deficient in this area. — Foxtrot1296 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com renewal error

[edit]

Hi there,

I requested a renewal for complimentary access to Newspapers.com on September 27. However, I cannot access the full archive. When I clicked on "Account Details," it reads under the Subscription info, "You're currently a Registered Guest. This free subscription gets you access to search newspapers but you will not be able to view the full page. Get a paid subscription for access." Birdienest81talk 08:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Birdienest81, your account has to be activated by Newspapers.com before it will have full access - suggest trying again in a week or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallowell

[edit]

Why did you scratch the pop-cultural ref to The Frozen River? You just asked for relevance; how-ever, it is common in Wikipedia articles to include songs and books that focus on the given community. This particular book about Martha Ballard, midwife in the village in the 18th century takes place almost exclusively in the community and gives a picture of its character. Kdammers (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kdammers, per this RfC such entries require secondary sourcing indicating their significance to the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
To Nikkimaria on the occasion of your closing the Minneapolis FAR as kept. A thousand thanks for more than a year's coordination. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats to you on the fine work on that article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference bundling

[edit]

I assume you seen my reference bundling at Canada. Was thinking of doing this for other FA country articles... because in my view it makes things so much more legible.... what do you think Japan Germany Australia? Help:Citation merging. Moxy🍁 23:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moxy, I find bundling useful when there's a reason to do it, like adding annotation, but I'm not generally a fan for just combining citations - in my view having multiple clickable numbers is no different from a usability perspective from having multiple citations within one clickable number (plus it makes it harder to repeat a single ref). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bithia Mary Croker

[edit]

You reversed my correction of her birthplace. It is written on her gravestone, which can be seen on findagrave. Is this not reliable enough? RabbitFromMars (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford DNB also writes "Croker [née Sheppard], Bithia Mary (1847–1920), novelist, was born in Warrenpoint, co. Down, on 28 May 1847" (it's paywalled, but this part shows up with a Google search), so I will add Warrenpoint again. RabbitFromMars (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, I've added that ref, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 2024

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Parsec

[edit]

Unless there's a real reason as to why my popular culture addition about the Terminator and Parscs shouldn't be added, don't remove it. What reason would there be? It's popular culture and I cited the references. Metaphysical typist (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec#In_popular_culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaphysical typist (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metaphysical typist, this type of content needs reliable, secondary sourcing that indicates its significance in order to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really?! The pop culture tidbit above mine using citation #23 has an invalid link! I went above and beyond to cite my sources. Metaphysical typist (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really - if other entries are inappropriately sourced those should be addressed rather than more added. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Request

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you could give this article a peer review? I saw you on the peer review volunteer page and wanted to ask someone for one. The article is Adi Meyerson and here's the peer review page. She's a jazz bassist in New York City who has released two albums so far. I came across this article a week ago and have been improving it as much as I can. I'm not a very experienced editor and I'm sure I'm missing a lot in this article. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, Surfinsi (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rimsky korsakov

[edit]

hi hi, seen you’ve taken down my rimsky-korsakov infobox, i checked the note and the annexed wiki project, and decided to still add the infobox as the talk page for him isn’t active, how shall i proceed with it? Antniomanso (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is now active so let's continue this conversation there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Luís Afonso for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luís Afonso 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/Luís Afonso 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 until the discussion has finished.

Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Hoard portrait

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I was looking at your comments on the William D. Hoard portrait and I am having a heck of a time fixing the link. The Wisconsin Historical Society doesn't allow direct linking to specific portraits from what I can tell, and this particular version of this image doesn't appear to exist in their archives anymore. Going to the WHS portrait search, searching for William D. Hoard, and downloading their image collection (clicking print on the left side, selecting images) provides a PDF with various images in it of the oil painting, including what appears to be a restored/more color-accurate version on the last page. These images should be public domain, but it's not clear to me if the digital recreations are also public domain, nor if the WHS Terms of Use actually applies in this case or if it only applies to purchased images. I'd be curious for your thoughts and any suggestions you might have. Thanks for looking! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M4V3R1CK32, iff the original image is PD, I don't think there have been significant enough changes that the new version would be anything other than PD. But what leads you to believe the original is PD? I don't see anything in the WHS portrait record on copyright status, despite what the ToU says. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The portrait was painted in 1891, so it should be PD by virtue of being published prior to 1929 according to Commons if I am understanding everything correctly. Near the bottom of the portrait entry it says "This portrait was painted in 1891 by James Reeve Stuart (1834-1915)". M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi M4V3R1CK32, publication has a very specific definition in US copyright law, and simply being created or even displayed prior to 1929 does not guarantee that it meets that definition. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Learn something new every day! The portrait entry says this in the second to last paragraph:
This portrait of William Hoard was donated to the State Historical Society of Wisconsin by Governor James O. Davidson. It was noted thusly, "Oil portrait, framed, of Gov. W.D. Hoard, formerly hung in the Executive Chamber, Capitol. Painted by J.R. Stuart, September, 1891." (Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin...1907, 1908, p. 92.)
So if I'm reading things correctly I think that would satisfy the requirement in section 1902 by transfer of ownership to be considered published, and it would still be PD by this definition of publication in 1907-1908:
Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines publication as “the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
Does that make sense to you? I am very much a novice with this kind of thing and want to make sure I'm doing things right. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi M4V3R1CK32, 1902 references distribution to the public - I don't think what's being described here would qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the state historical society being a government agency would impact that at all? In any case, I think the provision for unpublished works or works for hire would apply for it be PD.
Commons says for unpublished works, if there is a "Known author with a known date of death [copyright lasts] 70 years after the death of author." James Reeve Stuart died in 1915, so it has been more than 70 years since his death and the portrait should be PD under that provision.
If the portrait was work for hire (which seems likely) the copyright term has also expired. Works for hire had their copyright expire 120 years after creation, so anything created prior to 1904 is PD according to the chart I linked on Commons (also available on the Copyright rules by territory page). The portrait was made in 1891, so it has been PD for at least 13 years if it was work for hire and I'm reading things correctly. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was never published before 2003, PD-US-unpublished would be the way to go. Is that known to be the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be old enough where even if it had been officially published at some point in the last 100 years, it wouldn't make a difference. The Commons Copyright rules by territory page says the copyright expires when "the earlier of 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation" comes to pass -- it could be officially published tomorrow under the definition of publication in chapter 1900 but 120 years would still have passed since its creation, so it should still be PD I would think. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might make a difference, depending on if/when it was published. If never before 2003 or definitely before 1929, it's PD. But if it was published at some point after 1929 but before 2003, maybe not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting interpretation, one that could cause problems for a lot of portraits on Commons now.
When it comes to publication, the "[offer to] distribute copies... for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." We know that the portrait hung in the "executive chamber" (either the governor's office or governor's conference room), both which are a gray area as far "public" areas go. Does that constitute being published under the rule of intent to distribute for public display?
It was also given to a government agency (the historical society) in 1907 or 1908. That agency is charged with the "preservation and care of all records, both printed and written, and all articles and other materials of historic interest and significance placed in its custody"[2] as well as charged with cataloging those materials "for the more convenient reference of all persons who have occasion to consult the collections", including the ability to loan out materials [3], which sounds an awful lot to me like it was offered to be distributed for public display, constituting publication ~116 years ago, which would make it PD.
I don't know! It's a weird question. Appreciate you sticking with me this long and considering everything on this topic. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original display of the work would fall under "public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication" per 1902. As to the historical society, unless there is an agency-specific exception that I'm not aware of, unpublished materials available in an archival capacity are still considered unpublished. See for example this statement from the Society of American Archivists]. (As they and you note, this creates lots of problems, especially when the provenance of a work is less clear.)
So in terms of moving forward for this image, I'd suggest doing some searching to see what's the earliest confirmed publication of the portrait you can identify. Once we've figured out what that is, the next steps will be much clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Thought I'd circle back to this discussion. I've done all the digging I know how to do, including searching copyright registrations back to 1923, and have seen no instance of the portrait being registered for copyright nor evidence of a formal publication. I took the discussion to the copyright village pump on Commons and editors there believe the portrait to be in the public domain, so I think we should be good. Thanks for all the discussion here! This was a great conversation. Cheers M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder of"

[edit]

Over the years I have seen you delete infoboxes within Wikipedia articles. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I do not. Is this a thing on Wikipedia that there should only be one infobox per page? I agree that having 5 would be excessive, but for a "Murder of" article for example, if there is only one perpetrator involved I fail to see why there is a need to remove an infobox for the perpetrator if one already exists for the victim, especially if the article is already reasonably long. I can't see in Wikipedia policy where this a thing to only have 1 infobox per page. Inexpiable (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)\[reply]

Hi Inexpiable, these templates are to "summarize[] key facts about the page's subject", which in the case of these articles is not the perpetrator but rather the event. As per WP:1E, for people who are notable for only one event, we should avoid the creation of pseudobiographies. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Germany and Polish People's Republic

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I see that you keep deleting descriptions in make for governments of Eastern block countries. I personally don't think that the overly short description of "socialist republic" works for either of these two countries. Considering that the type of socialist country they were were Marxist-Leninist in nature, I think it would be more accurate and informative to describe them as what they were, Marxist-Leninist one party socialist republics. There are many other pages of Marxist-Leninist states where they're government description is the same as I had put for East Germany so I don't see why it shouldn't also have its description as such. As for the Polish People's Republic, I think that the inclusion that it was under a stalinist dictatorship from 1947-1956 and the detail about the country being under a military junta are good details as they show how the form of government changed. I think the way you oversimplify the descriptions is reductive and degrades the quality of the articles. WildRaptor777 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the shorter version both identifies the government type and does so at a glance, but you'd be welcome to take your proposal to the articles' talk pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but thanks for being reasonable and respectful WildRaptor777 (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll make sure to take my proposal to the talk page WildRaptor777 (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Waterbury

[edit]

Why did you remove his Find a grave?Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Johnny Spasm, see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Find a Grave - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the dumbest thing ever. Why would Wikipedia have a templet for a source they don't trust?Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn discussion

[edit]

Hello, I wanted to inform you that I added my vote to the infobox discussion for Joseph Haydn and as there appeared to be no consensus (5 votes for, 3 against), I removed the infobox pending further votes as I do not think as it stands there is clear consensus. I also object to how the infobox remained static for months until a new vote after months of no discussion was used to add the infobox. I do not think that adding it at this time is warranted. Barbarbarty (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source removal

[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to explain a little bit more in-depth my reversion of your removal of the sources in Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain). Per Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/FAQ, grave markers are valid sources under {{cite sign}}. My understanding is that FindAGrave is not allowed for its user-generated, non-reliable content on obituaries, etc; the URLs in the sources simply give the non-free photos of graves being cited. Seeing as the citations would be valid and reliable without the link, I didn't think that adding the link as an additional piece of information with the grave photos would be an issue. If it is, please remove the links but leave the grave citations themselves. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darth Stabro, what do you see as the benefit of doing that? Even if they belong to the people mentioned in the article, the graves don't support the claims being made about them. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name of his father and the full name (Johanna) of his mother are not found in any other sources at the moment. The Current Biography Yearbook 1955 source is currently offline until the Internet Archive figures its stuff out and the article is currently being reviewed for Good Article, and the reviewer asked for a source for the names other than that source. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this source doesn't give you that. Primary sources can be used only for they themselves say, without analysis or synthesis. You can prove that stones with those names exist, but not that they are the parents whose full names you don't have. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback on Josefina Echánove

[edit]

@Nikkimaria, I understand why you did it because I 99% of the time would have done the same. I get that it looks immensely weird to be changing the birth and death place on a dead person, Josefina Echánove. If you will have read the inline source from the LA times, the memorial that I added from ancestry thru the wiki resources. At some point, someone entered her place of birth and dying in Guanajuato. It's so bad because the Wikidata statement literally says it but cites a source that says the correct birth place of New york, I am at this moment updating the wikidata statements so I won't need to change the info in 7 different languages.

I thought my summaries would be enough to cause a second glance, obviously I was mistaken. Can you please self revert your rollback? RCSCott91 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: the change was done by IP user 201.168.135.200 03:55, 14 October 2024. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you RCSCott91 (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria&oldid=1254313507"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy