User talk:Nikkimaria: Difference between revisions
| Line 2,683: | Line 2,683: | ||
You said that you "believe" this source does not meet standards. Since when is your opinion the standard by which this website is operated? You have no source to prove your statement that Wikipedia does not accept sources from other Wikis. Therefore, you must admit the hypocrisy of your actions. You do not have a reliable source for the policy you are stating |
You said that you "believe" this source does not meet standards. Since when is your opinion the standard by which this website is operated? You have no source to prove your statement that Wikipedia does not accept sources from other Wikis. Therefore, you must admit the hypocrisy of your actions. You do not have a reliable source for the policy you are stating allowing you to remove and/or flag content from an article that does in fact have corroboration you have not acknowledged. Your statement that ignoring unreliable sources elsewhere has no relevance to this source implies that Wikipedia practices a policy of enforcing double standards. Based upon these facts, you are not a credible representative of Wikipedia. What authority do you have over others who believe this content should be on this page?[[User:VerVynck|VerVynck]] ([[User talk:VerVynck|talk]]) 03:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 03:52, 16 September 2019
| This is Nikkimaria's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 |
Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
About a Good Article review
Hi again Nikkimaria, your page is getting slow; but it speeds up once the syntax highlighting is disabled. I've been doing some clean up of an article that I didn't write or expand, Joni Eareckson Tada. There are a couple of editors who have been stewarding the article, so it's not just out there. I am invested in the article; I have added some content to it, mostly in the way of the awards, services, Bibliography and so forth.. not really in the way of the written content. I have my own reasons for selecting this article, rather than one of my own. The one editor has changed the article class from Start to C since I have done cleanup of those things as well as the references and some section cleanup as well. Well, it just looks a lot better. They don't know it yet, but my ultimate goal is to keep improving the article class. I found the Wikipedia:Peer review page. But I just thought you could take a quick look and just tell me anything that stands out to you right away? It's not a long article. Is that page helpful? I thought do that before looking for an editor to do a GA review. This would only be my second GA review, and my first doing it alone...unless of course I can talk the stewarding editor into doing it with me. I don't want to step on their toes so to speak. Any advice? Thanks in advance... dawnleelynn(talk) 21:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC) p.s. my mentor is not available for awhile...thanks... dawnleelynn(talk) 21:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi dawnleelynn, I've done some archiving of the page so that should speed things up a bit. Regarding the Tada article, it wouldn't hurt to let other editors of the page know about your plans for it, especially if those plans are going to involve significant editing and/or require their assistance. Looking at the page, I can immediately see that the lead section will need to be significantly expanded. There are also some spots that seem undersourced, such as the part in Music about controversy and subsequent media attention, or where given sources don't seem to support the content, such as the part about learning to mouth-paint. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, yes right I didn't mention the lead but of course one or two sentences is not enough. I will also post in the talk page about doing a GA review and ask what they think/would they like to work together on one. Regarding the sources, good eye on the mouth painting and music controversy. I will look over the whole article for the written areas to make sure they are all sourced adequately. Also, some content is still sourced to her ministry's web site and I'd like to try to replace as much of that as I can... one of the editors there claims it is a primary source. Is it, btw? I mean, it's her ministry's web site, not her personal web site... Anyway, thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn(talk) 23:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The issue is rather that it's not an independent source, and therefore is potentially biased. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, well that makes perfect sense now and is an excellent reason. A new policy I have learned today. Call me crazy, but I actually like learning new policies. It is all part of the process of becoming a better editor. I have come to consider you an excellent part-time mentor. I appreciate your help very much. Have a good night. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214
On 8 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bach composed the cantata Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! to honor Maria Josepha of Saxony (pictured) on her birthday on 8 December 1733? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Mifter (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
|
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) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Take part in a survey
Hi Nikkimaria
We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.
Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.
As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.
Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv
Thanks
Avi
Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2018
| ||||||
Frank Sinatra
Hi Nikkimaria,
why is my contribution to the voice 'Frank Sinatra' punctually canceled? Yet those news are in the book of Italian music journalist Gildo De Stefano. Thank you! --Entertainer (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Entertainer , suggest you propose that edit on the talk page and seek consensus for it. For me, it seems undue. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
I do not think my contribution on Sinatra is out of place, rather it enriches with new Italian details of the life of the American artist. Moreover, they are news that no other biography reports, not even American ones. --Entertainer (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Entertainer, again, you're welcome to post on the article's talk page to see whether other editors concur with your opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Marion Leane Smith
On 12 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marion Leane Smith, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marion Leane Smith is the only Aboriginal Australian woman known to have served in the First World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marion Leane Smith. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marion Leane Smith), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Maile (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Image question
Hi Nikkimaria, Could you have a look at the situation here with regard to using a (probably) non-free image in an article that has a lot of free ones? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
|
dawnleelynn(talk) 17:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC) |
- Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia
.jpg)
|
Happy Saturnalia | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
- Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
| A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | .jpg)
|
|
|
- Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 31
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018
- OAWiki
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
January 2019 at Women in Red
 January events:
|
Wives of Knights
Hello there! I saw that you were removing Category:Wives of knights from multiple articles. Wives of knights, similar to Category:Wives of baronets, is a social category standing that gives the subject the legal and social title, style, and rank of 'Lady' within the United Kingdom and Commonwealth of Nations. So, for example, Barbara Bach (an article from which the category was removed) is legally and socially "Lady Starkey" by virtue of her marriage to a British knight. Additionally, ex-wives of knights are entitled to keep their style and title if they chose, and only lose it upon remarriage to a man of lower rank. See Category:Women by social class. So this category denotes something of social and legal significance and is not merely a contrived content fork. It is similar to categorization of the wives of peers and courtesy lords (i.e. Category:English viscountesses and Category:English courtesy viscountesses. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Willthacheerleader18, that category is not defining for many of those individuals. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Please keep a watch on Yudirai account. He is the person vandalizing Mangalore related articles with poor Tulu content
I request you to please keep a watch on this user account Yudisthir Shivaprasad Rai Yudirai(talk).
He is the same person who is repeatedly vandalizing Mangalore related articles with Tulu/Tulunadu content, using multiple accounts.
Yesterday, the Mangalore article got protected from IP edits due to his Tulu related vandalisms.
On 18th July 2018, the Tulu Nadu received page protection from his IP related vandalism. But, since Yudirai(talk) user is autoconfirmed, he again vandalized that article the very next day.
He has also vandalized the Bunt (community) article as well. The user account Bunt56(talk) is a sock-puppet of Yudirai(talk).
He could certainly vandalize the Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada articles once again.
223.186.240.27 (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2018
- From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?
- News and notes: Some wishes do come true
- In the media: Political hijinks
- Discussion report: A new record low for RfA
- WikiProject report: Articlegenesis
- Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case
- Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents
- Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone
- Blog: News from the WMF
- Humour: I believe in Bigfoot
- Essay: Requests for medication
- From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again
Seasonal Greetings
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
|
Hello Nikkimaria, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
- Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
|
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
|
Hello Nikkimaria, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
- Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Non-rs, second time
This is the second time that you revert two fanwikis I added. The first time was at the beginning of this year: User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 37#Non-rs
You appear to have some kind of tool installed which automatically detects links to fanwikis? Instead of mindlessly removing them, maybe you should actually read what I wrote. - Manifestation (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- I read what you wrote; as I said then, your argument is not generally consistent with our policies and guidelines. I don't use any tool to automatically delete links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care about policies and guidelines. It's true that you can't just accept something from fansites at face value. For instance, if the MarioWiki article on Beanstalks says that the vines were actually inspired by Alice in Wonderland, then I can't just copy-paste that. I need to find out if it's true (which it isn't). However, I was trying to do no such thing. I wanted to present ancillary sources to the reader, not only to proof that the Super Mario games actually have beanstalks, but also to provide more information about it, if the reader wants to know more. I won't revert your edit, because there's no point in revert fighting over ancillary sources. But you really are taking the rules way to strict. - Manifestation (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you may want to add your new Canada article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge/Recent additions. Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
Zotero is free software for reference management by the Center for History and New Media: see Wikipedia:Citing sources with Zotero. It is also an active user community, and has broad-based language support.  Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the Zotero translator underlies the citoid service, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata can be imported into Zotero; and in the other direction the zotkat tool from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects. There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of Web scraping that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal mix'n'match import community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of OpenRefine. Looking ahead, the thirtieth birthday of the World Wide Web falls in 2019, and yet the ambition to make webpages routinely readable by machines can still seem an ever-retreating mirage. Wikidata should not only be helping Wikimedia integrate its projects, an ongoing process represented by Structured Data on Commons and lexemes. It should also be acting as a catalyst to bring scraping in from the cold, with institutional strengths as well as resourceful code.
Diversitech, the latest ContentMine grant application to the Wikimedia Foundation, is in its community review stage until January 2.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Battle of the Hatpins
On 1 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Hatpins, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the Battle of the Hatpins, women protestors repelled police officers with rolling pins and skillets? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Hatpins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of the Hatpins), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
2019
 |
Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht
Thank you for your help last year, including image review of the TFA, and many others! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
JSTOR
Hi, I've been very inactive since October due to health issues, so I'm way behind on developments. Did the subscription problem with JSTOR get resolved? There was an issue with a batch of renewal requests, including mine, that had been submitted to them but then gone wrong in some way. You were trying to sort it out but I really can't remember the details and the conversations were spread across numerous venues, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sitush: Should have been, yes - are you still having issues with your account? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking. I had no further notification, no request to change password/register or whatever and yet when I logged in today it say that I had used 5 of the 6 views to which I am entitled. Have they introduced some limit on views now? I used to be able to check everything in one go but if I am restricted to 6 views a month then it is going to be quite an impediment. Especially since we're only on the 2nd day of the month and yet their system says I have already looked at five items (when it fact it was just one page of one item).
- Not your fault, obviously, but it doesn't look right to me. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sitush: The six-article limit applies to non-subscription accounts, so you shouldn't be seeing that. Can you verify that whatever email is associated with your JSTOR account is the same as the one associated with your account on the Library Card site? If not, try using the latter address to do a password reset. If so, let me know and I can follow up with JSTOR. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, will do later today and let you know. I'm afraid I found the Library Card system itself b****y obscure but I'm getting old and past it, and I'm sure it eases the admin side of things compared to the old freeform list system. Thanks again. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. You're right - for reasons unknown to me, the email showing on my JSTOR account was not that showing on the Library platform. I updated JSTOR to match the Library and did a password reset at JSTOR. I then received the confirmation email re: the changes. Logged out of JSTOR, logged back in but it is still showing a limited subscription. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sitush: What I expect has happened is you now have two accounts, your original one and a different one created with the email that was on Library Card. Two options to sort that out: change the email on your original account back to whatever it was before and then do a "forgot password" using the Library Card email, which should give you a functional new account under that email; or let me know the username on the original JSTOR account (by email if you prefer) and I can see if JSTOR is able to swap over the subscription. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I tried the password reset method but it still shows my on a limited subscription and gives options for pay-to-read. I'm really sorry to be messing you around like this. The original JSTOR account is under username "sitush1". If you need any more info then I will email it to you. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, I will see if the JSTOR folks can sort that out. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I got the new approval email from TWL but still haven't got access to JSTOR. I've checked my spam folders. Beginning to think that I may need to set up an entirely new account with JSTOR but I suspect they will pick up that the email address has been used previously under another account. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Argh. Okay, I can try emailing them again, not sure what the issue is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Gazal world ——SerialNumber54129 12:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me User:Serial Number 54129. Hi @Sitush: I passed through same problem like you. I already had an account with JSTOR (as non-subsribed user). Then I applied for the first time on TWL for JSTOR account. Like you, I didn't get an email for User name and Password details, and I started inquiries to NikkiMaria. But then eventually I found that my 'non-subscription' account have been converted into TWL account. Like yours, my account also display 'six articles limit'. but I am able to read and download unlimited article. -Gazal world (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- And thanks to you, Gazal world. Unfortunately, your experience differs from mine. Not only am I definitely limited to the 6 per month but in addition when I have used that quota, any attempt to search for anything returns a "no results" page. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sitush: You should now have received an email from JSTOR - can you check if your access is working? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, no email received and after logging in I still see the red bar saying that I have used my 6 reads for the month. I have again checked my email settings with TWL and JSTOR, plus obviously checked my spam folder. I tried to access JSTOR 664971 but it says I'll have to wait until 2 February, when the free read counter resets. You must be really fed up of this but I assure you that the registered email address is working fine for everything else - I must get between 70 and 100 mails a day on it and there are no filters set up. - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean
Your edit summary for this edit said "See template doc. (TW)". I'm not sure whether that adresses the IP or me. Regardless, your edit removed the ''{{explain}}'' template I had added so maybe there is something I am missing. Moriori (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Moriori: Sorry, I didn't see that template, it referred to the IP edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019
|
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) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) |
Thanks for your reviewing efforts in 2018, Nikkimaria!
|
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar | |
| For your image reviews of 143 Military history articles in 2018, I hereby award you the Premium Reviewer Barnstar. Thanks for all your help with curly image licensing questions, and for all your work image reviewing in general. We wouldn't have the amazing throughput we have as a project, if it wasn't for you. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC) |
- Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, the original review of this nomination called out close paraphrasing/copying. While I gather that significant editing has gone on behind the scenes, including by the reviewer who noted this issue, I'd feel happier, before calling for a new reviewer, if you'd check to be sure that the issue has been dealt with to your satisfaction. Many thanks, and (a belated) Happy New Year! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2018
| ||||||
Img review
Hoping you are well NM. I know you must get asked all the time; but you were good enough to look in on this A-class review (over a year ago!), but it's now at FAC, and of course needs another...the images are unchanged except for swapping out two maps. No problem if you're too busy though. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 15:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- (I didn't expect anyone else to jump in so soon! Thanks though) ——SerialNumber54129 10:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Auberoche
Hi Nikkimaria. I dislike coming begging, but you were kind enough to do the image review for Battle of Auberoche at ACR, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Auberoche. It is currently at FAC with five supports but no image nor source review. If you could see your way clear to doing an image review I would be most grateful. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hailey Kinsel
Yesterday, I moved Hailey Kinsel, 2018 world champion barrel racer, to main space and nominated her for DYK. It's not one of my long articles. So, if you could look it over for encyclopedic tone or anything else that stands out to you. I think I'm getting better at it. Thanks a bunch! Also, hope you are well. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, wow, those were some extremely helpful edits. I am going to make a number of changes based on your feedback as well. You sometimes forget to look at your terminology from the end user view. Some edits will be based on that and others on encyclopedic tone or grammar, etc. Thanks for editing; it made a big difference. When I write the next one, I will compare it with this one because she is similar and won in 2017. Thanks very much! dawnleelynn(talk) 00:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I said her mother had a notable equine background rather than "Her mother Leslie is a former Miss Rodeo Texas and enjoys starting colts, a passion that stemmed from working for horse trainers and something she now shares with Hailey." (from source) The equine background was to summarize that she starts colts and used to work for horse trainers. Perhaps I should just put that in the article since she starts colts now with Hailey? Not sure what was notable other than being Miss Texas, which is in the article already. I could just take the word notable out as the other option. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dawnleelynn: As written, and with the wikilink used, I kinda read it as she is part horse ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- LOL! I was just eating dinner and it occurred to me, the word equine should have been equestrian. No wonder you found it strange and funny, now me too! I will figure out something when I get to editing it a bit later. hehe... dawnleelynn(talk) 02:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Beattie FAC
Hi Nikkimaria
Thanks so much for some forensic and very helpful reviewing.
I wondered if there's anything remaining at the FAC that you'd like fixed?
--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Dweller, wondering if you can clarify the comment you made there about the publishing credentials - did you discover whether it's an imprint of another publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, I've no idea --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
On the "survived by", what I think TRM was saying is we've met the guideline because we talk at length about Beattie's wife. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Quick question
Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well with you. Can I make a quick check with you on the image File:'Princess Alice' (1865) beached after being cut in two in a collision (1878).jpg? I can find no information relating to a first publication, although I suspect it probably was used somewhere. It dates from 1878, so 70 years after creation was 1948 - according to this we should be able to use it, but thought I'd check first. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi SchroCat, it's almost certainly PD in the UK, less certain about the US. The source link provided on the image description page requires login - what's said there about the image's provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- We find one of the more common page on the internet: "403 This is not the page you’re looking for." It was in Royal Museums Greenwich Flickr account, but looks like they've taken it down. I searched the RMG website (www.rmg.co.uk), including within their image library (at http://images.rmg.co.uk//en/page/show_home_page.html) and collections database (http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections.html#!cbrowse) but can find no trace of the image, even though it appears twice in an article of the sinking. I can't find any other copies of the image online, although image searching isn't one of my specialisms. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Might be worth reaching out to the museum directly to see if they know anything more. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria. I've not heard anything back from the museum on this, which is irritating. I've dropped the article into FAC, and if the image has to come out until we have more information, then so be it - we can always revisit the point once they do reply. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria. I found you on the volunteers Peer Review list of music section. My request standing unanswered since 6th December and I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to check this discography. If you are interested I have two more completed lists and one short article (passed DYK) in my queue. Eurohunter (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Eurohunter, sorry, definitely not my genre. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
February 2019 at Women in Red
 February events:
|
From your edit summary, I don’t understand why you removed two pieces of cited material. Kerry (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I assume the information about Connery having beaten her was removed because the associated source has been deprecated. If that's the case, though, a better edit summary than "trim" should have been left for this edit. Grandpallama (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Kerry and Grandpallama, three pieces were removed in that edit for three different reasons: one because of the instructions in the template documentation, one because of the use of an unreliable source, and one because of the Manual of Style. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- So I assumed. But since two of those items were sourced items, even though your edits might be correct, it's going to cause confusion without an edit summary that's a little more detailed; hence my comment here that "trim" isn't really enough. Thanks for the explanation. Grandpallama (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2019
- Op-ed: Random Rewards Rejected
- News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives
- Discussion report: The future of the reference desk
- Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity
- Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope
- Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther
- Technology report: When broken is easily fixed
- News from the WMF: News from WMF
- Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?
- Essay: How
- Humour: Village pump
- From the archives: An editorial board that includes you
Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?). Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making. Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness. There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Re: Lawrence Dale Bell.
Respectfully, why did you remove his cause of death? It had been incorrectly stated as "stroke", which I corrected to congestive heart failure, with the reference to the source. Bell's life, given his importance in the aeronautical world, is under-documented, and Wikipedia has a reputation for disseminating documented data. Why edit out factual information? I suppose that I could have added a further, in text body, sentence pointing out that he had suffered from heart disease nearly all of his adult life; this was an important factor in his career. Thanks. Canucksailor (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Canucksailor, per the template documentation, we generally don't include cause for deaths due to routine illness. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Image advice
Hi Nikkimaria. I'm trying to find suitable images for Theodora Kroeber, and came across this 1927 image (further details here). I haven't been able to find evidence of copyright renewal, but I don't know how to make certain of that. Any advice? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Vanamonde. Before you get into copyright renewal, you first need to figure out publication - the source site gives a creation date of 1927, but in the case of archival images it's very possible the digitization was the first actual publication. Have you seen any publications of that image that are known to predate Calisphere? Do we have any indication of who might have taken the photo? If the answer to both of those questions is no, the image is almost certainly not PD. However, if you can't find any PD images of Theodora at all you'd probably have a good case for fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm. The photo is from a family collection, so I guess it may not have been published until well after 1964, and copyright renewal may not enter the picture at all...ah well. No, I haven't been able to find any public domain images, and I've looked pretty hard. Is that enough to justify a fair-use image? If so, would it be reasonable to apply that to a higher quality image? The one I linked here was the only one I could find that was not obviously copyrighted. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Yep, just use {{non-free biog-pic}}. Take a look at WP:NFCCP point 3b re: quality though. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Vanamonde (Talk) 19:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Yep, just use {{non-free biog-pic}}. Take a look at WP:NFCCP point 3b re: quality though. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm. The photo is from a family collection, so I guess it may not have been published until well after 1964, and copyright renewal may not enter the picture at all...ah well. No, I haven't been able to find any public domain images, and I've looked pretty hard. Is that enough to justify a fair-use image? If so, would it be reasonable to apply that to a higher quality image? The one I linked here was the only one I could find that was not obviously copyrighted. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Marcus Aurelius FAC
The nominator says that he's add all the needed tags for the images in Marcus Aurelius. Can you check that and let us know if you're satisfied with the state of the images so we can put the nom to bed?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2019
| ||||||
The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
|
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) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
JSTOR access
Hi, a month ago I received an email from Wikipedia Library Card Platform saying that my access request to JSTOR was approved, but I haven't received anything from them yet. Could you check it out? T8612 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612: Can you see if you've now received a password reset? (Check your spam mail). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ah I get it; they activated an old account I had, like 9 years ago, not the one I use now. Thanks. T8612 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Copyright status of French official photos
I've found a nice photo showing the torpedo damage suffered by a French battleship in 1914 and am wondering what it's copyright status might be. It's at [1] if you scroll down a bit. It's credited to Fonds Chopard (SHD/MV 99 GG2) which is part of the French Navy archives. Being taken by an official photographer I imagine that we'll never know the name of the photographer so would Anonymous-EU apply? Or is all this irrelevant because it's first confirmed publication was in 2012 so it falls afoul of the 120-year-requirement for never-published, anonymous works of the Hirtle chart?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Sturm, assuming no earlier publication can be found and no author can be identified, yes, it would fall under the 120-year requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was afraid of that, but had a meagre hope that there might have been some sort of exemption of official photographs. Thanks anyway.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yay
My JSTOR access is definitely working as it should now. I'm most grateful for your help. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Reversion
Hello, I reverted you removal to John Franzese Jr with regards to the Daily Mail. I did this under WP:IAR which is cited when it warns about the source not generally being accepted. In this case the only thing that I advance with that source is that the subject of the article wife, ex whatever she is was featured on an episode of a television show. The only other source I have is IMDB. Is there a reason that it wouldn't work if it is for something non controversial in nature? It gives a bit more info but not at the expense of BLP. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- If it's that big of a deal go ahead and re-revert me but in this case I thought it small enough to ignore. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Hell in a Bucket, the TV show is not a problem, but the sentence before it is - if what you're saying is that that bit isn't intended to be supported by that source, then why remove the {{citation needed}} tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I see the confusion, I need to source the bit about the hit, yes that is not what the dail mail is citing. I will address that today! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I hope this helps that [[2]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Hell in a Bucket, the TV show is not a problem, but the sentence before it is - if what you're saying is that that bit isn't intended to be supported by that source, then why remove the {{citation needed}} tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
March 2019 at Women in Red
   Please join us for these virtual events:
| ||
|
|
I observe you are deleting references to the above site in my articles. As I know of no other site that contains such information on minor firehouses, I am confused as to the issue. DMBanks1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMBanks1 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hi DMBanks1, Firstly you should be careful referring to articles as "my articles": no single editor owns any articles - they Wikimedia Foundation do, and if you say to people "my article", they'll soon point you in the direction of WP:OWN (which you'd be best to read. Secondly, Wikia site are not considered as reliable sources. We aim to source to the highest level possible, and if it only appears on a crowd-sourced site without reliable third-party references, it shouldn't be on here. If you can't find the information elsewhere, you have to ask yourself if it is encyclopaedic enough to be included. Things that are encyclopaedic enough tend to found in the reliable sources. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Let me clarify. When I make the simple statement "my articles", I am merely indicating initial authorship upon which the only third party revisions have been of a format nature. It was to differentiate from having made some revision to an established article. I never imagined it would be a source of such consternation. Like the average person, I am perfectly aware of how Wikipedia functions. Contributors may not always appreciate the changes I make to their articles or vice versa, but that is the reality. Consequently, I would not knowingly use a source which was unreliable.
I have a reasonable working knowledge of East Line area (from Prince George, BC) communities. I can detect nothing in "http://fire.wikia.com/wiki/Shell-Glen_Volunteer_Fire_Rescue" or "http://fire.wikia.com/wiki/Ferndale-Tabor_Fire_Department" which appears the slightest suspect. Naturally, I cannot comment on other firehouses on their site, but to throw out the baby with the bath water seems a puzzling policy. It would be like equating the well researched and written articles in Wikipedia, with the numerous ones which exhibit limited or no obvious merit whatsoever.
Do you require email proof from these specific volunteer fire departments, before you are satisfied the information is correct? If so, I will endeavour to obtain it.
DMBanks1 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi DMBanks1, no. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its function is to summarize reliable published sources on a topic. An email from a fire department, regardless of its accuracy, wouldn't be a suitable source. Similarly, open wikis, including Wikipedia itself, aren't considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The former has its own website "https://www.sgvfr.com/". Is this an appropriate source? DMBanks1 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- DMBanks1: yes, as outlined at WP:ABOUTSELF. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Talk pages consultation 2019
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Edits to Anglia Ruskin Page
Hello!
I am new (very) to editing Wikipedia, so kindly excuse any obvious questions from me.
- I was trying to track the changes you made in watchlist and wasn't able to find any edit summary?
- Also, is the undue-tag referring to the section about the 'mickey-mouse' degree? I admit I did not elaborate on the university's response there and will add that. Will that be enough? Everywhere else, I have added the university's responses available from the sources.
- I had also added a Daily Mail link because the other source from the Times might require one to log in, while the DM article borrows and cites The Times. I feel this is a valid case of an exception?
Thank you, LockHood — Preceding unsigned comment added by LockHood (talk • contribs) 08:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Edit: I have made several changes, mostly to include the university comments where available. Hope this helps make the article more balanced. Thank you! LockHood (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi LockHood, my general concern with that article is that many of the controversies listed are relatively minor in the larger scope of the university's history, yet we are devoting considerable space to each - in fact, more than all the rest of the school's history combined. Take a look at WP:PROPORTION. I appreciate your impulse to add the university's comments, but given that that only makes the section longer, it doesn't really address what I see as the major issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- I see, thank you. I personally feel controversies don't necessarily fall under an institution's history, especially considering the section has expanded. Might it now be appropriate to take it out of History and make it an independent section? While the content is disproportionate within the History section, it won't be in the overall scope of the page. Let me know if that sounds acceptable. Thank you. LockHood (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi LockHood, that would make sense organizationally, but I still feel that as written this section is too long and detailed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Considering some of the topics led to UK-wide debates, both from academics and politicians as well as attracted international attention, I think the length is necessary to give a proper overview of both viewpoints.LockHood (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi LockHood, that would make sense organizationally, but I still feel that as written this section is too long and detailed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi LockHood, which topics in particular? Would they be notable enough for spinoff articles, for example? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 32
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019
- #1Lib1Ref
- New and expanded partners
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
DYK Vikram Sood
Hi Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Vikram_Sood has not been updated. Are you in the process of reviewing it ? if not can you please mark it for a new reviewer ? I would prefer if the DYK process continues to move. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi User:DBigXray, last I checked more quoting/rephrasing was needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- If so can you please point out so that it can be fixed. I have already reviewed the article to fix these issues, so some help to get this moving will be appreciated, Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, I made a few changes in the article. Do these changes address your concerns about the article? I also checked the article with the copyvio tool. Seems to be ok in that aspect...? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- If so can you please point out so that it can be fixed. I have already reviewed the article to fix these issues, so some help to get this moving will be appreciated, Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.  Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help? Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen. Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2019
- From the editors: Help wanted (still)
- News and notes: Front-page issues for the community
- Discussion report: Talking about talk pages
- Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Binge-watching
- Technology report: Tool labs casters-up
- Gallery: Signed with pride
- From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love
- Humour: Pesky Pronouns
I know I'm a pain, but...
...would you be able to do a source review for the Princess Alice Disaster FAC too? I'd be extremely grateful if you could spare the time.
I am, as always, conscious of the number of requests I put through to you without reciprocation; should you ever need help with reviews or anything else, please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing help
Thanks for you help in finding close paraphrasing issues I missed at Vikram Sood and The Unending Game. If you have a moment, could you see if I missed anything at Thomas D. Mangelsen & Grizzly 399? I think I have caught most of it. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nikki, that was awesome, especially in the 60 Minutes section. This is, of course, me working in a new area, but still. It will be an article I look back at often to compare when I am writing new articles. I know you've been here a lot longer than me, but you have skills! I guess I should let the reader come to their own conclusion about whether it is ironic that Mangelsen got a hunting tag when he was the opposition to hunting...LOL. Great stuff, thanks so much. Also, wanted to tell you that I will fix the broken links from those organizations redesigning their sites in those few articles that are left and let you know when they are ready for you to review. I will add that in the usual message above. Thanks again! Have a good night. dawnleelynn(talk) 05:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry so long to get to this. But yet again, you've out done yourself, this time on Grizzly 399. I saw a couple typos which I will fix sometime today. But no biggie. I am writing outside any area of expertise on these articles. I am just an editor who lives in Wyoming writing about a Wyoming issue. The bulk areas of the parks are in Wyoming, and it's the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission that is currently trying to take charge of the bears. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, can you please take a look at this 5x expanded article? There were originally a number of large quotes in the second paragraph of Career that have been toned down, but is it enough to satisfy general Wikipedia standards? (I did my own edit to reduce quoting from one of the sources and increase the paraphrasing.) I think it may be there, but I trust your judgment, and know you'll ask for more paraphrasing if it's truly needed. Many thanks. (Note: DYKcheck has overcounted the number of characters in the pre-expansion article; I have a note in to Shubinator about the issue, but the base is in the high 1800s or low 1900s, not 2144.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for stopping by and taking a look; your comments were very helpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: February 2019
| ||||||
DYK for Alice de Rivera
On 9 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alice de Rivera, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alice de Rivera sued the New York City Board of Education after she was barred from a specialized high school due to her gender? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice de Rivera. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alice de Rivera), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
|
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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Video tutorial for Gale citation links
Could you add this video tutorial link to the partner page for Gale: "How to properly generate Gale citation URLs for use on Wikipedia", because this instruction wasn't easy to find, and it differs from the more obvious URL format. I've already added it to Wikipedia:Gale. If we don't use their format, the links may not be as persistent as we'd like. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I also just noticed that the "Terms of use" link on the partner page is dead, if you could take a look. -- Netoholic @ 07:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi
Hey I deletd my old ling.nut email acct, and jstor says I already have an acct with my current WP address. I have no idea or recollection of this. I dunno what acct I used, maybe axylus.arisbe? I dunno what to do. Would like to apply for journals esp. jstor. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- By current WP address, do you mean the user account or email? If the latter you should be able to do a password reset. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK I think I got it tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I fought to save this article at AfD but now that I'm more experienced and mature, I think that might have been an error of judgement. Riley Ann was a baby/toddler and is only known for her murder, not for anything she did as a person. She's not like Johanna who is automatically notable despite her toddler status because she was royalty. Maybe another AfD nomination would be worth considering? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- You could try, although there are probably enough sources for the article to be kept. Because the title is "Murder of..." and not "Riley Ann", the test for notability applies to that event, not to her as a person. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The Infinity Gauntlet at FAC
Hi Nikki,
About a year ago you did an image review for The Infinity Gauntlet at FAC, but that was eventually archived without clear support from you. The second nomination also looks like it's stalling. If you have time, would you mind to look the changes over and let me know if I've addressed your concerns? The current discussion is here. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Argento Surfer, I can re-review the images, but just so you're aware it's a check that needs to happen but is not generally the basis for a support. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Jstor
Hi Nikkimaria, I've not been active for a while because of health issues. At some point I lost all access to Jstor, which was restored, but I've realized I can only view a limited number of articles each month and don't have permission to download any. I was one of the original 30 subscribers and haven't signed up to the TWL because I'm not convinced I'll be able to use it at this time, but I would like to be able to get into Jstor if I might want to so some work. Do you have any advice to get past the 6 article limit and reinstate full access? Thanks, Victoriaearle (tk) 20:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Victoria, the TWL access is the best way that I know of to reinstate full access - there's quite a few accesses available that way so don't worry if you're not super active. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks Nikki. I always feel I have to produce content if I get access via Wikipedia, and not having the pressure has been nice. But I'll look into it. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- No pressure :-) Another option, assuming local library access isn't an option, is just to request individual articles via WP:RX on an as-needed basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- In November I posted this comment once I was able to log in again and could see that the articles I'd researched were in my workplace. I didn't realize they were no longer available to view or download, which is annoying. Had we been notified that we'd be losing access I would have saved my work. I took a look the TWL and it asks that editors identify themselves and provide their main email, which surprised me so I'll probably give it pass. My library doesn't have access, so I'll have to give it up, but I'm disappointed about this. I know you're not the person to be venting at, but you might know who at the Foundation to pass this feedback on to. Since I had access, as one of the original 30, I've been able to create quality content but can't without sources. It's basically moot because of my low activity level but I had hoped to be able to dip in occasionally. Anyway, thanks for listening. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle: If you'd prefer not to enter your details on the platform but would still like to get that access back, you can send me your previous JSTOR username by email and I can submit it for renewal. You'd just miss out on some of the platform advantages, like being notified when your account is expiring. Up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nikki, I owe you an apology. I knew when I posted here it would have been better to sit on my hands or not hit save, but I'd just discovered that the very many files I'd saved on Jstor (i.e about 10 or more for Jane Austin alone) couldn't be downloaded and could only be viewed in small amounts. I was annoyed at losing the research time and took it out on you, which isn't fair. I'm really sorry about that. I've had the same email and user name for Jstor since I've had the account and will send it on to you later today. Thanks and sorry :( Victoriaearle (tk) 14:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle: If you'd prefer not to enter your details on the platform but would still like to get that access back, you can send me your previous JSTOR username by email and I can submit it for renewal. You'd just miss out on some of the platform advantages, like being notified when your account is expiring. Up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- In November I posted this comment once I was able to log in again and could see that the articles I'd researched were in my workplace. I didn't realize they were no longer available to view or download, which is annoying. Had we been notified that we'd be losing access I would have saved my work. I took a look the TWL and it asks that editors identify themselves and provide their main email, which surprised me so I'll probably give it pass. My library doesn't have access, so I'll have to give it up, but I'm disappointed about this. I know you're not the person to be venting at, but you might know who at the Foundation to pass this feedback on to. Since I had access, as one of the original 30, I've been able to create quality content but can't without sources. It's basically moot because of my low activity level but I had hoped to be able to dip in occasionally. Anyway, thanks for listening. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- No pressure :-) Another option, assuming local library access isn't an option, is just to request individual articles via WP:RX on an as-needed basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- No apologies necessary :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
(←) (talk page stalker) You know, I was just noticing the same thing. JSTOR used to be awesome. Now it's just window shopping. JSTOR doesn't love Wikipeda anymore...? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Lingzhi2: Maybe your account, like Victoria's, might have expired? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
April editathons at Women in Red
April 2019
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)
Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you'd be able to return here and check to see whether any close paraphrasing or copyvio issues remain in this article. It would really help to get the next review off to a good start if the state of the article could be established now. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
University College of Estate Management
Nikki before you go deleting references, read the article and look at the pictures. Do you think this was a Prince Charles impostor or something?? I can assure you there was nothing wrong with this article. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome to add a reliable source to support the claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
Half a century ago, it was the era of the mainframe computer, with its air-conditioned room, twitching tape-drives, and appearance in the title of a spy novel Billion-Dollar Brain then made into a Hollywood film. Now we have the cloud, with server farms and the client–server model as quotidian: this text is being typed on a Chromebook. The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API. APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web. Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Infobox scientist/Wikidata
I've been having some difficulty using {{Infobox scientist/Wikidata}} as you noticed at Charles Hugh Smiley and Robert Horace Baker. I've been trying to add references to wikidata statements so that the template will automatically pull the proper entries from there. Any advice on how to go about this would be greatly appreciated. --23:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Mu301, what specific difficulty do you need advice about? Finding sources, using the template...? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, at Frederick Slocum the template is pulling the birth/death dates but not the places. I entered the info here. That probably wasn't the best way to source those claims - I may have to update it later. I have the sources. It's the interaction between the wp template and wikidata that I don't understand. It seems inconsistent. I'm trying to changeover to this template for pages listed at User:Mu301/tmp#Scientists. I'm also unclear on what a "proper" reference on wikidata should look like. Is it better to enter title, date, etc. instead of a google books link? Thanks, --mikeu talk 23:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've switched to {{infobox person/Wikidata}} for the moment as there is no content in the Scientific career section - here the places display properly. @RexxS: might have a better idea of why the places aren't displaying correctly in the scientist box, but until there is specific content for that section I'd suggest sticking to the person box anyways. In terms of sourcing on Wikidata, anything is better than nothing, but you can take a look at creating an item for the book you're citing if there isn't one already - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources#Books . Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mu301 and Nikkimaria: Thanks for spotting this. The problem lay in the way that {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} was coded. If it was supplied with a blank parameter like this
|birth_place=or this|death_place=, then it didn't fetch a value from Wikidata, it just returned the blank. You don't notice it normally, but when you use a wrapper template like {{Infobox scientist/Wikidata}}, it supplies every parameter as a blank value. This only affected the entries that were inside the {{br separated entries}} template, and I've fixed it (I hope) in {{Infobox person/Wikidata}}. - As a rule of thumb, as Nikki says, if you try
{{Infobox scientist/Wikidata|fetchwikidata=ALL}}and it shows up with a blank "Scientific career" section, just switch to using{{Infobox person/Wikidata|fetchwikidata=ALL}}. It simpler than trying to write code that suppresses the heading when there's nothing to display below it. - As for auto-retrieved references from Wikidata, we could put them into Template:Infobox person/Wikidata, etc. but I've always shied away from doing that because I don't know what format the rest of the references in the article are, and I don't want complaints that the infoboxes violate CITEVAR. Most articles don't require references in infoboxes, but if some do, my advice would be not to use Wikidata for those, and add the references manually to match the other reference in the article. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mu301 and Nikkimaria: Thanks for spotting this. The problem lay in the way that {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} was coded. If it was supplied with a blank parameter like this
- I've switched to {{infobox person/Wikidata}} for the moment as there is no content in the Scientific career section - here the places display properly. @RexxS: might have a better idea of why the places aren't displaying correctly in the scientist box, but until there is specific content for that section I'd suggest sticking to the person box anyways. In terms of sourcing on Wikidata, anything is better than nothing, but you can take a look at creating an item for the book you're citing if there isn't one already - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources#Books . Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, at Frederick Slocum the template is pulling the birth/death dates but not the places. I entered the info here. That probably wasn't the best way to source those claims - I may have to update it later. I have the sources. It's the interaction between the wp template and wikidata that I don't understand. It seems inconsistent. I'm trying to changeover to this template for pages listed at User:Mu301/tmp#Scientists. I'm also unclear on what a "proper" reference on wikidata should look like. Is it better to enter title, date, etc. instead of a google books link? Thanks, --mikeu talk 23:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I think I now understand the difficulty. --mikeu talk 20:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
- From the editors: Getting serious about humor
- News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
- In the media: Women's history month
- Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
- Featured content: Out of this world
- Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
- Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
- Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
- News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
- Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
- From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
- Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
- Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
- In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
- Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
- Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
Your edits on Kalale
Hey! You removed a section I added in the article for Kalale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalale), stating that I did not have "reliable sources." (a) The source I had used was quite reputable, in my opinion, as it is officially managed by people from Pottermore as well. Further, the nature of the reference (i.e, a mention in the movie) is impossible to source directly, and I don't see why the source I used was incorrect.
(b) Even if the source I used was incorrect, why did you get rid of the information sourced from it as well? The information I had mentioned was, for all intenets and purposes, factual, and worthy of putting into the article (similar to the "In Popular Culture" section in many different articles). If you had a problem with the citations, I don't see why you didn't just challenge the citations. This is especially jarring since the rest of the article has little to no citations in general, yet you removed the section which had two references. Cool12y (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Cool12y, content of that sort requires reliable secondary sources that establish significance. An open wiki, even one which is edited in part by people who are also involved in other sites, is not considered reliable. Sourcing directly to the movie would be a primary source, which is permitted in some cases but would not establish significance. Certainly it would be better if the rest of the article were better sourced, but absent better sourcing this particular content doesn't warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Mr Bean related articles under IP atttack
I only have The Curse of Mr. Bean on my watchlist but this editor introduced Americanisms into a British article. Such as "stomps on", where anyone whose read an Enid Blyton tale knows that a British child "stamps" their foot. They also changed the (British) term "small girl" into the (American style) "little girl". There made need to be intervention? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- On balance I'm thinking that they're editing in good faith, but I've left them a note re: ENGVAR. If you see further instances try to keep what are useful changes when getting rid of Americanisms. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting
Thanks for reverting. That was accidental - I meant to click "no automated actions." --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
|
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC) |
- Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit here, but it unintentionally broke the list of mayors order. There are some 135 of these and for considerations regarding consistency I have reverted your edit. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the template doc, but editors can't have it both ways and it's was change to its current status last. thx Mercy11 (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Mercy11, that parameter shouldn't be linked on any of the mayoral articles, per the template documentation. The best way to produce consistency would be to unlink all of them in line with that and the Manual of Style. I'm happy to assist with that effort. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Again, I had something similar to that but several months ago another editor changed it to what you came upon, which is why all 135 of them look the way you found them. Thanks for the insight and for having the guts to not just point out the problem, but also to take of your time and to help rectify it. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Librotraficante
On 8 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Librotraficante, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Librotraficante smuggled books into Arizona? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Librotraficante. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Librotraficante), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: March 2019
| ||||||
The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
|
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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Aphex Twin
Hello, I got a little carried away with that Aphex Twin edit, the excitement of a seemingly new piece of information had me going in blind! Its a great archive piece of footage of him, is it possible to add the youtube video as an external link? I couldn't find any 'reliable' sources to back it up other than those I mentioned, ill look a little deeper. RicardoDonovan (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, you could add it as an external link. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
New message from Winged Blades of Godric
Message added 09:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
∯WBGconverse 09:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive1
Hey, thanks so much for commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive1! I've (hopefully) fixed the issues you've brought up, and figure I'd comment here in case you didn't the page to watch. Thanks again! Toa Nidhiki05 00:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Leroy McAfee
Please explain why you keep removing cause of death. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi deisenbe, as referenced in my edit summary, the template documentation indicates that that parameter should not be included for routine causes of death, but only where significant for notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'm not sure whether you've ever been able to get pings; if not, there's one for you on this DYK nomination page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Star Wars Creature Links
I am wondering why you removed the links i was trying to make it easier to get more information on the creatures, instead of having to copy and pasting the name into google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakeyJakey (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi WakeyJakey, see our page on external links - generally speaking these shouldn't appear in the body of an article, but only in references (if reliable) or (in limited number) in an external links section. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria,
I am posting on this talk page to let you know that I have addressed your comments on the Cretoxyrhina FAC, as it has been dragging out due to a lack of response from reviewers.
Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
 Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point. Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around. Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs. What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 April 2019
- News and notes: An Action Packed April
- In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?
- Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
- Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art
- Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde
- Technology report: A new special page, and other news
- Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns
- News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?
- Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy
- From the archives: Portals revisited
Hello there, Nikkimaria. How's everything going with yourself? Good I hope. I've nominated this article for FAC and I was hoping you could do the image review for this one. Do let me know when you wish to do the image review for it. Thanks. 
— Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: April 2019
| ||||||
The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
|
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) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, there was a post at WT:DYK asking whether the hook was too closely paraphrased. Under the circumstances, I was wondering whether you could take a look at the nomination for close paraphrasing in general (including said hook). Thank you very much for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
New message from DBigXray
Message added 06:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks a lot for your constructive feedback. I have resolved the concerns and marked the DYK nom for a review. Can you please share your opinions there. Asking you since other reviewers seem to be scared off by the controversial topic, length of the article and discussion. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 06:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- another ping for a reply.DBigXrayᗙ 14:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while. It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining). Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?" The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata. The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.
The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue. Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
biog format
Hi there,
You posted earlier that this page [Neil Laughton]] was looking like a resume - I agree that it was. I have made a number of edits now with the aim of making it more neutral and removing addition detail. Can you have a look and let me know whether this works better for you and whether you think it would now be appropriate to remove the "written like a resume" from the page. Let me know any other areas you feel need attention there are still some areas I would like to change from listing things to have more prose.
Many thanks! Sally Salbliss (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Sally, I appreciate the reworking you've done so far. At the moment the article still reads a bit like the bullet-point-style accomplishments one often sees in a resume. I'd suggest incorporating these into more continuous prose. I'd also suggest that the associations of which he is only a member (as opposed to founder, chair, etc) need not be listed. Also, generally external links aren't included in the running prose, but are limited to the references or external links sections - see WP:EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki, Much appreciated, I will continue to work it into continuous prose and remove the member assoications too. Thanks for the pointers on the external links too, all much appreciated.
Sally Salbliss (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 33
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1900 Galveston hurricane/archive1
Hi Nikkimaria. I fixed those inconsistencies and errors with the references. You said "more work needed" before giving me a few other examples. I'm not sure if there is still work to be done with the refs. As for "The Promise" by Ann Weisgarber, the book did win some awards and get nominated for others. That might make it worthy of inclusion. But I'm looking for a source other than a book review or book signing.--12george1 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi 12george1, I gave examples of the types of errors I was seeing, but they weren't the only issues - it was to give you a better understanding of the sort of problems to look for. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I went through literally all of the refs last night and today to fix any other possible errors. Many of them were edited. I even checked to see if the page numbers were correct--12george1 (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
US-PD
Sorry to bother you, but is it necessary to put this tag on Commons images that homemade, released by the author under cc-by-sa? Hope you're well, ——SerialNumber54129 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) It depends on the image but there are certainly circumstances where it can be necessary, such as when there's an image included which is PD in the US but not in other jurisdictions. I speak as a weary veteran of arguments with Transport for London over Wikipedia images that include the London Transport roundel (PD in the US, very much not so in the UK). ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Basically what Iri said. Another common case is a photo of a sculptural work in countries without freedom of panorama. Do you have a specific image in mind? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
June events with WIR
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Update on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1900 Galveston hurricane/archive1
Hi Nikkimaria. As I said before, I checked through literally all of the refs and hopefully fixed problems you were seeing. I should also to tell you that any issues you had with the pop culture section aren't a problem anymore. Another user pointed out that arbitrary nature of the section. So I decided to delete it but move the items with their own articles into the See also section--12george1 (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- I will take a look this weekend. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Re: delinking Donner Party book Further reading entries
Hi Nikkinaria, please justify your action. I have already justified mine. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi WolfmanSF, I don't see any justification there other than "I've done it a lot and there's no policy against it". Google page links are permissible so long as preview is available; strongly suggest reading the RfC that led to that decision before you go around adding more book links to hundreds of pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- The links you're adding, Wolfman, aren't really helpful. They just link to the front page of the book - which doesn't actually help verify the information. The link to the ISBN numbers does more - because it doesn't just link to one specific book search (it's not an online library, it's just a search) but to several different ones - such as at this link. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. The link to front page offers a search function, where some specific information can be looked up, which I find helpful. An alternative is to not link the complete book, but the particular page where cited. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- The links you're adding, Wolfman, aren't really helpful. They just link to the front page of the book - which doesn't actually help verify the information. The link to the ISBN numbers does more - because it doesn't just link to one specific book search (it's not an online library, it's just a search) but to several different ones - such as at this link. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sometimes, Gerda, sometimes not. Visibility (and searchability) of GBooks links varies by a number of factors, including geographic location, your previous usage patterns, etc. Per Ealdgyth, the ISBN allows you to use GBooks if you can and so choose. As mentioned above, pagelinks are a different issue than general book links. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was going to reply to the comments made on my talk page by WolfmanSF, but since he's started pretty much the same discussion here, we might as well keep this in one place.
- These links clearly do not belong. First, external links are subject to WP:EL, even if those links are put into the "Further reading" section. See MOS:FURTHER: "Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links." Those guidelines spell it out unambiguously: "instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the 'ISBN' linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." The entries WolfmanSF posted already have ISBN links, as they should; and readers can use that to go to Google Books or any of a number of other resources. I don't see any basis for the statement "I don't think that applies to Google Books (as opposed to say, a publisher's web site)."
- There is no reason for Wikipedia to favor one vendor over another. WolfmanSF says that "Google Books is a digital library, not a bookseller." I don't see any basis for that claim. For example, one of the links being added is [3]. There's bright red button on that page labeled "VIEW EBOOK", and when you click it, Google Books offers to sell you the ebook for $11.99. Google Books is clearly a bookseller.
- WolfmanSF points to the fact that the default formatting produced by an off-site app, http://reftag.appspot.com, includes a link to Google Books, and suggest that that somehow means that links to Google Books are exempt from the EL guidelines. I am not convinced. I disagree that the existence of an app on a non-Wikipedia site somehow overturns Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
- Mind you, I see value in using a page-specific Google books links in a reference, to aid in verification. But that's not what we're looking at here. Further Reading is a general section suggesting a list of books that readers might want to obtain, either by purchase or loan, to read further up on the subject. Wikipedia's neutral policies are not to drive traffic to favored commercial sources to obtain the books. If any site could be justified, it would be, say Worldcat, which is a nonprofit and can guide the reader to the book's availability in their closest libraries. But I don't think even that would be appropriate. Instead the ISBN link allows a reader to use WorldCat or Google books... or Open Library (at the Internet Archive), or Amazon, or any of a number of other sources.
- Gerda, keep in mind the context here is of "Further reading", not of a reference; in particular not a reference to a pinpointed page; that would be a different discussion. I see substantial value in linking to a particular page in a reference, to whatever site on which it can be found, including Google Books. But that's not this case.
- Nikkimaria points out an RFC that has already reached a conclusion on this. That doesn't mean that can't be changed, but it does mean that it can't be changed unilaterally by one editor continually re-adding the links over other editors' objections. You can, of course, seek a new consensus in a new RFC.
- I will also point out that this is consistent with the discussion on the External links noticeboard: Does ELNO 15 apply to Google Books?. There wasn't a lot of discussion there, but the participating parties seemed to come to the same conclusions. TJRC (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Image copyright
Hi, I would like to use this picture for a FA, but am not sure of its copyright status. It's also weird that the image is on Wikipedia and not Commons. Do you think it's still ok to use ? T8612 (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi T8612, there isn't enough information provided to be able to assess whether it can be used - we need more information on the provenance of the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- No idea, and the uploader is retired. I suppose it's a scan from a book, but which one is a mystery. I'm trying to find another picture... T8612 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I found another picture on Arachne, but is it ok to add pictures on Wikimedia from there? They say the site is licensed under a CC license. T8612 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612: Unfortunately the CC license they use is NC-ND, which is not considered free under our policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Damnit! Well, still looking. Thanks anyway. T8612 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- @T8612: Unfortunately the CC license they use is NC-ND, which is not considered free under our policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
non reliable sources
Hi, I'm still learning the rule of wiki editing.
I added a section to the Leanne Wood page and gave three sources to the same section: WalesOnline, the Sun and the Daily Mail. Whilst I understand people's dislike towards the Daily Mail/Mail Online and why the Daily Mail alone is not a credible source, the reference you removed does strengthen the source of the story (as does that from the Sun). In fact the three media outlets could collectivly viewed as middle of the road, left wing and right wing thus when read together strengthening the case for the existence of the reporting of the story in the first place. Do you not think having three references from three newspapers is better than one? Littlemonday (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Littlemonday , I wouldn't agree that including deprecated sources improves the section. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Nancy Pelosi
Hello, I'm wondering what purpose you mean to serve by removing the name of Pelosi's mother? Would it not better serve Wikipedia to either look up and add a source, or mark the content as needing a reliable source? A lack of WP:RS was not your reason, until I'd reversed your deletion, which you had merely noted as "trim". Lindenfall (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Lindenfall, I've added a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- How nice, and thank you. Lindenfall (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019
- From the editors: Picture that
- News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections
- In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball
- Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead
- Technology report: Lots of Bots
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey
- Essay: Paid editing
- From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
CCI
Nikk, Hi, I just discovered some activity on the CCI talk page. Editors have initiated a new project to go through the backlog. And the checklist on my open case remains in need of an update. I don't know why you won't check off the articles that you have edited on the list there. There are only couple of articles I created that need checked now. It makes it look like there is still so much to do. If the list were current, those editors would probably just bypass it. Anyway, it's been almost a year; can't we please just get the thing done? I appreciate what you've done very much...thank you... dawnleelynn(talk) 19:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi dawnleelynn, what project are you referring to? Do you mean you want me to update the CCI page, or the page in your userspace? Are there any newer contributions that need adding, as with Bull Riders Only? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nikki. Sorry if I was vague. It never does to write in a hurry. Yes, I meant if you could update the checklist in my CCI case/page. It's the Contribution Survey [4] here. The admin lazyges said once the list was final, they would close the case. As far as newer contributions, do you need to check articles that I have written recently, or since the case was opened? I think you have looked at most of them already, but I have written some new ones recently I don't think you have looked at and I have some userdrafts in my userspace. Let me know if you want a list of any such articles I have written but you have not reviewed. It's easy enough to check the history to see if you have edited them. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC) p.s. recall I had kept track on my own in: User:Dawnleelynn/Article Progress. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi again Nikki. Thank you for your update to the CCI. I know you have to update it in a way that follows your recordkeeping, as there are still items listed you have reviewed that aren't marked. But at least any of the editors who are combing through the open requests can now see that my record is already being worked on by an editor. Also, closing of the CCI case doesn't have to mean you no longer review any articles I edit heavily or create. As far as I am concerned, you are always welcome to edit them as long as you deem there are issues, or even beyond that. Also, you didn't respond about whether you wanted a list of recent articles or not. Just let me know. And thanks so much for editing a few articles and updating the CCI contribution survey. I really appreciate it. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi dawnleelynn, I actually ran into a different problematic editor while working through your list, so diverted to look at those contribs for a bit instead. I'll come back to your list shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, these things happen. No worries! dawnleelynn(talk) 15:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi dawnleelynn, any possibility you'd be able to share the Holmes source for Eternal Sun? I haven't found a way to access it yet, and I'd like to avoid deleting all that content presumptively if I can. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nikki, you know I started writing that article because White Arabian Filly (WAF) was going to help me with it. She's the horse expert. She became a Missing Wikipedian a little over a year ago unfortunately. I was never happy with it after that. I totally removed all of the content from the book for awhile. Recently, about a couple weeks ago, I started working on it again, to try to see if I could add content from the book and do a good job on it by myself. Just doing a little bit at a time. I've only gotten through about 3 pages from book so far. There are these pages from the Western Horseman book on the horse - pages 92 though 103. But there are also many pictures in it too. Ealdgyth sent me scans of them-she is the one who insisted they be included actually during a GA review that WAF and I were having done which ended up being declined. I can send them to you too if you like. If you are willing to accept them in email. Your review can probably be a good indicator of whether I should continue trying to add content from the book, considering I don't have the kind of Quarter Horse knowledge of someone like Ealdgyth or WAF. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Let me know. Also, the article All-Around Cowboy has been renamed to All-Around. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you could share them via email that would be very helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Also, I never did get further than about 3 pages. A lot of the content is the horse's offspring. It's probably not necessary to list all of them! :) dawnleelynn(talk) 00:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nikki! I'm just getting around to updating you on a couple different issues. This is the first one. I will also write about a couple other issues in other sections. Okay, I did see your edit at my CCI page today. It's like I told you might happen, an editor is taking on my case to finish it up and close it. The relevant conversation with money emoji is at the end of the talk page of Mossy Oak Mudslinger. I tried to explain you were already doing the reviews. I felt since you opened the case, you should at least be apprised on the activity. Go to: Mossy Oak Mudslinger Quotes removed and then go to the conversation between myself and money emoji. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- For the most part that section seems to be about non-copyright issues around the quotes - I don't have a strong opinion on that front so I'm going to refrain from commenting there. However: Money emoji, FYI, some of the articles in the CCI were edited to remove copyvio prior to the CCI being opened. That includes the article on Bodacious, which is why I changed your marking of no-vio to vio in the CCI list. Also, something like "He also stated that Mudslinger is" does not rise to the level of copyvio, so long as the surrounding content is either appropriately paraphrased or quoted. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Meow
BattleCatsBro (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you submit the battle cats for another review
When I visited the version of battle cats that was deemed "low importance" and start level quality, I noted that the new page had significant improvements. can you resubmit the article for consideration? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BattleCatsBro (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi BattleCatsBro, those ratings are set by the WikiProject - in this case the Video Games project. Your best bet for getting a reassessment is to post to the project talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Lydia Manley Henry 11:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria I see that you have deleted the information about her parents together with the relevant citation and deleted her school from the infobox. Can you let me know why. Thanks. Papamac (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Papamac, the citation provided for her parentage was not a reliable source, and the template documentation indicates that
|education=should be used for the "highest degree granting institution". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - useful to know. I've reinstated her parents' details including their vital years, this time citing reliable registration sources. Papamac (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction
I tried adding a new character (Holy Wayne from The Leftovers (tv show)) to the List of Magical Negro (MN) occurrences in fiction wiki page. It was removed because inadequate referencing. Then, I updated the reference, but the editor removed it again because the source said that Holy Wayne likely "will" be a MN (rather than "is"). The editor told me to discuss these sourcing issues on the talk page, which I did. On the talk page, I suggested 3 other references that demonstrate the character represented an example of a MN. Since you removed my changes the last time, would the following references allow me to re-add the character to the list: (1) This is an interview with the executive producer of The Leftovers addressing the commentary that the show used characters like Wayne as a “magical black man” trope: https://screencrush.com/the-leftovers-season-2-finale-tom-perrotta/. (2) Here is a recap of season 1 where they specifically indicate that Wayne has become a "Magical Negro" by the end of the season: https://www.tvbuzer.com/news/the-leftovers-season-1-finale-recap-the-guilty-remnant-s-memorial-day-plot-has-devastating-consequences-50379. (3) This is an academic text that discusses Holy Wayne in Chapter 2 (https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Politics-Colorblind-Routledge-Transformations-ebook/dp/B00YY64066): "Holy Wayne oft-disrobed, muscular, dark body takes the pain...of his predominately white, male clientele. The visual imagery is iconic and hearkens back to past representations of Black men acting as magical negros largely in service of white men."23.240.96.37 (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi IP, let's continue this discussion on the article talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Removal of sources
Hi, I have linked to one of your edits in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Removal of sources. I see from your edit history that you often remove sources on the basis that they are unreliable. While I support the effort to improving the sourcing of Wikipedia, what we need is more good sources not fewer poor sources. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- We need both. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
We have come accross several times recently and I wanted to thank you for your contributions here. cheers. DBigXrayᗙ 12:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC) |
This Month in GLAM: May 2019
| ||||||
Citation bot
Can you please add a comment as to why you want the bot blocked next to the bot block tag. Since the bot does nothing to the page, it is not clear why it is blocked. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Dorothy Dietrich
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
- Hi Magicusb, you're welcome to include that content if you have reliable sources indicating its significance to the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
For a real live person to be mentioned on a international fictional television show seen by millions of people plus reruns is a significant sign they become a part of the popular culture. Not sure what would satisfy your questioning this entry. HELP please Magicusb (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Magicusb, I would like to see a reliable source make that argument. For example, has it been mentioned in any biographies of the individual? (I'd also like to keep this discussion on-wiki please - no need to use email for it). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
A similar post on the bullet catch page was deleted by you. Why? Because it did not happen? Because the House MD show is not a success? One of the links for sure is reliable and trusted, IMDB International Movie Data Base owned and overseen by Amazon. Need more details and help on what I am doing wrong as I work hard to comply and be objective. Please, if possible reply with more detailed explanations. Respectfully Magicusb Magicusb (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Magicusb, IMDb is not considered a reliable source, nor is an open wiki. As above, we need a reliable source that supports your assertion about the significance of this mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Here is an online biography that mentions the House MD show. Would this qualify? Otherwise I will drop the reference till it comes up in the media somewhere else. Respectfully Magicusb Magicusb (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to put the link, sorry!
https://harryhoudinicircumstantialevidence.com/?p=4124 Magicusb (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The quote in that long bio states “Part of popular culture she was even mentioned in a segment on House MD in a scene about her bullet catch. (Year 8, Segment 8, Perils of Paranoia).” Thanks again Magicusb (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This was Posted on April 28, 2016 by https://harryhoudinicircumstantialevidence.com/?p=4124 Magicusb (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have any information on the author of that site? It's a blog, but we can sometimes use those if the author is considered an expert on the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes he is considered an expert. There are two goto definitive sites for Houdini information and new discoveries, and his is one of them. They both live in Hollywood and are good friends because of the mutual interest in Houdini, and often share information, etc. The other is also a screen writer amongst other things. As to more information, the site has been running for several years (2011) and he adds new Houdini content on pretty much a weekly basis. Here is more information taken from his website.
https://harryhoudinicircumstantialevidence.com/?page_id=8
My interest in Magic and Harry Houdini started at the age of 12 in 1975. The first 20 years (1975 to 1995) of this passion can be summarized below in a snippet from the actual application, I submitted to become a Magician Member at the Academy of Magical Arts (aka Magic Castle) in 1995: (IMAGES)
Circumstantial Evidence Exhibits:
Houdini Book Report (1976): Houdini – Master of Escape Houdini – The Untold Story Dust Jacket Design (1976): Front Cover Back Cover Houdini Essay (1979): Houdini’s Full Evening Show Houdini/Magic Project (1980): Enjoyment of Literature on Magic and Harry Houdini Houdini Room (1981): Photos SAM (1981): SAM Certificate of Membership Membership Card Houdini Speech (1987): Houdini’s Other Claims to Fame Church Magic Show (1992): 15 Card Miracle Magic Castle (1992): Associate Member Card Magic Lessons for Kids (1994): Class Descriptions Illusions of Joe Magic (1995): Flyer IBM (1995): IBM Certificate of Membership Membership Card CSUF (1995): Certificate in Magic: The Performance Art HHC (1995): Houdini Historical Center Membership Card Magic Castle (1995): Magician Member Card The next 5 years (1996 to 2000), I continued to collect Houdini and actively perform Magic. I taught magic classes in 1996 and 1997. Also, was able to take the family to Appleton Wisconsin in 1998. Participated in Southern California Association of Magicians (SCAM) competitions in 1999 and 2000.
Magic Classes (1996 – 1997): Magic Easy to Master Miracles Dinner Magic Show (1998): Houdini’s Rope Escape Challenge SCAM (1996 – 2000): 1996 1997 1999 2000 The next 10 years (2001 to 2010), the Houdini collecting and magic, took a back seat to work, my kids activities and other interests (e.g., soccer, umpiring, poker). However, I still remained a member of the Magic Castle and performed yearly magic shows on Halloween at my work, but Houdini was not getting enough attention.
Halloween Magic Show: Flyer That is, Houdini was not getting enough of MY attention, until 2011 when I was hit with the bug again in a big way. Please see About This Site for the suspects that are responsible for re-sparking my interest in Houdini.
Magicusa (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, great. On that basis we can include a sentence about the episode, with this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Daniella van Graas
On 18 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniella van Graas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that spokesmodel Daniella van Graas thinks she has been largely typecast as a model, but wishes to gain 20 kilograms (44 lb) and play a Monster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniella van Graas. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Daniella van Graas), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I think this was meant to go to someone else? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria, it looks like you were listed as an author of the article by User:7&6=thirteen when they nominated it for DYK. I'm not sure why that was, maybe they can clarify. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: It takes a village to raise a child. I listed those who contributed to the article, and to the AFD, which the article survived. Credited those who helped. WP:DYK is not a Zero sum game. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:7&6=thirteen aha, so Nikki has been credited with a DYK on the back of this sterling contribution to the article. That's a novel approach to DYK nomination, but hey ho it's up to you I suppose. — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Glad you agree. My decision and the edit history is an open book. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:7&6=thirteen aha, so Nikki has been credited with a DYK on the back of this sterling contribution to the article. That's a novel approach to DYK nomination, but hey ho it's up to you I suppose. — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: It takes a village to raise a child. I listed those who contributed to the article, and to the AFD, which the article survived. Credited those who helped. WP:DYK is not a Zero sum game. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria, it looks like you were listed as an author of the article by User:7&6=thirteen when they nominated it for DYK. I'm not sure why that was, maybe they can clarify. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran-Contra
Hi,
You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"
Talk:Ronald_Reagan#rfc_85A761C
Thanks,
FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Re-visit of Frank Matcham at FAC
Hello NM, I don't know if you got my ping, but I've responded there with regards to an image or two. When you get a moment, could you look in? Many thanks. CassiantoTalk 16:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Cass, your explanation for the Langfier image is great, but it looks like you've haven't yet responded on the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nikki, now using this. Hope this is now ok. Best regards and thanks again for the review. CassiantoTalk 20:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - any hope for Gordon Jeffery article?
Dear Nikkimaria,
Thank-you for your cleanup efforts on my recently-submitted article about Gordon Jeffery.
Should I continue to amend this article, or is AngusWOOF right (that it's a lost cause)?
LisaRae7 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi LisaRae7, in my opinion AngusWOOF is incorrect: while the tone tends a bit more towards a memorial than an encyclopedia article for my taste, the subject appears to be notable and sourceable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Mark "Chopper" Read
Hi Nikkimaria, I put some thoughts on the talk page. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
July events from Women in Red!
|
_beached_after_being_cut_in_two_in_a_collision_(1878).jpg){kind=link}
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
An IP is repeatedly insisting on putting in the article where McGreavy now supposedly lives. That is a direct incitement to vigilantism and violence. Paul Benjamin Austin 13:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like DuncanHill's taken care of it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The June 2019 Signpost is out!
- Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising
- In the media: The disinformation age
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters
- Technology report: Actors and Bots
- Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?
- Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia
- From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal
- Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes
Non-RS?
Hi. You deleted the citation I dug up on Kenney Jones's recovery from prostate cancer. I'll be the first to agree that the Daily Mail isn't particularly reliable, but then neither is the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph, or MSNBC – not to mention drownedinsound.com. So what makes the Daily Mail particularly unreliable? This was just the first find that immediately came up, by the way. I'm sure there are other places that confirm the recovery, and since you took it on yourself to discredit mine I think it would be appropriate for you to find one of these and restore the information about the recovery, thanks. If it were untrue and Jones had in fact been done in by the cancer, that would of course be different. But the cancer itself is reliably documented, and if he's still alive that attests to recovery right there, and there's no reason to suspect that the claim concerning brachytherapy was fabricated. –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that logic doesn't follow - the fact that he's still alive means neither that he has recovered nor that brachytherapy led to recovery. The fact that he's had brachytherapy is well sourced, so we could simply say that. As to the general reliability of DM vs BBC et al, see WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 68 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC) |
- Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Question about reverison
Hi Nikkimaria, I'd like to know the cause of the reversion of my edit at Bernice Gera. The article clearly mentions with reference that she died of kidney cancer. I'm not complaining, I'm asking to learn about it. Greetings.--SRuizR 
¿Need something?
22:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi SRuizR, the documentation for {{infobox person}} indicates that
|death_cause=should be included when it is for some reason significant to the subject's notability, not for routine illness. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: June 2019
| ||||||
Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019
- Partnerships
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:LIBRARY
Hi there. User:Thibbs gave me an account on EBSCO in 2016 or earlier, whenever that started. I haven't used it in a couple years so I wasn't sure if that got auto-renewed and converted into WP:LIBRARY or if I need to reapply. Also does it give me access to recent wsj.com and other online paywalls, like say, articles from 1998? There are way too many subscription services to know what to do! And the WP:LIBRARY interface seems to have no real place to even ask for help, so I'm just picking the first contributor that looks active on the list linked to me by Thibbs. Thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 11:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Smuckola, you do have an active EBSCO account, and it does include some older materials, though not wsj.com - looks like Gale has some content from that source. (You can use this spreadsheet to see which available subscription service has which publication). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I'm trying to figure out how to log into it. I'm searching my email for "EBSCO" and I don't see any URL, username, or password. — Smuckola(talk) 06:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Smuckola: You have email. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
|
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) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Mike Herrera's Children's Names
Just wondering why you decided to remove the children's names from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Herrera#Personal_life Welltraveled (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Welltraveled, take a look at WP:BLPNAME - given that and the sourcing I don't think they warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Doesn't announcing their name publicly on social media make the part about trying to keep the name 'intentionally concealed' a moot point, though? Examples: https://twitter.com/mikeherreratd/status/300493170637168640 & https://www.instagram.com/mikeherreratd/p/BSojC8-jm6v/. I'm not trying to be argumentative - just trying to understand since it doesn't seem like they've made any effort to keep their kids name from the public. Thanks for taking the time to get back to me! Welltraveled (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Welltraveled, the kids are not themselves the article subject and don't appear to be notable. This means we need much better sourcing and much stronger justification to include their names than in other cases, even if the parents are not careful about their privacy - the kids have their own right to privacy. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:, ah, okay. Got it. Thanks for taking the time to explain things.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Douglas Albert Munro
I have a question. In the article Douglas Albert Munro, why are the Marines in the second lead paragraph referred to as "United States Marines" and Munro is described as an "American coast guardsman"? It would seem that your recent edit takes something away from the Coast Guard that he served in. I guess that the phrase "United States Coast Guardsman" sounds a little stilted, perhaps? The correct title for a person serving in the United States Coast Guard is "Coast Guardsman"...regardless of gender and the term as used in Coast Guard Public Affairs releases is always capitalized. Granted, that some news sources use the term "Coast Guard member." Kind of like the person was in some sort of club or civic organization. Few question the term "Marine". Those serving in the United States Marine Corps are almost universally referred to as "Marines", complete with capitalization. I guess I am asking for parity here in this case.
Your thoughts?
...and while I am at it, thank you for your past edits on the Munro article and other Milhist project articles.
Full disclosure: I am a retired chief petty officer that served proudly as a "Coast Guardsman" and not as a "coast guardsman", or a "member" for that matter. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Cuprum17, my edit simply unlinked the term American, it didn't change the phrasing at all. I would have no objection to using "Coast Guardsman", "Coast Guard member" or any such formulation. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt reply. I shall make the change in wording. Cheers. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Two new articles created
Hi Nikki! This is not any type of rush. Can you review Michigan Quarter Horse Association Hall of Fame when you have time? It's short and mostly a list of horses with little content. Secondly, this might take a little longer. It's Blackland, Texas. It's my first time creating a location article. I was unable to get the coordinates to work in the listbox; it's empty right now. There is a source in the article from the GNIS with the coordinates. Also, I see lots of other articles that have cool maps and such, but I don't how these things go as far as copyright. I did put in the Find a Grave link in External links. This is a historical town, but it's short on sources. The Find a Grave says it has over 200 entries and is 93 percent photographed. But will leave it up to you. There's one source which is a book I have on bronc riding (part of the historical significance to the town). I have the book scanned because it's easier to work with that way. I am working or will be working on several articles with this book. If you say it's ok, I will send you a scan of the one page for that content. Suggestions are highly welcome since this is my first article of this type. Thanks a bunch! After these, probably next week, I realized I have some other new articles I didn't get you to look at. Again, none of them is a rush, so...yes do as fits your schedule. I have plenty to work on. In fact I will probably go over these two again this evening to check paraphrasing, and run Earwig. :)) dawnleelynn(talk) 23:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Dawnleelynn: Check out my edit - is that what you had in mind in terms of a map? The article's fine as far as it goes, but it would be good to have some more non-historical detail - a Geography section could be spun off from Modern times with a bit more detail, including things like climate, etc. You won't be able to fill in all the sections suggested at USCITIES, but should be able to get at least some with expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edits. I learned some new Wikipedia skills from your edits tonight. Yes, that rodeo section absolutely belonged under History. Now I see how the coordinates and map worked with an example from something I am authoring, not an article someone else authored. The map is just fine. All of your edits were perfect as usual. I made changes to answer all of your commented questions except the one about the prairies. I'm going to see if I can find it out tomorrow. Also, I will work on the new section you suggested tomorrow as well, regarding geology and climate. I'll look up the policy you linked as well. Hopefully, there will be enough out there. It's not a subject with a ton of sources as you saw. I have access to the newspapers and newspapers archive sites, but haven't used them much. Anyway, thank you very much! dawnleelynn(talk) 03:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I did try to find more material for Blackland, Texas, per your suggestions of more historical, climate, and geography detail. But I couldn't locate any. I also could not find a connection to who named Blackland after the prairies. I am also waiting for the newspaper.com to be renewed right now. Just letting you know I am not ignoring it. It is something I have on my todo list and will work on from time to time. It really should be added when possible.
- Thanks again, dawnleelynn(talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, The first attempt on this FAC was archived without conclusion, and I am nominating it again. Since you did the image review for the first FAC, do you mind doing the same for the second one? Image-wise, the article didn't really change. HaEr48 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Image query
Hi Nikki. It's not often I have a question about image licensing, but when I do you're always the first person who comes to mind :). Feel free to pass this one on to someone else or refer me elsewhere though.
So I've recently written the article Bobby Bostic. Some time ago I wrote Bobby a letter of support and he wrote back sending me, among other things, a photo of himself that was taken in the visiting room of his prison. So someone employed by the prison system works in the visiting room and takes photos of anyone who wants one for a small fee. Bobby has given me written permission to disseminate the photograph.
The person who took the photograph is a government employee, and one can only presume they have no interest in the copyright to the photograph. It's my understanding that the prison doesn't actually keep copies of the photos; you get handed the sole copy of the photo you paid for. Since I have the only copy of this photograph, and since Bobby, the photograph's owner, has given me written permission (not emailed obviously; prisoners don't have internet access) to release it into the public domain, can I upload it to commons? And if so, exactly how should I do that (licensing etc). Oh and if I can't upload it to commons, could I upload it under fair use? Considering that Bobby is serving a life-sentence with no realistic possibility of parole, and since you can't take your own camera into prison, it is not possible to obtain a free image of him.
Thanks in advance for this unusual request. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Damien Linnane, is the prison state or federal? Is this photo-taking something officially offered by the prison or something this employee does to make money on the side? Is there any kind of contract or agreement that accompanies the fee paid? Is the "no possibility of parole" official or a presumption? Are visitors allowed cameras? What exactly does your "written permission" say about what you can do with the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your reply Nikki. The prison is state (Jefferson City Correctional Center). The 'no possibility of parole' is official; as per his sentence, Bobby will only become eligible for parole when he is 112. It goes without saying that his chance of still being alive at that age is phenomenally minuscule.
- The photo-taking is officially offered by the prison. Visitors are strictly not allowed to bring their own cameras. I don't know if there's a contract or agreement regarding the fee paid for the photo; I can write to Bobby and ask if that will help.
- Bobby's written permission was just words to the effect of 'share the photo as much as you can'. Bobby has been in prison since 1995. He doesn't have a good understanding of what the Internet is, let alone what Wikimedia commons is. I'm happy to write him a letter explicitly explaining what commons and public domain release means; it'll chew up some time waiting to hear back from him but I'm happy to do it if that's what it takes. Let me know. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh also I should mention there are several photographs of Bobby available from Google searches. For example, KSDK were granted permission to interview him last year and their officially authorised camera crew took photos, so if we do use an image of him under fair use it doesn't have to be the one posted to me. But the only images of him that exist are either taken by employees of the prison system or by media outlets who have been granted permission to interview him. There's no chance a member of the public can photograph him. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay Damien Linnane, so here's how things stand: because there is (effectively) no possibility of getting a free image if this one ends up not being free, this (or one of the other options) can be used as fair use. This one could be free if (1) either the official program details that the photo is the property of the inmate or there is an agreement or contract saying same, and (2) the precise wording of the letter is compatible with a CC BY or similar license or if you can write back to him and get a more explicit release to submit via OTRS. Alternatively, you can try submitting what you have now via OTRS and see if it flies - my guess would be no, but copyright involves a lot of interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks so much that's very helpful. I'll probably stick to fair use for now, but I'll also write to him clarifying what the official photo policy is as well. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I hope all is well. I was wondering whether you could take a look at this DYK nomination from the standpoint as to whether the expansion is sufficient—some material has apparently been copied in from other articles, which typically affects what counts and what needs 5x expansion. You have always been very good at determining where an article stands in this regard. If you could comment at the nomination, it would be much appreciated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Angie Zelter - Daily Mail source
Hi Nikkimaria - Whilst "the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable" and it is to be avoided "when other more reliable sources exist" in this instance of using just the bare reported fact of Zelter's arrest and her attributed quote I had considered it to be acceptably reliable in this limited circumstance. The Mail has a habit of confusing fact and opinion and as such would not be a RS in instances where the information provided is challenge-able but in this case reporting Zelter's arrest with a picture and quote seems a non-opinionated small part of a longer article and provides little doubt that she was arrested and intended to be arrested again if need be. No other source reported Zelter's arrest on Waterloo Bridge but it seems important in light of her prosecution for obstruction in Parliament Square being the first for Extinction Rebellion activity in April. I hope you will reconsider the use of the Daily Mail reference in light of this and that I have tried unsuccessfully to find other sources. BorisAndDoris (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi BorisAndDoris, I've added an alternate source for the arrest location. If you want to include the quote as well there's plenty of alternate sources for that, eg [5]. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit and the references - I was obviously not searching wide enough, but if you have any tips on searching for news articles I be very grateful. BorisAndDoris (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure what you were searching, but I just looked for Zelter "Waterloo Bridge" for the source I added, and snippets of the quote itself for the quote. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sam Thompson (TV personality), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Image question
Hi Nikkimaria! I wanted to upload a photograph of Suzanne Lenglen from 1914 that I found in a book (published in 1988). The book didn't attribute the original source of the photo; however, I was able to find the same photo online, which was published on a magazine cover in 1914. Here is the photo online. I have it without the watermark in the book. Does that suffice for uploading the photo from the book to the commons? Thank you! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Sportsfan77777. Pretty much anything published pre-1924 will be in the public domain in the US, which is sufficient for local upload. For Commons, we also need to know its status in country of origin - do you know what that country would be in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the photo was published in a British magazine. For the other old photos in the book, would I need to prove that they were published the year they were taken to upload them to the commons? I don't know for sure if all of them were, but like this one, I may be able to find the original sources. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- They don't have to be published the year they were taken; they do have to be published long enough ago to be in the public domain in both the US and their country of origin (whether UK or elsewhere). In the case of the 1914 UK photo, if it was not attributed copyright expires 70 years after publication, so it would be in the public domain in the UK and uploadable to Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's good to know, thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2019
- In the media: Politics starts getting rough
- Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban
- Arbitration report: A month of reintegration
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?
- News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way
- Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect
- Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract
- Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things
Invitation to participate in a discussion about publicly disclosing subscribers of TWL resources
Hi Nikkimaria, I have started a discussion over our Village pump with the aim of maintaining a public list of all editors who are granted access to any TWL resource. Your thoughts and opinions on the proposal are welcome:-) Regards, ∯WBGconverse
It's rather unusual (and no "dup") that a composer also writes the text for a piece of sacred music. How would you show that in the infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't. The average reader, on being told someone wrote something, would assume the someone wrote the whole something. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Only, in opera, that would be true in a minority of cases (Wagner yes, Mozart, Rossini, Verdi no), oratorio the same, songs as well, no? It's so rare that I'd like to show it somehow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- You do, because you know all of that context - most will not. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- I guess most people reading Classical music articles would know that normally a composer would not also be a poet. I'd like to say positively that the writer of the music is also the author in the rare cass this is so. Compare Siegfried (opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Same issue. If you say "Work X by author Y", most people understand that to mean Y is the creator of X. You might know that the field producing that phrase is
|composer=and that a separate|librettist=exists and is usually different, but most won't. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)- You might know that infobox musical composition has parameters for "text" and "music", when both are part of a workm and both are of equal importance, as often in hymms. However in opera, the composer is regarded as the one making an opera an opera. The normal lead sentence goes: "... is an opera by composer, with a libretto by libretttist". Do you suggest that the thousands of hymn-singing and song-singing readers would not know that text and music are often by different people? Why should they not expect the same for opera which is even more complex? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest that the average reader, when presented with "X is an opera by Y" or "X is a hymn by Y" or what have you, would believe that Y wrote X - all of X - unless otherwise specified. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think I can make myself understood. Should I give up? Schubert wrote around 700 songs. He did NOT write any of their lyrics. The normal phrase is still Schubertlied, because only by his composition, it is a lied, otherwise it's just a poem. I don't think readers halfway familiar with the topic would assume he wrote the texts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Adding: for hymns, it's often the opposite, the hymnist (Luther, Gerhardt ...) is the more important figure, and his words sometimes be sung to various melodies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your argument; I simply do not agree with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your argument assumes advanced knowledge by the "average reader" and simultaneously lack of it. According to you, if the infobox has no entry for the librettist, the reader will assume that the composer wrote it, which is not a common thing. If the there is an entry for a librettist at opera a, the average user, if she reads articles on more than one opera, will wonder who the librettist for opera b was if there is no librettist mentioned. Opera, like many other art forms, is a collaborative effort. Today, encyclopedias, programs and main stream press articles routinely mention composers as their own librettist. There is no guideline or policy here that mandates or encourages the removal of omission of this infobox entry. Yours is such a fundamental difference of opinion of the purpose of this infobox field that I'm surprised you never raised it at Template talk:Infobox opera or Template talk:Infobox musical composition, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera where is being discussed now. Removing it from articles that were substantially written by others creates only antagonism and an unnecessary battle ground. Please think again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your argument; I simply do not agree with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest that the average reader, when presented with "X is an opera by Y" or "X is a hymn by Y" or what have you, would believe that Y wrote X - all of X - unless otherwise specified. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- You might know that infobox musical composition has parameters for "text" and "music", when both are part of a workm and both are of equal importance, as often in hymms. However in opera, the composer is regarded as the one making an opera an opera. The normal lead sentence goes: "... is an opera by composer, with a libretto by libretttist". Do you suggest that the thousands of hymn-singing and song-singing readers would not know that text and music are often by different people? Why should they not expect the same for opera which is even more complex? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Same issue. If you say "Work X by author Y", most people understand that to mean Y is the creator of X. You might know that the field producing that phrase is
- I guess most people reading Classical music articles would know that normally a composer would not also be a poet. I'd like to say positively that the writer of the music is also the author in the rare cass this is so. Compare Siegfried (opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- You do, because you know all of that context - most will not. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Only, in opera, that would be true in a minority of cases (Wagner yes, Mozart, Rossini, Verdi no), oratorio the same, songs as well, no? It's so rare that I'd like to show it somehow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is no guideline or policy here that mandates or encourages the addition or inclusion of this parameter; there is however a guideline that encourages concision in infoboxes, and in the case where the work is less "collaborative" we need not emphasize that fact. This is not a disagreement about the purpose of this parameter, but simply about whether it needs to be filled in all cases, even when the displayed "by Composer X" is sufficient to convey that the work was in fact created by Composer X in toto. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Source "Daily Mail"
You removed a Daily Mail source from the J. Epstein article just commenting "non-RS". Have you read the referenced article or you just remove all Daily Mail references without regard to content or context?--BalancedIssues (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- I consider the specific content and context, as well as applicable policies such as BLP. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Article review request
Hi Nikki! We talked earlier about me sending you a couple new articles I created awhile ago that I missed sending to you for review. I also thought why not send you a few where I expanded articles from a stub (2) or did significant rewriting that it was almost rewriting. And, again, there is entirely no deadline or rush on these. You can take weeks if you want. They are all pretty short for the most part. Two are hall of fame list articles, which means there is hardly anything to review. I was really proud of War Paint the bucking horse. Historically, he is one of the greatest bucking horses ever; he's before our time though. His prime was 1956-1957. Thanks a bunch, hope all is great. Have a great weekend! dawnleelynn(talk) 03:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. If you see things in War Paint that could be clearer, let me know. I'm willing to spend a lot of time on that article. If I could find more sources, I would G.A. it. There just aren't many. I had to use some YouTube videos just to get a decent article. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 03:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Created
- War Paint
- National Snaffle Bit Association Hall of Fame
- National Reining Horse Association Hall of Fame
Expanded or Rewrote
- Zippos Mr Good Bar (expanded stub)
- Fallon Taylor (rewrote)
- Jackie Worthington (rewrote)
- National Snaffle Bit Association (expanded stub)
- Martha Josey (some rewriting and reorganization)
- Initial thought: you might consider installing User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, because that's a lot of red.
- Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's strange. I'm purposely doing them that way. Book and YouTube citations. The actual citations that have URLs are all down in the "Other sources" section. For the videos, montanabw directed me to copy the way she did them in one of her articles. I don't recall which article. But, if you look at an article that she and others brought to FA, some of the book cites were done there the same way. See Secretariat For the book citations, I also was following advice, and I have seen them done this way in lots of articles besides mine. I have other articles where I have done things this way. The tool is very interesting. I have several scripts already and could add it. I also recall that the Harv template has been added to two of my articles now by other editors w/o explanation. But reading the template page, it doesn't look like it does anything unless you add its parameters to the actual inline citations too. I am open to understanding this, esp for War Paint. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC) p.s. If you can mainly just guide, I will try to do the bulk of the work on these, esp. the horse. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 19:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Splitting the citations that way is fine, but you need
|ref=set up to make the sfn links work properly - see the two sample changes I've just made. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Splitting the citations that way is fine, but you need
- Ok, I get it now. I got the script installed. I looked at your changes. And I added another ref for the second video and there are no error messages now. That was not too bad at all. I'll have some other articles to update but that's just part of working in Wikipedia. That just leaves the "book" source in that other sources section "PRCA Awards. Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association. Retrieved April 11, 2019." where the citations that point back to it are "PRCA Awards, Stock of the Year – Bucking Horse of the Year, p. 562." for example. I have done that in many rodeo articles too. The PRCA Awards are linked to the PRCA Media Guide which is a flipbook online. Is that okay done that way? If you look at the List of Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association Champions, there are dozens of these types of citations. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Couple thoughts on that. First off, suggest expanding the listing in Other sources - essentially you want enough information there such that if the link became irretrievably dead, someone would still be able to figure out what the source actually was. Second, it's okay to have short cites with the page number plus a section title, but generally you want short cite formatting to be consistent within an article - so as the other short cites use sfn, probably makes sense to do that with these too. Does that answer your question? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it makes sense with articles that use the sfn. The article of champions I referenced above only uses one type, that long type. I will mull this over. I can't get to it right away anyway. But you are definitely on the ball that the citation in the other sources needs expanded. So, yes, this answers my question, thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Couple thoughts on that. First off, suggest expanding the listing in Other sources - essentially you want enough information there such that if the link became irretrievably dead, someone would still be able to figure out what the source actually was. Second, it's okay to have short cites with the page number plus a section title, but generally you want short cite formatting to be consistent within an article - so as the other short cites use sfn, probably makes sense to do that with these too. Does that answer your question? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Which link to use
This couple at find a grave has both photographs of their grave headstone with dates on it and newspaper clippings with the information.
Would you link to their main page, a headstone, or the newspaper clipping? They are actually the parents of the subject. Are their DOB and death dates really needed, btw? I didn't put them in the article. I am rewriting an article that was deleted for copyright violation. NOT mine! LOL. But an article on a rodeo great at my hometown rodeo. Dan Taylor is the article subject. It's in my userdraft space where MegaLibraryGirl undeleted it to.
User:Dawnleelynn/Dan Taylor (rodeo)
Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi dawnleelynn, linking to the newspaper clipping there would be a linkvio issue - that site is not licensed to publish those clippings and they're still under copyright. You probably don't need the dates at all since the article is not about those individuals and they're not notable. (BTW, by the same token they shouldn't be listed in the infobox - see the template documentation). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Nikkimaria and thank you for the information. Now that you say it, it does make sense that using newspaper clippings on a site would be copyright violations. I am glad I asked. In future I will strive to think harder about the usage of published materials in light of copyrights. I have learned about statues from montanabw. Anyway, I'm going to pull the parents from the article completely. After thinking about it more, I think that WP:BLPNAME also applies.
- I am also using some content from some literature that is in the public domain in a sandbox right now. I have enclosed it in quotes for now, but is there anything you would add regarding using that material in an article? It's from 23 centuries ago. The instructions I found is that you can pretty much use as much of it as you want to use as long as you attribute it properly. However, I know that Wikipedia sometimes uses more stringent rules than the outside rules.
- When you're copying content from elsewhere into Wikipedia, there are two issues to consider: copyright, but also plagiarism. If you haven't read WP:PLAGIARISM already I'd suggest doing so - it has a specific section about copying from PD sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
ty
Just wanted to drop a thank you for the library approval. All my best — Ched : ? — 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Edwin Thompson Denig
Please see: Talk:Edwin Thompson Denig. Creuzbourg (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: July 2019
| ||||||
Canadian pms
FWIW, we do link to List of prime ministers of Canada in all the pms bios content. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: If you want to link to it somewhere in the article I don't care, but don't link it in such a way that two links appear to be a single link. That just leads to confusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's how it's done in all of them. Feel free to remove them all, if you wish. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: I did. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- So you have :) GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: I did. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 22:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
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, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
JSTOR book
Hi, I was wondering why I don't have access to this book on JSTOR (although I have a subscription)? Is there a way to still get it through Wikipedia? Thanks! T8612 (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi T8612, the Wikipedia Library JSTOR access includes the archival journals and the British Pamphlets collection, not the books. You can try requesting that particular item via WP:RX. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Is there any chance that WP will ask for book access in the future? T8612 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Suggest you post that request here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! T8612 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Suggest you post that request here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Please add your input
Hello N. Though you may have already seen the ping I wanted you to have a direct link to this thread Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Need to reach a consensus. I don't think we have been at opposite ends of an editing situation before (or if we had it was so long ago I've forgotten it) so I hope you will allow this to be an "agree to disagree" circumstance. However the final consensus comes down I want you to know that I think you are a fine editor and an asset to the 'pedia. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks MarnetteD, likewise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you as well. MarnetteD|Talk 03:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gadzooks I had missed WP:EL/P all these years. Forty some odd years ago I took to heart Leo Buscaglia's advice to try and learn something new every day. You helped get me to that goal today. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 04:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
geneanet.org on Antoine-Joseph Preira
Hello,
you have been removing information from Antoine-Joseph Preira with the rational "rm non-RS". Geneanet is a know website (there is an article about it on the French-speaking Wikipedia), and it seems to be commonly used as a reference on the English-language Wikipedia [6]. Could you elaborate?
Thank you. Rama (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Rama, unfortunately that it is used as a source does not mean it is reliable. It appears to be a user-generated genealogy site, similar to Ancestry. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is my understanding as well, yet Geneanet seems more trustworthy than several of the sources that you did not question on the same article. Napoléon Gallois and Jules Lecomte are lyrical pseudo-historians of the mid-19th century whose texts are more nationalist propaganda than factual accounts, Guy Boucher write some sort of folkloric tale of the region, balidar.com is a private website, and Quiquengrogne is a 20-year old article in a municipal paper written by a minor local politician aiming at promoting local tourism. We also have copies of newspapers and archives of the time, which we could discard as original research. The point is: that all these sources are consistent with each other.
- An accumulation of such purely formal reason to discard sources can lead to erasing from Wikipedia content that we know to be relevant and for which be have consistent sources backing each other. I known of entire articles have been deleted for such reasons, with perfectly valuable content.
- The whole point of sourcing affirmations is to allow readers and editors to check from where the information comes from, evaluate for themselves the degree of confidence, and potentially contest or replace information if there are reasons to suspect it is inexact or untrue. Rama (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- If other sources in the article are of questionable reliability, that seems a good rationale to exclude those rather than keep this one. I am sympathetic to the impact that a lack of reliable sources can have, but unfortunately that is consistent with our verifiability and sourcing policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Spur
Hi Nikki. I just ran into a Harv error which I can't fix using the methods you showed me. It's in the article Spur. It's like the reference only exists during run time and you can't see the whole thing in source view. You'll see the error message when you look at it. I'm sure you know how to fix it asap. Please take a look? dawnleelynn(talk) 03:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi dawnleelynn, the attribution template {{1911}} automatically sets
|ref=harv, but you can override it by adding a blank|ref=. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nikki. So the two options are to either ignore the error message or add a blank ref as you described? I did not know about the attribution template 1911. This makes sense to me now. Thank you very much. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi dawnleelynn. Those are the options if you're using 1911 as an attribution template; if you're using it solely as a citation template you can swap to {{cite EB1911}}. Alternatively you can add an inline citation that refers to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, this is good to know for future reference. Not sure how the editor who authored this in Spur meant it to be. I think it will work the way it is now; thanks so much. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
jiangshi videogames
there I added a source, even though nothing else in the videogames section is sourced so I don't know why you single out my edit? It's a link to the steam store page which SAYS that jaingshi are in the game, and since another source you seem to be fine with is a link to an amazon store page it would be pretty hypocritical for it to not count, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xintract (talk • contribs) 13:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Fixing a submission I put on the site
Hi. You recently removed an edit I put on the movie Basket Case, stating my reference was not reliable. I also have a reference from IMBD which I see in many many submissions, but wanted to check with you before I undo your removal and edit my reference. Is IMDB considered a reliable source?
Frumpyjones (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC) FrumpyJones
- Hi Frumpyjones, unfortunately not. The Film project has a guide to sourcing that might be helpful for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia Jamalon access
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia Jamalon access requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia Al Manhal access
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia Al Manhal access requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Liz. I in no way want to dispute the deletion of these two categories, but did want to mention that technically they won't meet C1 for at least a few more days, in case you're using some kind of tool to find these that can be recalibrated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Second opinion request at Talk:CS Alert (1890)/GA1
Hello, Nikkimaria;
Your name is listed at Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor in the list of people who are willing to assist with GA reviews should the need arise. There is a fairly simple issue that could use a second opinion at the Talk:CS Alert (1890)/GA1 review, about whether or not the nominated article meets criteria 6b of the Good Article Criteria, whether the included photographs are relevant to the subject. If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look and casting a tie-breaking opinion, if someone else hasn't already done so? Thank you. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
FAC source review request
Hello. I hope you are having an excellent week so far. Apologies in advance for asking, but I was wondering if you could do a source review for my current FAC if you had the time? A spot check has already been done by one of the reviewers. Feel free to disregard this message if you do not have the time or interest. The FAC has not been up long (not even a full two weeks) so I am in no rush with it, and hopefully, more editors will look through it. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'll take a look this weekend. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, there is a disagreement on this nomination as to whether there is an inappropriate level of close paraphrasing on this nomination; I think it will be best if we get someone knowledgeable and uninvolved to render a second opinion on the matter. Thanks for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Rodeo article
Hi Nikki! You may be sorry you showed me the script that detects Harv errors, LOL. The Rodeo article has some Harv errors in its Source section. They all have ref=harv when you first go in. I tried to fix the ones that had cite___ errors by pointing to them, but that didn't work on these. When you have a few minutes please? If you can even just tell me what's wrong I can fix it. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 19:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- (watching:) I just looked at the first: it is defined "ref=harv", but not called (yet). Perhaps remove or comment out that "ref=harv" until it's to be used. I have no time to check if the others are similar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt Thanks, I will try it! dawnleelynn(talk) 20:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt Yes, removal of all of them fixed the issue. It's a high traffic article. My guess is that various editors removed the content that called them. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn(talk) 20:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt Thanks, I will try it! dawnleelynn(talk) 20:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
For Good Faith Reversal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
JSTOR
I have asked a renewal of my jstor subscription a while back but didn't received it. Can you check it out?---Shrike (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Shrike: It looks like you should have done - what happens if you try to do a password reset at JSTOR with the email you've got set on the platform? (I also see you submitted a renewal application today - if the password reset doesn't work we'll just submit that). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, I can enter with my account I just can't read the articles Shrike (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2019
- News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings
- In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff
- Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users
- Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes
- News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year
- Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Reversion of Wodehouse subsection
Hi, Nikkimaria. I don't know--I'm certainly a big fan of sourcing, and I understand how crucial it is in some contexts; but my generalized roster of Wodehouse themes seems to me to be in the nature of uncontentious common knowledge (and perhaps not easily attributable to any one source, since it pertains to the PGW canon as a whole). I respect your reversion, but could we perhaps compromise with a "Citation Needed" tag? Jcejhay (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Jcejhay, given that this is a featured article I don't agree that would be appropriate - MOS:NOVELS makes it clear that thematic interpretation should reflect the consensus of literary scholars, and thus should be sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Sugar sand
Hi. Calcium malate precipitate is a factor in both Maple syrup and Maple sugar production; how best to cover? A new section in either page or Sugar sand (maple sap production)? I have started a related discussion here: Talk:Sugar sand#Conversion to disambiguation.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Nestor Lakoba FAC images
Hello, regarding the image review for Nestor Lakoba, I wanted to ask your opinion on the copyright status of some relevant images I have. It is from a 1965 book published in the Soviet Union by a government official in that capacity, and contains some photos of the subject in hand. I'm curious what would be the status of those images, and would they be appropriate to upload here? Kaiser matias (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Kaiser matias, would need some more information to give a good answer. Is this the first known publication of these images? Are they themselves official works, or is there attribution? Is the book likely to fall into the category of being exempt from copyright protection? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back. It would be the first publication of the the images, and while the images themselves have no attribution, the work was part of an official publication. Whether it falls under one of the four categories in the link, I'm doubtful: the closest it would fit under would be an official document of a state government agency, but it doesn't fit the examples given (laws, legal texts, etc). I should also mention that the author of the book only died in 1993, which complicates things. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - in that case they most likely would be non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, really appreciate your help going over the status of everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - in that case they most likely would be non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: August 2019
| ||||||
CCI update
 | Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dawnleelynn is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI. |
--💵Money💵emoji💵💸 13:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Zelda Fitzerald article
Hi Nikkimaria. After a bit of research, I just realized that my changes to the Zelda Fitzgerald article were not in accordance with WP:CITEVAR. I'm updating my latest edit to strictly utilize Harvnb instead of Sfn. Change should be done within the hour. Please let me know if this change addresses your concerns. -- Flask 21:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Flask, I'm actually in the process of doing that - could you hold off for a bit? Would like to avoid an edit-conflict. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I shall hold off. I apologize for mixing in a different citation style. In the future, I'll stick with the existing citation style on the page. In hindsight, you were quite right and correct to revert my edit. -- Flask (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Flask: See what you think of the new version. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good. I might append some of my minor Bibliography tweaks, i.e. updated source urls, jstor links, publisher details, etc., tomorrow. (I won't alter the Bibliography formatting.) Sorry again both for my lack of knowledge about WP:CITEVAR and for hastily reverting your initial rollback. My apologies. -- Flask (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
St. Charles Municipal Building
I would like to get this worked out. You have never worked on this page before. What is your sudden interest in fighting over one piece of information being on it? I was excited to find this out and get to add it on here because I'm from St. Charles and my town hall being an iconic location in a big video game is freaking cool. I mean, wouldn't you say if you lived in a small town and a building in your town was on the cover of a game you would think that would be worth recording that this inspired this? Isn't that what Wikipedia is for - is for people who are passionate about a subject to share what they know about it in a place bringing together information that isn't on its own well known?
I was looking at the St. Charles Municipal Building one day and thought how similar it looked to the Lighthouse in BioShock. Years later I brought up the similarities on the BioShock Wiki, and they said they couldn't post anything without a developer confirming it. This is in the talk page on that Wiki in the respective article. So I reached out to Dave Flamburis, the artist who designed the BioShock Lighthouse. He responded to my e-mail confirming it as his inspiration and describing how he made the design based on it. I took a screen capture of this e-mail, posted it on the BioShock Wiki and linked to it in the article as the source. I don't know how otherwise I could post an e-mail as a source.
No one has challenged this except you, so I must ask you why? What is the problem? Why this one point on this little page? Anyone can contact Dave Flamburis and ask him the same thing I did and get his response if they want to do some kind of peer review. But you are now leaving notices on the page saying that this is trivia not even worth mentioning and should be removed. That seems bogus. Like where is the Wikipedia law that says the information I have shared should not be allowed on Wikipedia because its not important enough? The flag you put on the page now leads to guidelines that apply to style when discussing creative works. It would appear you are wrongly applying criteria to this because it is related to a video game? Because it uses another Wikipedia page as a source? I mean, I did the work, I got the confirmation and put it out there. For a building that is not well known in a small town, this is a big deal that it influenced a work of popular media. From everything I know, this information should be on the page so that other people interested in St. Charles will learn this. Otherwise they could only know if they knew the Lighthouse in BioShock and looked it up and put the two together.
Based on your edit history, you have not removed every piece of trivia such as this from every page in the world, so what is the issue with this one in particular? As far as I can tell, I went about adding this in the proper way by Wikipedia standards, and the content does not go against any guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerVynck (talk • contribs)
- Hi VerVynck, there are a few issues with this piece. First off, while I appreciate you putting in that effort, a screenshot of a personal email posted on another wiki really doesn't meet our standards as to what constitutes a reliable source. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is meant to be built on published reliable secondary sources. Second, as per this discussion, "in popular culture" content should include sources that prove not only that the content exists - in this case, that the video game design is based on this building - but that this detail is somehow significant to a reader's understanding of the topic. It does not appear that such sourcing exists, although of course if it did you'd be welcome to bring it forward. Third, the fact that I've not removed "every piece of trivia such as this from every page in the world" in no way means that this piece of trivia must be retained. You added some content and your addition was reverted - that means that the burden is on you to find reliable secondary sources for this content and gain consensus for its addition. There's also no reason to remove the tag - the disputed source does nothing to address the issues that it flags. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh my gosh why would anyone want to be a part of Wikipedia if you did this to everyone. You keep posting links to guide pages that don't back up what you're saying. You've contributed nothing to the page or to the research or to the sources, and you provided no help to improve it to meet your opinion of what it should be. You removed the link to the source and then used a tag that claims pop culture information without sources will be challenged and removed. What's that about? Did you even read the source? Did you see the history of discussion on this topic on the BioShock Wiki? It was accepted there and has consensus of two others that spoke on the matter. I want people to be able to learn something that almost no one knows. What kind of battle are you fighting for nothing and no one but your own satisfaction? On a subject you have no association or even familiarity with? You remark that I need to procure additional sources that confirm this piece of information is important. But what makes anything significant but our perception of it? I just don't understand why you have to pick on this and challenge it, out of all the things in the world that are better known or more visited, why are you spending your time fighting over this when I have made an effort and gotten a source, you say I have to get more sources for it to be included? Then by that standard, shouldn't everything on every article on Wikipedia have multiple sources corroborating every single statement in every article? It is clear you are twisting what the guidelines say and what the policy actually is. It is entirely unreasonable to expect what you are stating from every user for every piece of information or trivia added to Wikipedia. I can only ask that you would respectfully withdraw your attacks against this subject because I must ask, what is the goal being achieved by removing this fact? In a broader sense, how are we to look at things if the standard by which you are suggesting must be applied to all content on Wikipedia is not as such.VerVynck (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi VerVynck, I understand that you're upset at having your work challenged, but I'd appreciate it if you kept your commentary focused on the content rather than attacking me personally. Discussion and consensus at BioShock Wiki is relevant to what is posted and accepted there, but not here. What is needed here is a reliable secondary source for this content, as is indicated by the tag you removed. BioShock Wiki and a personal email posted there are not that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You ignored what I asked by dismissing it by implying that I am making personal attacks. I stated my point. I refuted your claims. It seems as such you simply wish to deny the source. Are you questioning the validity of it? Do you think I have fabricated all of this information? If so, for what personal gain or reasoning would I have to do so? Is there reasonable information to prove that this source is not credible? The BioShock Wiki has standards as such does Wikipedia. You can not simply dismiss all information because it is not from "here." When one thinks about what you are saying, it really makes no sense. About as much sense as me spending the time trying to fight this injustice. I stated a fact, despite your attempts to censor it, it is a fact, and there are people that find it interesting, even though you don't deem it as such. I would say, based on the standards enforced on the BioShock Wiki and the discussion behind the decision to include this information there, that it is a more reliable source than a link to a website without a community as such as is found there. To further defend my point, another source in this same article you are attacking is a personal letter that someone scanned and uploaded to a website. By your principle, shouldn't you attack that source also because the source is a image of a personal correspondence without additional sources corroborating it? You are using Wikipedia's guidelines to give yourself credibility, but you are not being frank with the facts here regarding the information.VerVynck (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I do not believe this source meets our standards to be considered a reliable secondary source. If you disagree, you're welcome to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard to seek other opinions on the matter.
- A consensus on BioShock Wiki is not the same as a consensus here, and has no relevance to this discussion.
- That other sources may not be reliable, or that other articles may also have questionably sourced content, also has no relevance to whether this source and this content ought to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You said that you "believe" this source does not meet standards. Since when is your opinion the standard by which this website is operated? You have no source to prove your statement that Wikipedia does not accept sources from other Wikis. Therefore, you must admit the hypocrisy of your actions. You do not have a reliable source for the policy you are stating allowing you to remove and/or flag content from an article that does in fact have corroboration you have not acknowledged. Your statement that ignoring unreliable sources elsewhere has no relevance to this source implies that Wikipedia practices a policy of enforcing double standards. Based upon these facts, you are not a credible representative of Wikipedia. What authority do you have over others who believe this content should be on this page?VerVynck (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)