Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VerVynck (talk | contribs) at 23:48, 22 January 2022 (→St. Charles Municipal Building). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Truman 1948

Hi! Just two things. Can the image review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign/archive1 be considered formally "passed"? Secondly, I am not sure whether I should upload this image to Commons. We don't know who the author of this map is, neither is the publication date mentioned. Can we determine whether it is in the PD or not? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's credited to Harris & Ewing - is it included in that collection at LOC? If so then PD-Harris-Ewing from Commons would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As to the FAC, I'd like to see what happens with the Commons deletion request you mentioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

  • On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
  • Search tool deployed
  • New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: October 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Kubrick's marriages and children

Hi, Nikkimaria. It seems the suggestion for discussing which parameters to include in this infobox was actually wise. Why did you remove the |spouse= and |children= parameters? It seems like standard, basic information. —El Millo (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the discussion, agreed - it's unfortunate that that was abandoned.
With regards to those parameters, see the relevant MOS - cluttering it up with minute details like the years of his divorces obscures the key facts. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1937 Brazilian coup d'état image review

Hi. Any update for the image review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1937 Brazilian coup d'état/archive1? Thanks. FredModulars (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FredModulars, do you have a reference confirming that all images in the newspaper's collection were published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you would have read my response, you would know that I provided two references for the two images: "Vargas of Brazil: A Political Biography" by John W.F. Dulles, and an archive of the Correio da Manhã. Therefore, they were published, even if not all in the archive were. Those are the only images sourced from the collection. Please see my reply there. FredModulars (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read your response. File:Plínio_Salgado,_1959.tif is also sourced to that collection. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your source confirming they were published. "Adquirida em leilão e doada ao Arquivo Nacional, a documentação presente no fundo Correio da Manhã inclui recortes de jornal, filmes, caricaturas, plantas, mapas, cartazes, e – literalmente – milhões de fotografias." Or, the Correio da Manhã was donated to the National Archives and contains millions of photos from the newspaper. FredModulars (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Response? FredModulars (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Your final concern has been addressed. I ended up removing the two images of the Agencia Nacional. Anything else before the review can be passed? FredModulars (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Adam Pearce

Hello. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that 2600:1700:b420:7190:e5ce:df67:4848:14ba (either that or another, very similar, probably-the-same-person IP) re-added the content that you reverted because they were doing a WP:CIRCULAR. I was going to revert it, but I found out that the Wikipedia article they linked had a reference for the claim they wanted to add so I added the reference; don't know why they didn't just do that in the first place.

Also, now that we're on the subject of said article, I noticed that 2600 keeps adding a picture on the infobox, File:Adam Pearce in 2012..jpg, in which the subject looks rather small (at least when put in the infobox), but seems to prefer it over putting other pictures where Pearce is seen better, like File:Adam Pearce.jpg or File:Adam Pearce NWA World Heavyweight Champion.jpg, apparently (apparently) because the first picture is from 2012 and the other two are from 2010, so the first one is technically more recent. I see that you've dealt with images, so I was wondering if you knew if we have some manual of style about what to do in cases like that; I personally would've prefer a more visible image even if it's slightly older over a more recent one in which it's more difficult to see the subject of an article. Cheers.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdgarCabreraFariña, if the only concern with the IP's preferred image is the size of the subject, could that be addressed by cropping the image to focus on him? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, it completely missed me that that could actually be a good way to fix it. Thanks!--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grian

why did u delete everything in grian's wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by K5gproWiki (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K5gproWiki, open wikis are not considered reliable sources, particularly for information about living people. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism

You should probably identify yourself as deletionist and join the meta:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. What do you think? (see also Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia)

No thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You helped me back in the way-back to learn about proper copyright tags on images in articles I work on, but I now have a new question I hope you will be willing to help me with. I have images like this one [[1]] where the creator of the image has posted: "I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

I cannot for the life of me find a copyright tag that covers this. What do I do? Can you help me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk777, I'm not sure I understand your question - you're quoting from a copyright tag that is already present on that image. Do you believe the licensing is incorrect? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it had to have something that said "copyright free in the US" or some such thing. The statement by the author is sufficient? I don't need anything else anywhere? Whoohoo! Thank you so much for your willingness to help others. I hope you never let the naysayers get you down. You are always great, and I love your commitment to the highest quality standards for WP. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! If it's an entirely user-created work, the user can simply release the work under their chosen license. Since this one applies worldwide, that includes the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you! Thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Apologies for this random message, but I have a quick image-related question. It is about File:Ttrina-106-park.jpg. I used it in the "No Panties" article, but an editor raised concerns about it. The image was uploaded in 2019, although the uploader claims it was taken in 2014, and it is the only image that they uploaded. Their edit summary (No I own this work) also seems a little odd. I agree with the concerns raised about the image, but I was wondering if I could have your opinion. Is this image really appropriate licensed? I still know very little about images, and I should be better about this and use this as a reason to explore it more in the future. I hope you are having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, given that the image appeared elsewhere online before its upload here, I doubt the user really has the right to release the image under the license given. Unless they're able to demonstrate they have that right - which, given their absence, is unlikely - I think the image will need to be deleted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR nomination

I have nominated Great Fire of London for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI

Enormous issues on talk, but I don't know if 1e has yet been demonstrated (I am intentionally not looking). May need a watchful eye: J. K. Rowling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for you to keep an eye on; trying to head off problems at the pass. Ronald Reagan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisner Auditorium section deletion

Hello, in the Lisner Auditorium entry, I added the following section (below) on popular culture references, with a citation. The cited source seems to me to meet the guidelines for a reliable source; while it is from the original vendor's website, wiki rules say we can use this those for merely factual information, which is how I used it (dates, plot summary). Could you please explain why you think this is an unrelaiable source for this usage? And could you please take things to the Talk page under Lisner Auditorium before deleting? Thank you!

In The Incredible Hulk #151, May 1972, Lisner Auditorium appears as the site of a cancelled appearance by Henry Pym, a.k.a. Ant-Man. Bruce Banner, looking for Pym, arrives to find the event cancelled; becoming sufficiently enraged, he is transformed into the Hulk, smashes his way out of Lisner, and rampages cars nearby.[1]

Troutfang (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goodwin (writer), Archie; Trimpe (penciler), Herb; Severin (inker), John (May 1972). "When Monsters Meet". Incredible Hulk. 1 (155). Retrieved 30 November 2021.

Update: Update: in looking back, I think I cited incorrectly. I used the citation for the comic book itself, not the website that gives the synopsis, which is the source I should cite. Would this solve it? Troutfang (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Troutfang, neither the comic book itself nor the Fandom site would be an appropriate source. As per this discussion "in popular culture" entries need reliable secondary sources. The comic itself is not secondary, while Fandom as an open wiki is not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you. That is very helpful. I didn't realize the Fandom site was an open wiki. In the future, would you mind please flagging the source problem rather than deleting an entire section? There's also a Talk section about my recent expansions of the article where the issue could have been brought up before deletion. Thank you.Troutfang (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MilHist editnotice

I can't decipher whether this was ever implemented. I've just discovered that a change at WP:OWN meant that medical editnotices were pointing nowhere for years, including today, where TS was hit. It appears that Tom's proposal was never implemented ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Sturmvogel 66 knows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it was. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius

In your revert, you mentioned Talk:Jean Sibelius/Archive 4, but perhaps better check out Talk:Jean Sibelius/Archive 3 where those who contributed to the article were present. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, especially Tim and Ipigott's comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad. But then why did you focus on the standard Ssilvers comment which rarely fits but certainly not in this case. Even subtracting his personal comments. On a nice Sunday, all I can do is ignore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of references

Hello Nikkimaria!

I see you've removed two References I just added to Melanie Leishman's Wiki for being "Non Reliable Sources". :(

The House Party link to YouTube is literally that series official source to be viewed belonging to the production company of the show, Farpoint Distribution. Hard to imagine a more reliable source of information on a TV series than the actual series itself, officially uploaded. :)

You also removed the Reference for Paw Patrol animated TV Movie. :(

That page, unlike the IMDB entry for the film, actually has a full cast listing that includes Melanie Leishman's role.

Without it, anyone checking for info at the more obvious source of IMDB won't see her listed, not even on her own page.

So I think it's a useful source of info.

Seems unfair that Wiki would view another wiki as being unreliable just because it's a wiki. :)

After all IMDB is itself updated by contributors & as such not always accurate (as in this case where it lacks the details my reference had).

I therefore suggest reversing your edits.

Take care,

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk • contribs) 09:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that IMDB is also not a reliable source. It may seem unfair, but that's the way our policies/guidelines work. See WP:USERG. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria!
That appears to be guidance, "is generally unacceptable", in this circumstance the linked page simply gives extra detail lacking from IMDB about the characters & who plays them. Does not seem to be a particularly contencious issue surely? Seems to me that info is better being accesable than not.
You've also not addressed the removal of the official YouTube series link for House Party, seems kind of ridiculous to accuse the actual series as being a "Non Reliable Sources" wouldn't you say?
Take care,
LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with my removal of the wiki, you're welcome to raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard for additional opinions. As to the YouTube link, inline external links aren't sources - if you are trying to cite that as a reference for the claim, here are instructions on how to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria!
It seems counter productive to remove links with demonstrably correct information based on, not even rules since the very thing you point to to back up your assertion includes generally.
It feels, forgive me if I'm wrong, that you're trying to force your interpretation of guidelines onto others.
You've been here longer & know how to use the system to your ends so I'm unlikely to be succesful in challenging you.
The end result is factual information will not get into the hands of those seeking information, not something someone helping at an encyclopedia should be happy about.
Not the warmest way to welcome in new helpers.
Thank-you for at least discussing this, sorry the interaction is not a happy one.
Have a happy holiday season regardless!
Take care,
LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2021



Headlines
  • From the team: Migration from Outreach to Meta: your opinion is needed
  • France report: Study day on open content; Open content GLAM report
  • India report: Second proofread competition ended on Bengali Wikisource in collaboration with the British Library
  • Italy report: Traing course and conference in November
  • Serbia report: GLAMorous November
  • Sweden report: Art, design and history from the museums of Göteborg; Maps in the National Archives of Sweden
  • UK report: Khalili Collections
  • Ukraine report: Aricle contest for librarians «Local cultural heritage and prominent people»
  • USA report: Smithsonian demos new Wiki API Connector tool and other meetups
  • Content Partnerships Hub report: We continue building for the hub; SDC for fun and profit: detecting bad coordinates; Needs assessment – video recorded interviews; Improving ISA
  • WMF GLAM report: Wikisource birthday celebration, Community Tech Wishlist, and upcoming conversation about courses for GLAM professionals
  • Calendar: December's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Renom to FA; address prior issues raised

Hi Nikkimaria, hope your week/weekend is going well and sorry to bother you. I wanted to get your take before a possible third renom on Regine Velasquez. There were issues you raised during the last FAC nomination, and a thorough copy edit was suggested for stylistic issues among other things. It has gone through a couple of copyedits, one after withdrawing the nom last year and another round recently. I was wondering if you have a moment to check if these issues have been addressed or if there is anything significant that stands out for you. Much appreciate your response and would totally understand if you are busy otherwise. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pseud 14, on a quick look it's definitely better than it was, but there are still some stray style/prose problems, eg "an ABS-CBN's 2002 television special". I also see that there are lots of refs to AllMusic - I haven't checked each of them, but I'd suggest you double-check WP:RSP and make sure the usage is in line with the cautions there. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick look. I've generally used AllMusic for album reviews, and not for any biographical details. On another note, and only if you have the luxury of time, I would appreciate if you can give me specifics of the issues on style/prose that may have been missed during the copyedits or prior reviews that I can address, or if you deem them too significant to be addressed in the potential renom. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're to the extent that would warrant opposing at FAC. Here are some more examples:
  • Quotation marks within quotation marks should be formatted as single quotes
  • ClickTheCity is a work title and should be italicized
  • "Martin Nievera's (Fernandez's husband and The Penthouse Live! co-host) suggestion" - having the parenthetical in that place is awkward and could be reworked. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for citing the above. I've reworked each points, paying much attention to MOS:QWQ which hopefully I was able to address with the changes I've done. Again, much appreciate your time in responding and please don't hesitate to highlight if there's anything amiss. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Reference again

Hello Nikkimaria!

I've undone your removal of the added Reference for an accurate cast listing for Paw Patrol.

After your previous removal of that Reference & taking your concerns into account, I had carefully re-worded the Reference to specifically say it was a detailed cast listing. Which it is. On top of that I added another supporting Reference.

As stated before, the Reference you seem determined to remove is a more detailed listing for the TV movie than even IMDB & includes the actor for which the article is about. Thus it is an important Reference as without it someone using only IMDB would wonder if the actor is in it at all.

Also worth considering, for the more obscure TV shows, smaller fan Wikis are the only detailed sources available so should be judged in that context.

Kind of surprised that a cited source that gives a demonstrably correct cast listing for an animated kid's movie is causing you so much concern that you feel you twice have to remove it. :(

I could understand if I was citing the Paw Patrol Wiki to back up some outrageous allegation but this is a cast listing.

I do note that you have multiple complaints on your talk page about your dogged removal of references & that you do seem to delete an awful lot of them.

I politely suggest that if that source gives you further concern that you raise a point in the article's Talk page to see if others are as deeply troubled by the PAW Patrol Wiki's integrity as you.

As you seem to like to point me to pages on guidance, thought I'd include one you might benefit from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Really hope that you recognise the silliness in this repeated removal & back off, I came here to expand articles & help those seeking information. Not to get sucked into some feud over PAW Patrol.

Take care,

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, as I've already mentioned if you disagree with the removal you're welcome to seek a second opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. However, your rewording does not address the issue of that particular source being considered unreliable by the Wikipedia community and therefore unsuitable to use as a citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria!
From the very page you refer to to back up your removal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#How_to_use_this_list
"Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves."
So even if you dispute the credibility of Paw Patrol Wiki it can still be used as a source for "routine information", which I'd say sums up a detailed cast listing perfectly.
I note that & as mentioned here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#fandom.com
That Memory Alpha, part of fandom.com same as my Reference, is linked on the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Wikipedia page.
How is a direct link okay but not a Reference?
By that "logic" I could edit the Paw Patrol page to direct link to the Paw Patrol Wiki but can't use it as a Reference?
Also it was rude of you to revert that edit a third time, I've clearly made an effort to talk to you & it is you that should have started a discussion on the issue in the relevant article's talk page.
This is turning into a tremendous waste of energy.
I see from your talk page that along with the many complaints of removals, you also have positive interactions where it appears you genuinely helped people. Perhaps you could favour that better side of your nature?
At the very least, please stop pestering me.
Take care,
LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in "pestering" you, but I do disagree with your interpretation: low-quality sources can be used as information about themselves, but that's not what you're trying to use it for. There is currently community consensus against the use of Fandom as a source, meaning that if you want to use it it's up to you to seek consensus for its use. As to the Memory Alpha example, external links and references follow different rules. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further info at WP:FANDOM.Moxy- 14:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image query for DLB

Nikki, is everything in order at File:The Autonomic Nervous System.jpg to use it at dementia with Lewy bodies? Thx ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, the uploader of that image has had a significant number of files deleted, which makes me a bit reluctant to accept an own-work claim at face value. That being said, I can't immediately locate an older publication online. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki ... it's not important, I was just tossing about to find something to add, but we're good without it. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Riel

Not sure we are going to be able get this edit warrior to stop. Thinking start with warning ....but from their talk page history I don't see the point. How can we get them to work with us over just bullying in every edit by edit reverts over and over and over and over....including shit sources. Think we have a cases where we have an editor trying to help....but doing so by searching Google for things over being aware of scholarly publications that can easily be viewed. Seeing blogs and travel site used leads me to belive they are new to the topic.Moxy- 05:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see much In way of edit summaries ...but this is concerning edit summary.... disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? Good faith only goes so far with bullies for me.Moxy- 05:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moxy, I've responded to the discussion again; if it continues going downhill, you could try pinging Bearcat back to it, since he was able to intervene last time. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Io, Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Ealdgyth, same to you! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of the season

Holiday cheer
Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 N. MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Cheers MarnetteD! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Dust Was Once the Man

You may be interested in this FA. There is a stand-alone section "Text" that quotes the poem. Doesn't seem to add much in the way of context. You will notice there is no mention of it in the GA review, transcluded in the article's talk page. Perhaps the reviewer lacks experience. I expect you would want to cull that section? A propos of nothing, a review of the dispute @ Krishnamurti's Notebook will be requested shortly. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!!

Hello Nikkimaria, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. 

scope_creepTalk 01:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is safe, festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2022 will be safe, healthy, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist Modernist (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Kendrick

On Green Kendrick you deleted a source. The claim about the persons death in the article is now without a source. You added something without a source, I don't like it having a bad source either, so delete the sentence, or add a better source, you are abandoning a sentence without a source which is against WP:UNSOURCED. Thanks, and Merry Christmas! Lectrician2 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lectrician2, thank you for trying to explain this time rather than simply using a template, but you are mistaken on several points. First, I added nothing; you added poor sourcing to the article, and edit-warred to keep it there despite agreeing that it's poor sourcing. The burden of UNSOURCED is on the person who adds or restores material, which in this case is you. Second, the other content you claim is unsourced is not - it is sourced in the first sentence of the article. You could repeat the citation yourself, or had it actually been unsourced you could have removed the claim yourself. But simply reverting and templating is not an appropriate solution. Please revert yourself, and take more care with your patrolling in future. Merry Christmas. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is any reader supposed to magically connect the dots to the source up above? There's no source for the sentence. It's a sticky situation, but I'll extend the olive branch in this situation and copy the source from up above and put it next to the sentence. Have a nice day! Lectrician2 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article has two paragraphs, I don't expect anyone reading it to struggle. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Maria de Martinez

Hi Nikkimaria, I wanted to drop you a note to let you know why I reverted your removal of Find a Grave on the article about Ana Maria de Martinez. As I stated there I think its inclusion here falls under the rare use of this unreliable source. It is, so far, the ONLY source I can find of the subject's death. ELPEREN = "As an external link: Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere ". Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WomenArtistUpdates, I think we've crossposted here - I've just opened a discussion about this on the article's talk page. I'd suggest we continue there to avoid splitting the conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat premature New Year's greeting


John Vanderlyn, Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos (c.1812),
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts 		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2022.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.
BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moral lesson: John Vanderlyn was an American painter who studied in Paris, and his life-sized
Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos was one of the first large nudes exhibited in the United States.
Peddling the poison as well as the cure, this overtly sensuous work was presented to the public as a
moral lesson on the consequences of lascivious behavior. Visible in the distance is the ship of
Princess Ariadne's secret lover, Theseus, for whom she has betrayed her people by helping him to
escape the Labyrinth and slay the Minotaur. Ariadne's bliss will come to an end when she awakens
from her post-coital reverie, only to discover that the faithless Theseus has sailed away without her.
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022 with Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Fire of London, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Whig and Robert Brooke.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave links, images

Nikkimaria, I saw your edit at Johnny Floyd, removing the Find a Grave link (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/202604538/john-cullom-floyd). I presume you removed it because the image of the news clipping there? I've clipped this same article from Newspapers.com, likely where Find a Grave user Michelle Hamlin Peterson got it from as well; see https://www.newspapers.com/clip/91477704/the-knoxville-news-sentinel/. That clipping can be viewed by anyone on the internet. Find a Grave and Newspapers.com are both owned by Ancestry.com. So whose copyright is being violated here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to believe the link is a benefit to the article, if the clipping is available elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The value is in image of the grave and the database cross-reference. Regardless, you didn't answer my question about copyright violation. Can you do so? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, there isn't an exemption in Newspapers.com's terms to allow uploading of its content to Find a Grave. If I'm mistaken in that, I'd appreciate a link. As for database cross-reference, I'd suggest taking that to Wikidata. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

trim in Infobox organization/Wikidata

Dear Nikkimaria, you made a small change in the Template:Infobox_organization/Wikidata to not allow the tax_id field to automatically be filled with the IRS Employer Identification Number (P1297). Could you explain, why that was wrong? I know there are many more tax ids in different countries like the VAT-ID in Germany, but with many American NGOs, I see at least no harm in a Wikidata-based Infobox. It could be expanded to other tax_ids. If it stays changed, please also check for consistency in the Documentation. Thank you --Newt713 (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newt713, automatically adding in minutiae like this will not be helpful for most readers. If there's a reason to add it in a particular case, that can be done manually. I'd also suggest that when you start adding this template, you check for consistency with the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation and the adaption of the Documentation. Happy new Year! --Newt713 (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Clione removal

Hey, I saw you reverted my change on the page Clione limacina... can you please tell me what counts as a "valid reference" when talking about a videogame? I could really use the help, I'm pretty new here. Thanks in advance! Snoteleks (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from your userpage Eddie891 Talk Work 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eddie. Snoteleks, basically for something like this you'd be looking for a source that is both secondary (so not the game itself) and reliable. In terms of what counts as "reliable" the Video Game WikiProject has a pretty detailed page on sourcing that you can have a look at specifically with regards to video games, and there's also a more general page here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks so much! Snoteleks (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: reversion of edit in Essex Junction

I saw you reverted my edit of Essex Junction. Could you help me understand why this isn't a reliable source. The source and associated image contain screenshots from the game in question. The screenshot itself is axiomatic, but it's also corroborated by a separate source. Do you have suggestions as to what would be a reliable citation in this instance?

An interesting (and possibly relevant) detail: The reference in the game likely relates to IBM's Xenon processor being used in the Xbox 360, and there is an IBM facility in Essex.

Also, out of sincere curiosity. How did you come across my edit so quickly? The article is not a very popular topic. Were you watching that page in particular?

~~Mattevt | Hit me up • edits 08:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattevt, there was a decision here that "in popular culture" entries should be supported by reliable secondary sourcing that establishes the significance of the entry. A screenshot is a primary source, and as a self-published source an open wiki like Fandom is not considered reliable. The Video Games WikiProject has an information page here that might be helpful for you. As to how I found that edit, I monitor for additions of certain sources that are not reliable - that page popped up in one of those lists. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Martial Arts - Masahiro Chono reference on Royal Hunt page

Hello Nikkimaria. I hope you don't mind me putting back this important part of Royal Hunt's history. I wounder what made you remove it. Best regards, W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster213795 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Webmaster213795, wikis are generally not considered reliable sources - if you feel this information is important to include I would encourage you to locate some better sourcing for it before putting it back. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion? Why?

I'm confused by your decision to revert a tremendous amount of formatting in John Barbirolli merely for what appears to be a desire to re-insert a few words which I'd deemed redundant. Please re-consider your choice for how to conduct an edit (or in this case, a reverting edit) instead of (I presume for the sake of expedience) a simple mouse click. I checked the citation guidelines as recommended, and it doesn't apply directly to my work. I merely employed the WP template and, for the sake of conformity, retained the formatting already within the article. Please advise. --SidP (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SidP, I didn't revert because of the few words you mention, but rather because of the reformatting - as indicated in my edit summary, per CITEVAR. Prior to your edits the article had a consistent citation style that did not involve the use of citation templates for inline citations. Please keep in mind that while you may find these templates convenient, they are not mandatory. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. However, you did not take into account that the formatting which was done was consistent with the format of the template. Additionally, there was bibliographical data added. I am not trying to overtake someone's formatting style; I can respect their choice. This was not the case. Perhaps I am mistaken, but instead of noticing that the template was used, perhaps compare the resultant reference presentation. Regardless I will be more cognizant in the future.--SidP (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SidP, it simply isn't the case that the formatting that existed previously was consistent with the formatting of the templates you added. And even if it were, when an article already uses a consistent untemplated system, CITEVAR indicates that it shouldn't be converted to templates without first seeking consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I will read CITEVAR more closely, as I wasn't aware of that. When I take the time to find and add more bibliographic data, I thought it was best to create the template. Often, but not always, hand created references have slight variations/inconsistencies, and this prevents that.--SidP (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately templated citations can have their own errors and inconsistencies! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Find A Grave, again

While it appears to be a very big concern of your regarding Find A Grave links, I denote you complete also removed the informative fact from John Galloway and George Galloway, Coongressional Medal of Honor Awardees - that they were brothers, buried next to each other. That is signficant. Pefection is the enemy of good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraew (talk • contribs) 04:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is significant, do you have a source saying so? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Leeds

Hi

You deleted a block of text and reference about Arthur Louis Aaron VC. This was intended to explain why he is listed as non-Jewish, as per the genealogical records his family have supplied. I realise this is not the best quality citation but I have seen the records and they are as yet unpublished. I have offered to submit a paper to genealogical journal and the family is thinking about it. Rather than me just reverse your change, could we compromise on this so that the listing makes some sense? Thanks Philip Sugarman (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any published sources supporting what you propose to include? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People playground

Hi in my page people playground, I do not understand why you removed some content, please provide details why. Thank you! Yodas henchman (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yodas henchman. First off, Wikipedia is not a game guide - lists of achievements and the like are generally not appropriate for inclusion. See WP:VGSCOPE. Second, open wikis like Fandom are generally not reliable sources. See WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"US" not needed

Hello. We don't need to add the name or initials of the United States when we already have the name of a state. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, see the template documentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you will excuse me, that is just ridiculous. "Only the most pertinent information should be included. Please remove unused parameters, and refrain from inserting dubious trivia in an attempt to fill all parameters." Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BeenAroundAWhile, if you feel the birth or death places are "dubious trivia", you're welcome to propose they be removed. But if they're kept, we cannot assume that our global audience is familiar with US geography. Which is why the documentation is written the way it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to get into a time-wasting conversation about something so obvious as Los Angeles, California, being in the United States. If any reader does not know that fact ("Uh, where is 'California' again?"), a click on the internal link for that city will give the info. There is such a guideline as WP:Overlink. In the meantime, it is simply nonprofessional (from an editor's point of view) to cram unneeded stuff into an article. Best wishes anyway.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than Overlink, the relevant guidelines are Linkstyle (don't force readers to follow links to understand) and Audience (make the article accessible and understandable for a global audience). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mentoring on a Good Article review

Hi there. I'm getting into reviewing Good Article nominations and I found your name on the list of mentors. If you are available to help, that would be great. I am committed to reviewing the article on the Erdős–Straus conjecture, and I have drafted my review in my sandbox. Thanks for any help you can provide, HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HenryCrun15, generally speaking your review seems to be comprehensive and appropriately targeted to the GA criteria. A couple of specific thoughts:
  • In your comments on 1b, you seem to be using the word heading/header for the lead section. This is potentially confusing, since that term is more often used for the headings in the table of contents.
  • All of the issues raised in 1b relate to the lead - did you note any issues related to any of the other style guidelines mentioned?
Other than those minor points I think this looks to be a very good review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Find_a_Grave Wikipedia has a "findagrave" template — what you makes you think findagrave is an unreliable source?

See its entry at WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Findagrave links to a Reliable source, I use it. What do you say? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it links to a reliable source, why not just go to that link and cite that? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Fitzgerald under FA review

I am initiating a formal FA review for Zelda Fitzgerald, an article which you edited in the past. Your input there and further contributions to the article would be welcome. — Flask (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

This Month in GLAM: December 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

hiya, do you have any advice on what a "better source" could be for a cast? I don't have any clue.

I own the boxset featuring the episodes with Peter Sellers appearing in Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In and so before I added his episodes I looked up the relationship between IMDb and Wikipedia and per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb, it seemed like it was completely suitable, but just frowned upon. However I don't know of any other databases that will have a guest star list for such an old American show. I would really appreciate the guidance ty ty. - missus peter sellers 13:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible for example that reviews of the show might include mention of guest stars. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rowan_%26_Martin%27s_Laugh-In_episodes#Series_overview but the only source on this page is IMDb, I didn't just cite IMDb out of laziness, it's a fine source. Where would I find reviews of those 3 episodes? Considering I'm in England and a U.S. newspaper or TV listings archive would most likely be subscription based or even geographically locked to America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSelIers (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed pages that cite IMDb; that doesn't mean IMDb is a fine source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and the discussions linked from there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


hiya, but it's nigh on impossible to find episode by episode reviews of the show, which will be necessary as I will need to have a source for all 3 eps that he was in. I've got 2 new sources, they're the only ones I could find outside of somewhere like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb. Could you let me know if they're suitable? 

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/2d8008b06a56440f87522b42b096a5b5
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/295e9b99a7b94886a9b6b84049ef5b5c

The third episode may never have aired here so I can't find it. Do you know where I could find a suitable source for that episode? Tiny Tim was in it too.

I'm still confused as to why on the page for the show in question IMDb is the only source for cast, but it can't be the source for cast on the page I'm editing - I couldn't find an answer to that on the page you've linked, I'm sorry if I'm missing something. ty ty for any help you may have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSelIers (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PeterSelIers! All three episodes of Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In with Peter Sellers that you are trying to reference are listed at Rotten Tomatoes, here, here & here. Rotten Tomatoes, other than User reviews, is considered reliable by most & is very frequently used as a reference on tons of Wiki pages. So you should be safe using that to suppourt his appearances in the show. Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes

Thanks for everything. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Charles Municipal Building

Hello,

I do not wish to go to war with you, and I do not understand why it is important to you to delete trivia about our city hall from its Wikipedia page. We do not publish articles, so do not have additional sources you demanded when you originally deleted this information from the page.

There was a consensus of approval on the BioShock Wiki to add it there which can be read on the talk page for the article. The BioShock Wiki follows standards strictly and is an actively moderated Wiki. I say that only because you criticized their credibility originally.

I can only say, as a volunteer with the St. Charles Historical Society, I discovered this information and presented it because people from St. Charles found it exciting that our town has a connection to a AAA game.

I do not know your investment in the subject, but I want to provide people with what I know about this building from my experience studying it. I understand you may continue to challenge and remove the information from the page, but there seems to be no good reason in doing so. Besides me, user Doncram stepped in originally and disagreed with removing the content. However, you still persist to delete it.

I am sorry that my passion for my town's history somehow made it onto your radar, but I will not give up on it because to hide this information from people serves no purpose I can think of. It seems unlikely based on the visual appearance alone that anyone can deny that the lighthouse is based on the Municipal Building. To confirm it though, I made the effort to contact the designer before posting it online. It is beyond me, how everything together is unacceptable to you and must be deleted. VerVynck (talk • contribs) 23:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted, Fandom wikis - no matter how actively moderated - are not considered reliable. If there is no better sourcing available, that is unfortunate, but it doesn't make it appropriate to use that as a source, and doesn't fulfill the burden of providing reliable sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent then that you will not accept anything else. Is it reasonable to agree to leave the section flagged as it has been for the past two years as a compromise ? VerVynck (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria&oldid=1067337639"