User talk:Nikkimaria: Difference between revisions

Request for Comment

Hey Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you had any time could you look at my sandbox where we have been working on our article on Scopophobia and just see if we're on the right track thus far?

Thanks!

(*Kameron.McBride (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC))

Comment

I checked out the link, and I have no clue why it claims I changed someone's post. The link says a replaced every instance of @#!*% with @#!*%, but that doesn't seem like a change, and in any case I have no recollection at all of editing those posts. Maybe there's a bug somewhere in the website? ypnypn (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Cat and mouse discussion

You may want to chime in at User talk:BlueMoonset#Stalled DYK nominations. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not hungry, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Making of a Teacher

Nikkimaria, can you take a look at this to see whether the amount of quoting from a single source is excessive? I removed a "selected quotations" section because that seemed to me to be black-and-white copyvio and likely inappropriate for an encylopedia article besides (if I'm wrong on both, just reverse me), but I was worried about the rest of it. If you could comment there, and restore the tick if the article is on the correct side of the fair use divide, I'd appreciate it. I should not that I have not done a close paraphrasing check myself; based on the review I wouldn't count on one having been done, so you may not want to apply a tick under that circumstance, which I would completely understand. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I didn't notice that Presearch had replied on this one, and has just now pinged me on the page. I'm still not in a position to check this myself, and was hoping you could give it another look. Thank you so much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nikkimaria, your response is needed at Template:Did you know nominations/The Making of a Teacher. Thank you! -- Presearch (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Project guidelines and infoboxes

Hi Nikkimaria, would you show me the guidelines you are talking about regarding removing the infobox at Toni Castells? I am curious about them and I couldn't find anything anywhere that references not having an infobox. Thank you! heather walls (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a Composers WikiProject guideline for the content issue, and WP:BRD for the behavioural issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe what Nikkimaria is referring to is this RfC, the consensus of which is that infoboxes on composer articles are generally discouraged, but that this recommendation does not overrule talk page consensus on any particular article. The general policy on infoboxes, both within WikiProject Composers and throughout Wikipedia, states: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Hope that clarifies. Accedie^{talk to me} 23:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) and it's more widespread than just composers. Hundreds of articles at GA or FA quality levels, in fields from literature to artworks to biography to opera, have chosen to not use an infobox. Many of our most prolific contributors of high-quality content, conclude on certain topics that an infobox is not warranted. —Quiddity (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Too bad this isn't being honored at Nick Drake, [1]. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Colonel Bogey March

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Percy

Thanks for that. TFAs really should be protected as a matter of course (in my opinion). Parrot of Doom 16:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ball State Project Finishing Stage

Hi Nikkimaria. Our 213 groups are moving toward the finishing stages of their project work this week. I'll ask them to contact you when they are ready to go on-wiki, but here is a glimpse of what's coming

• Two groups are writing new articles (Zcpb's and Ashleynk's). Should they follow the "Moving out of your sandbox" handout to create the article? Or is there another procedure you think they should use?

• There is probably an issue with the images in Zcpb's group's article on the midland mud salamander. They are from Google images. There are also images of the red salamander on Flickr, but all the ones I've seen say "rights reserved." Is there any possibility of using these images or finding suitable ones elsewhere? Any images in Ashleynk's article shouldn't be a problem as they will be owned by the students themselves.

—Webster Newbold (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello ambassador,

This is Megan from the Ball State University digital literacy class. We have decided to permanently work on the indianapolis zoo wiki site. We have decided to add citations and reorganize the page to be more aesthetically pleasing. We would like to add a table, instead of one long list. If you have any hints as to how to do this or know of any applicable resources. Please let us know!! Thank Also, what is the best way to go about reorganizing a web page on Wiki- the page has a lot of lists that take away from the main topic of the zoo? Let me know what you think and have a great day!

(MeganTolley5 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC))

NOTBROKEN

I wasn't aware of the policy/guideline on avoiding redirects, but I don't see why NOTBROKEN merits reverting them back either. I'm giving up on it anyway given that it's going to be a waste of my time to try to change all 500+ instances. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Because, in addition to NOTBROKEN and the lack of consensus for large-scale changes of that type, you're also breaking things at many of the articles in question - particularly alphabetical lists which were de-alphabetized by those edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NOTBROKEN, you should practice what you preach (i.e., changing "Ivory Coast" to the French spelling). Strange coincidence that you are affiliated with U of Western Ontario, just as this blocked user is. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

More strange that you don't appear to have actually read WP:NOTBROKEN, and from the looks of things a few policy pages besides. To answer your not-so-subtle insinuation anyway: even if I were inclined to harass you via IP, I simply haven't had the time to spare. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll put it plainly. I noticed that an individual editing from U of Western Ontario was logging in from multiple IPs and making good edits mixed in with changing "Ivory Coast" to the French spelling. The Ivory Coast article has established a consensus for the English spelling in en.wikipedia. I made a series of edits in good faith to try to align en Wikipedia with the Ivory Coast consensus (i.e., using common English spelling versus French spelling); you reverted all of them based on WP:NOTBROKEN. Fair enough. I'm merely pointing out that you made almost exactly the kind of edit that the blocked IP made (lots of reasonable changes, mixed with a NOTBROKEN violation of changing Ivory Coast to the French spelling). Pray tell how I didn't read "NOTBROKEN." I'm not concerned with you harassing me via IP, especially given the attention given to the blocked IP from multiple admins.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple: had you actually read NOTBROKEN, you would have realized that changing Ivory Coast to the French spelling isn't actually a violation of it, as the whole point of NOTBROKEN concerns changing redirects to direct links, not the other way around. I'd actually disagree with changing it either way in a systematic fashion, but only one falls under NOTBROKEN. The broader point you're making is an interesting one, because we don't actually demand encyclopedia-wide standardization in much of anything language-wise - Taiwan vs RoC, airplane vs aeroplane, you name it. I see how it could be argued that the CI -> IC move supports changing it in other articles, but on the other side, even the closer of that discussion has IIRC opined that the result does not support other wide-scale changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a convincing technicality (that changing a direct link to an indirect one doesn't violate policy a guidelines while the reverse does). What's the point of changing a direct link to an indirect one then unless you have an agenda? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 10:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Making the change (really, any change) systematically across multiple articles without a consensus to do so is a poor idea - so it's a bit more than a technicality. Making a change as part of a broader edit to improve an article (that is, as part of normal editing) is more in line with our philosophies, and objections can be resolved by consensus at the article in question (as they would be with other issues of style or content). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand the point about systematic changes, which I why I stopped changing links to articles that had not been changed by the IP from U of Western Ontario. I see your not interested in answering my question, so I'll drop it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques

You kindly commented on my successful FAC nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1 back in September. I've now nominated the second of the three articles in this series, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques/archive1. I'd be grateful for any comments you could provide in the review. Prioryman (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

• Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end

• News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments

• In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?

• Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks

• Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads

• Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Move/Merge?

Hey Nikkimaria. I may have let Prof Newbold's students get into a bit of a quandary. They've begun to draft a new article on The Dark Side of Chocolate (not theirs), a doc about choc. Here's their draft page: User:Kjrichardso2/sandbox. I failed to notice there was already an extant article. What do think is the best course - ask each student to place their own contribs into the existing article, or do some sort of page merge? (I have no experience with those, do you?) The Interior (Talk) 20:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't they just use the procedure outlined at WP:MERGETEXT? I could probably manage a histmerge if we needed one, but I'm not sure it's necessary in this case - am I missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Languages of Armenia

A post there says your close paraphrasing concerns have been addressed on this nomination. Can you check to see if this is indeed the case? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Scopophobia

Hello NikkiMaria!

We just finished editing our article on Scopophobia and are now live! We pasted in our information to the page and were wondering if you could look over it to see if there are any problems and/or any banners—like the stub ones—that may need to be removed.

Thanks so much for helping us with this page, you've been awesome!

Kameron.McBride (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ambassador

This is Megan from the BSU digital literacy class (our group is working on the Indianapolis Zoo.) So we edited some of the content on the site however, last night I went to add tables to all of the links- to make it to where the website isn't just one continuous list. This morning someone else decided to undue the little that I had done and include drop tables. The question to you is- should I leave the drop down bar or should I edit it to where all of the text is showing. If I should edit it, how would I go about deleting this drop bar edit, without deleting my fellow teammates work on the site?

(MeganTolley5 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC))

Highbeam

Hi Nikki, if you get a chance, can you see if I'm being too harsh here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Debora Green/archive2, and article I've already supported. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Tks. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen H. Wendover

Hi. You have now hit 3 reverts of the infobox in less than 24 hours over at Stephen H. Wendover. If you are against inclusion of the infobox can you please engage in discussion at the talk page? I have no opinion on the issue myself but the weight of the discussion currently seems to be against your actions. Road Wizard (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would, but that discussion is being inappropriately framed, and I have my doubts that it will amount to anything productive - RAN seems determined to impose the box despite the objections of the article's author. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are no authors or article-owners, we are all collaborative editors. The person who puts down the first edit is not the author, and their editorial opinion carries no more weight than any other editor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You may want to mention your objections on the talk page. At the moment you look a little isolated, especially when your edit summary refers to a discussion that is against your actions. If you are not happy with the way the discussion is being conducted there is always the option of ignoring the straw poll and starting an RfC instead. Road Wizard (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

XIII

Hello,

please take a look. I did some small changes. It would be nice if you list the issues. The article is not very large. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

• News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate

• Featured content: The table has turned

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly

• WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Nikki. I know you participated in the previous The Emancipation of Mimi FAC, and would love it if you could do a review for it. I'm struggling to find good reviews. I remember you were always nitpicking with sources so I've made sure to keep em perfect :) Let me know what's up!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment, but remind me in a few days and I'll try to review. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll ping you again later on in the week. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey again Nikki. Thanks for the ref reviews. I was wondering, do your typical reviews ever go into more detail? Anyways, what you have done is appreciated!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, but usually when it's a subject I know more about - I wouldn't generally support only on sources or media, and can't easily speak to content on an article like this. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks anyway though :) PS, I addressed your concerns :P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

New script

Hi, I am in the late stage of developing a sources script, and was wondering if you would be interested in being one of my testers. I've written up most of the documentation and built up most of the script functionality. There are some minor missing features. I have already created and stocked three extensive in-built libraries/vocabularies (1,2,3) which I will continue extending. There's still work to be done to rationalise linkages and optimise the precision in dab situations. I'd value your input regarding any aspect, whether the documentation, objectives, structure or the library itself, and of course how it works. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• PS, I'll be away for a week. So if you would like to help, you can save up your comments and post them to User talk:Ohconfucius/script. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 11:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dunno much about scripts, but I'll give it a shot. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages

Thank you for your recent articles, including Henri Akoka. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I don't want to revert you on your article, but please consider that keeping refs inline makes the article more scary for new editors, and even for old hands like me, it makes it more of a chore to edit. Reducing the ref presence in the main text makes the article one step closer to WYSIWYG level, makes it easier to work on multiple references, and there is nothing we lose. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is something we lose, although it's not as obvious on short articles like this one: it increases page size and consequently load time for all editors, and once the page is larger will tend to make it more difficult to edit because you need to be working with multiple sections at once. That's why imposing that ref style on larger pages, particularly without discussion, is a bad idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am rather aggregated at your reverts. Feel free to start an RfC about that if you feel so strongly, but please do not revert me en masse. My reverts are in line with our policies, and a number of articles use this style. I have considered the increased file size, and I believe this is much less of an issue than having the edit text look more friendly; editors can edit individual sections and the load length will be not affected; in fact my +10% or so size increase does not significantly change the already bad load time for most large articles - it just makes editing their sections more friendly. Please revert your reverts of myself, and then ask the community for input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not unless there's been a massive policy change recently - because that ref style was not, last I checked, mandated by policy, but not changing established citation style without discussion certainly is. You are of the opinion that that style is easier to use; feel free to use it on articles you create. Others have differing opinions, so don't impose it without discussing first. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If anybody has strong objections, they can revert me and raise the issue on talk. Mass reverting is NOT friendly. WP:LDR are perfectly acceptable, and recommended by Wikipedia:CITE#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references ...". You are confusing the use of style (ex. harvard or not), which is more of an issue of personal preference, with a technical edit that does not go against any of our policies, and as I noted above, is actually recommended. Unless you can cite a policy that states that list-defined references are discouraged, I am afraid it is your mass revert of my edits that is more disruptive than not (and certainly, in my view, discourteus; you could've asked me first, but you just mass reverted me without even bothering to leave me a talk message, let me state that I feel somewhat offended at your actions). I once again ask you to revert yourself, and if you want to ask a community for the input, I suggest a RfC (probably at talk of WP:CITE?). PS. One final thing: WP:CITEVAR which you alluded to and I'll link here specifically focuses about the styles, not technicalities; it also notes that it is generally helpful and recommended to standardize different styles, and at least some of the articles I fixed were already using a partial list-defined style; thus your revert of me also goes against that part of WP:CITE, and reintroduces chaos (multiple technical ref formatting) in place of the one standardized system I implemented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Piotrus, Nikki is absolutely right here. Changing the referencing style in an established article without prior discussion has been deemed disruptive by community consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, Nikki is correct - list defined isn't "recommended" - I note the rest of the sentence from WP:CITE that you didn't quote - "There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)". You need to gain consensus FIRST. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Mass changing is also "NOT friendly". I'm aware that LDR is acceptable, but many cite systems are, per WP:CITE; none are, to my knowledge, required. Read a little further in the section you cited: "As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so". If you'll review previous discussions at WT:CITE, you'll find that technical systems of citation are also held to constitute styles. I repeat: you do not have community consensus for making mass changes like this, and until you do, I have no intention of restoring your edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with Nikkimaria - switching from inline to list is against the "first editor style" approach at MOS. You may think the changes are fine, but these are the types of things that lead to edit wars. If you feel a page needs to have list style refs, get consensus on the talk page for it. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

All right. Since you seem to be all in consensus here, and I did miss the parenthesis part in CITE, I'll go and ask for consensus on the talk pages; with the exception of three articles which already had partial LDR and where my edits simply standardized the existing system to one of two prexisting choices, which as I noted before is clearly recommended even by CITEVAR. I still consider the mass revert of my edits without any message on my talk to be offensive, but let's chalk this up to my weird habit of hoping other editors will actually be courteous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Piotrus has a program that he is using to make major footnote format changes to major articles on which he has never before worked. He dos this in violation of the requirement that a consensus be reached. I thinks this calls for ANI action. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to do that, go ahead - I'd prefer to wait to see what happens going forward. Although the large-scale changes without discussion were rather discourteous, if he's willing to discuss first and respect consensus now that would be preferable to seeking sanctions IMO. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ever notice how ...

Hi Nikkimaria. I just went through your talk page and like the classy way you navigate arguments. I thought hey why not drop in and say hi. Oh and by the way, ever notice how some users have redundant userboxes? Like for example Am New Zealander, Speaks New Zealand English, Lives in New Zealand, Lives in South Island, Lives in the eastern part of South Island, Lives in Christchurch. Or Am American, Speaks American English, Lives in the States, Lives in the Mid West, Lives in Indiana, Live in Indianapolis. SlightSmile 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Slightsmile, can't say I've noticed it much, and I'm thinking I probably have a few of those redundant boxes myself! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe just a few. I'm always going into userpages to see what neat things I'll find and I see that kind of redundance all the time. I've noticed you a while and it's good to finaly meet you. Did I mention I got the best userpage in the world? SlightSmile 01:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Some pretty paintings there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Henri Akoka

The DYK project (nominate) 08:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Image issues on Shunzhi Emperor all addressed

Hi Nikkimaria. I think I've addressed all the issues you raised in your image review of Shunzhi Emperor. There were two pending issues: a dead source link for a flag image and missing sources for this map. I deleted the flag from the infobox (because that flag was only created around 1890), and I asked the map's creator to provide sources, which he has. You're welcome to look at his sources and to let me know if the map is now acceptable. The FAC review page is here. Thank you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Microsoft Security Essentials". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. EarwigBot operator / talk 19:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 19 November 2012 News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal" Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC) DYK for Vito Pascucci Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Category:Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster Since the 17 articles in this category really constitute one long list broken down into convenient alphabetical chunks, and I've performed my ref cleanup on two of them without any objection, can we save ourselves unnecessary conflict by agreeing that the remaining 15 don't individually need prior permission? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Are politeness and policy really such onerous requirements? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks Hi Nikki, I just wanted to thank you for your help on getting Debora Green through FAC. I can only wish I had the eagle-like typo-spotting eyes you're graced with! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) A question Concerning the question of parents in Talk:Stephen H. Wendover, it seems you (and likely Carrite, per your suggestion) favor the removal from the infobox, and I have spoken up against. Would it be acceptable to you if I were to ask Bbb23 and Kraxler for their opinion on the matter? It seems likely they will not be in support of my position, but it would look better for a consensus with more than three of us discussing the idea. (I don't know that either would chime in, but it seems worth a shot since both have posted to the page before). --Nouniquenames 05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Sure, if you like. Since you didn't say so specifically in that discussion: what is your position on the "resting place"? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC) I've posted to the talk pages of both users. The resting place poses an interesting point in my mind. I'm less comfortable with the tombstone given what I pointed out in reaction to Kraxler. I still like it better than no picture (at least for now), but it's not so much a reliable source. Of the reliable sources I've checked, only the city and state have turned up, nothing so specific as we have currently in the info box. If the information stays, it should (in my opinion) be cut back to what can be reliably sourced. That would be my preference, but I wouldn't fight removal of the contents of the resting place field entirely from the info box. If no one else comments concerning that portion, I'm fine with whichever you choose. --Nouniquenames 06:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Ping2: Template:Did you know nominations/The Making of a Teacher Dear Nikkimaria, please permit me to ping you again (it was done before on 22 Nov): your response is needed at Template:Did you know nominations/The Making of a Teacher. Thank you! -- Presearch (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks! Be well -- Presearch (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC) GEL course page is missing content Hi Nikki I hope the term is winding down peacefully for you. I've discovered that our Course Page in the GEL is now missing all of the students' entries for their "5 Edits" exercise. I can't decipher what has happened and hope that you can have a look. Thanks TomHaffie (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Hi Tom - looks like it was removed in this edit by an IP who I'm assuming is one of your students logged out. Now fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 26 November 2012 News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons Featured content: Panoramic views, history, and a celestial constellation Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 28 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexandru Hrisanide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC) DYK again Are you still managing to single-handedly hold down the fort over there? If so, would you like to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#North Preston.27s Finest ? Someone needs to again try to get DYK to clean up its act, and we know they won't listen to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look. I've been trying, with help from BlueMoonset, but was quite busy IRL for the past couple of weeks - that coupled with some late-loaded queues (since I only look once per day max) meant that articles like this one passed without me checking. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Gosh, you're good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Highway 61 Revisited Hi Nikkimaria, how are you? I hope all is well. Thanks a lot for your comments for Highway 61 Revisited at FAC. We think we have addressed all of the issues you mentioned. Would you have the time to have another peek? Thank you again, Moisejp (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Copypaste You Noticed Dear Nikkimaria, thank you for your comments. I believed that if I change words of article, this does not violate copyright. I didn't know about paraphrasing then. I come to know about it when I submitted for DYK and you told me. I will try to checkout all the articles I contributed and fix as much as possible. It will take time but must be done. Thank you again. If you find my such edits anywhere, help me by pointing it. --Nizil (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Hey Nizil, if you haven't already, you might take a look at some of our essays and guidelines on the subject, like WP:Close paraphrasing or how to spot and avoid plagiarism. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Response Nikkimaria, I responded on my talk page. I see why you were concerned; it's much more obvious now that you've blockquoted the rest of the article. I'd also like to have the replacement lead hook back where it had been, so it runs during the daytime here in the US: some suggestions about what to queue in its place... Thanks for finding this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks again for the quick work! I'll get a new lead hook for Prep 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Ah Boys to Men. Message added 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC) The Colours of Animals DYK Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for reviewing my article. I've done as you requested - have checked every quote for strict relevance, have slimmed many of them, removed some, and paraphrased several arguments of the reviewers. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC) DYK for Willie Eckstein Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Copyright tag search Hi, Peacemaker67 has requested I contact you about finding a PD tag he requires for a GA review of Capture of Tiberias. The tag required reads "This non-U.S. work was published 1923 or later, but is in the public domain in the United States because either • it was simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S. and in its source country and is in the public domain in the U.S. as a U.S. work (no copyright registered, or not renewed), or • it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and • it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice and • it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date ( January 1, 1996 for most countries). This work may still be copyrighted in other countries. For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights. Note: in addition to this statement, there must be a statement on this page explaining why the work is in the public domain in the U.S. (for the first case) or why it was PD on the URAA date in its source country (second case). Additionally, there must be verifiable information about previous publications of the work." This tag can be seen at File:Churches and fellow POWs.jpg. Searches of Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All have not uncovered the one Peacemaker wants. Can you help? --Rskp (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Hey Rskp, you're having trouble because our version of the template is quite different from the version at Commons - it's {{PD-URAA}}, but our version does not have the text you quote above - only the Commons version does. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for that Nikkimaria. --Rskp (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 03 December 2012 News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner Featured content: The play's the thing Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 6 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anton Szalowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neoclassical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Mars et Avril Hi, are you quite certain the whole trivia section should best be deleted in Mars et Avril. When I tagged it as a trivia, I saw that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trivia_sections)#What_this_guideline_is_not urges us not to do so, but rather preserve the content, if it's relevant--and I think that a great deal of what was in this section could usefully be incorporated into the production section, with a bit of work (though I confess I have no personal interest in doing so!). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC) I thought of that, but when I looked most of it already was in the production section. Is there some point specifically that wasn't that you think should be? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC) To my shame, I don't know. Let me get back to you if I spot something in the edit history. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC) DYK followups Nikkimaria, there are a couple of DYK nominations where a followup from you would be helpful: Template:Did you know nominations/Nav Nirman: this ends with a further problematic passage (there was a subsequent edit that turned the sentence into something that isn't quite a sentence, though it doesn't seem to infringe now), and a far more alarming statement about infringing material being copied across several articles. What is the status here? If the prose is on a par with the new non-sentence, I wonder about it being ready for DYK on prose grounds. Template:Did you know nominations/Esme Tombleson: have the close paraphrasing issues been fixed by Schwede66? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Esme's fine, I've re-added the tick. With NN, it appears as if the nominator replicated part of the article as a summary into other articles to create incoming links, and part of that material included phrasing from the source. That hasn't been fixed, but is an issue exterior to the DYK nom - it still needs to be dealt with, but it's in other articles not in the hook. As far as the nom goes, though, there continue to be paraphrasing issues (though far less serious than before), as well as problems with prose quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Esme's just been promoted, and I've rejected Nav Nirman: the prose issues were a bit much, combined with the remaining close paraphrasing issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Template:Did you know nominations/Infighting in Los Zetas: just heard back from ComputerJA on the template, who did a series of edits related to the problems you found. Is it close enough yet? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC) No, and that's another with potential prose problems, though maybe not as bad. Left a response there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC) AB Award! AB Award! In appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby present you with the AB Award. By expanding and promoting one of these stubs, which I like to think of as seeds, you have improved this wonderful collaborative project. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Joseph Grimaldi spot check Hi NM, are you in the position to be able to carry out a spot check on the above's FAC. I feel confident that there are no issues. I would be most grateful if you could oblige. :-) -- CassiantoTalk 11:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC) The spot check was much appreciated thank you. I was wrong about there being no issues, but glad there were no serious ones. All of your points have now been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. -- CassiantoTalk 11:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 10 December 2012 News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Willard Gibbs FAC Hi. Another editor has asked me to please ping you about whether the issues that you raised about the images on the article on Josiah Willard Gibbs have been properly addressed. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josiah Willard Gibbs/archive1. Thanks. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Template:Did you know nominations/Amdavad ni Gufa Nikkimaria, can I ask you to take a look at this one? The wording is problematic from an English standpoint, but I'm wondering whether there might be close paraphrasing in here as well. Unfortunately, I can't check a couple of the major online sources, but maybe you can; in any case, I know you'll be better at the paraphrase check. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I too can't see a couple of the GBooks links, but from what I can see: a couple of examples of close paraphrasing, as in "It was built on the basis of computer aided designs" vs "gallery has been built on the basis of computer aided designs" and "It was constructed by using simple hand tools by unskilled tribal labourers" vs "structure has been constructed using simple hand tools and that too by unskilled workers", but beyond those no problems from visible sources. I'd say the prose is still the main issue there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I'll probably highlight those and reiterate my suggestion that an outside copyeditor be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 13 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. Language deprivation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added links pointing to Morphology, Plasticity, Facial recognition and Mute It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Template:Did you know nominations/Infighting in Los Zetas The creator has posted that the latest close paraphrasing issues have been addressed; can you please check? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Template:Did you know nominations/USCGC Smilax (WLIC-315) Nikkimaria, can I ask you to please take a look at this? The discussion in the review (including the green tick) looks a bit alarming in terms of public domain and close paraphrasing, but I'm up to my eyebrows in trying to keep the prep areas filled and don't have time to investigate. I don't plan to promote this one, but it would be nice to know it's okay (or not) before some one else tries. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much. It's a relief to know, and now it's on my radar as one to promote. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Peace music Let me thank you for the Peace music you gave to all readers and to me, by repeating in style: Precious consistent quality control Thank you for consistently checking the quality of articles going to the Main page, for taking your time to preview critical ones for those who are afraid, and for your comments in a delete discussion "the principle that while Wikipedia is not a social network, it also isn't a soulless machine", "useful for community-building, which is an essential aspect of collaboration", and for mentioning "ideal" in the context! Ideal! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC) - At that point of time, I didn't (dare to) add yet: "repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (25 September 2010 and 4 April 2012)!" - How do you like my hook suggestion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks Gerda, replied there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 17 December 2012 News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Close paraphrasing Would you be so kind as to cast your close paraphrasing eye on the article Obelia longissima as nominated for DYK here. I don't like to be accused of close paraphrasing when I try to do everything I can to avoid it while still trying to extract good information from my sources. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC) That was very helpful. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 20 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kuybyshev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Template:Did you know nominations/William Dixson Nikkimaria, I did a quick duplication detector check of the above with its first multi-cited reference, and discovered a boatload of identical phrases, including five of 19 words or more. Can you please take a look at this and see just how bad things are, and do whatever cutting is appropriate? It seemed bad enough to me that I used the X rather than the slash. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC) DYK for Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 Orlady (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the Peace music with psychological warfare, it's now featured on Portal:Germany, - much better Christmas music than soft shopping background, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Brilliant work Nikki! You might find more on Leningrad Radio Orchestra.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you, red-link-filler! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Merge with Saint Petersburg Academic Symphony Orchestra? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks both! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) GA, well deserved! GA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Good job! Good job cleaning up Internalization, especially shorting down the study. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 12:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Merry Christmas Merry Christmas May your Christmas sparkle with moments of love, laughter and goodwill, May the year ahead be full of contentment and joy, May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow, Merry Christmas To U & Ur Family. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012 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) 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Seasons greetings... Happy Holidays 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 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 December 2012 News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire Featured content: Battlecruiser operational Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks! Hi Nikki; thanks for the review. I believe I sorted out the publisher issue. Let me know if it needs more work. ceranthor 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC) The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed Hi Nikkimaria. I am the creator and maintainer of the above article, and I respectfully disagree with an edit you made. I don't see the purpose of deleting an interesting piece of trivia that the majority of the cast earlier appeared together in another popular film. After your edit the paragraph is just a listing of several actors whose names mean nothing to Western audience. I have restored to article to the way I had written it. Goganess (talk) — comment added 07:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Could you help me? Hi Nikki! Could I please ask you to source-review fluorine? I've done some tedious work to check every ref (contents and formatting), but I'm not sure if anything has been missed. Could you please take a look at the formatting? If it takes time, is delayed, or you totally can't, that's no problem, but please let me know. Thanks!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) I'd suggest adding citations for paragraph-ending sentences currently lacking them, such as "Fluorosurfactants are a small segment in mass but are significant economically because of very high prices". Special:BookSources/978817141418, Special:BookSources/9780306646108 and Special:BookSources/9780444521763 all return error messages, and Checklinks reports three link problems. You shouldn't mix templates from {{cite}} and {{citation}} families (be sure to check the infobox refs, which are hosted elsewhere). Use a consistent date format (ex FN6 - all ref numbers as of this version). FN25 lacks publisher. You don't need access dates for GBooks links, but can include them if you choose. FN46 is broken. Is FN69 meant to be Cambridge University Press? Edition formatting is currently inconsistent ("2nd ed" vs "3 ed"). FN82 is missing italics. Compare FNs 83 and 94 - look for similar examples. FN88 is broken. Check for doubled periods caused by templates (ex. FN106). When you use website names as publishers, be consistent in whether they're capitalized. This appears to be a student-created website. FN168 is missing italics. FN191 is missing volume/issue and pages. Compare FNs 193 and 195 - check for other examples. What makes FN212 reliable given that Lulu.com is a self-publishing company? Compare FNs 219 and 220. Compare FNs 101 and 223. Compare FNs 73 and 280. FN287 is missing publisher. FN317 misplaces publisher as author - there's a specific author that isn't mentioned. I don't have the subject knowledge to see other reliability or comprehensiveness issues, but hopefully you've dealt with that already. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Wow, thank you very much, very fast and productive! Yes, it took me some reasonable time (may have overlooked something, but I'm quite sure about those issues) Starting to fix these now.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Fleming and Baird I see that, fairly predictably, the nationality of Logie Baird was recently changed from Scottish (British) to Scottish without any discussion on the talk page or any consensus being reached. If you are neutral in this discussion as you claim, then I assume you will revert the edit, lock the page and ask for discussion and consensus. Flagators (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I do hope you read my comment at your talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Congratulations The WikiProject Barnstar I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2012 "Military historian of the year" award. We're grateful for your efforts, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks Ian! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you for finding the close paraphrasing Nikkimaria, thanks for finding the close paraphrasing in the BAM article that I promoted to prep, and was in queue when you found it. I was wondering whether you might be able to move the René de Segonzac hook from Prep 2 to Queue 3 to refill it to eight: I think placing it right after the Samuel N. Patterson House hook would be best in terms of balance within that set. (They're the ninth and tenth prep sets I've done in a row; I think I'll take a break once I've replaced the Segonzac in P2.) Please let me know ... and be sure to check the Segonzac before you do move it! Although, if I recall correctly, most of the sources are French ones... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I've moved the hook, just in case it's too late over there — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks Crisco - not that late yet, but had stepped away for some yummy hot chocolate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Temptation, hot chocolate is thy name... and the little bitty marshmallows. I've yet to see those here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I had yummy dirty chocolate. (It's the name of an ice cream flavor here, and was dubbed that because making it is apparently quite messy. Doesn't taste messy, though: just really, really good.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Enough Stop stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC) "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC) It is clear that you are stalking Andy's edits across many articles. I will point out, as clearly and politely as I can, that infoboxes in articles are not "unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" and you are well aware of that. Your behaviour is becoming a matter of concern now and I'd be grateful if would kindly take a step back and try to regain your perspective, please. You are more than capable of making very fine contributions to Wikipedia, but pursuing a vendetta against another editor is a blot on your copybook. Why not try to avoid articles where Andy is editing? If he is wrong about an infobox in a given article, then someone else will surely come along and correct him. If not, then perhaps you should be examining your reasons for reverting his edits so frequently? --RexxS (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your concern, RexxS, but please read the entire quote: Andy's habit of adding infoboxes indiscriminately, against guidelines and even warring them in where others have objected, absolutely qualifies as "related problems on multiple articles", and in many cases extends to "violations of Wikipedia policy". I have not been removing every infobox Andy adds, nor do I pursue a vendetta against him - I have not sought to have him sanctioned, for example, even though his behaviour could certainly warrant it. I am, however, confident in my rationale for reverting him, and feel that doing so in the cases that I am is more helpful to the community than a "blot on [my] copybook". While I certainly understand if you feel the need to continue to support him, might I suggest you extend some advice to him as well? Some of his comments as of late have been rather intemperate, and more civility blocks on good contributors aren't what the project needs at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:Wallace Hartley I was actually working on a slightly different list than I normally do for these edits, Category:Incorrectly_tagged_WikiProject_Biography_articles. *Most* of the entries in that category come from user talk pages, but it appears that that category is also filled with talk pages of pages that are redirected. I should have put a slightly different explanation on it, but I still think the WPBio template doesn't belong there...Naraht (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, but why remove the "merged" template? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Copyvio You wrote on my talkpage: "Please don't do things like this or this again: if you're quoting directly from your source, use quote marks, and do not readd material removed because of close paraphrasing/copyvio concerns." You removed this: Initially ACC adopted a ‘pay-as-you-go’ funding model which collected “only enough levies during the year to cover the cost of claims for that particular year”. In 1999 a ‘fully funded’ model was adopted which meant ACC began collecting enough money during each levy year to cover the lifetime costs of every claim. Since some people are supported by ACC for “30 years or more”, significant reserves had to be generated to fund future costs. The greatest number of words that are a direct copy are this phrase: “only enough levies during the year to cover the cost of claims for that particular year” - 16 words. WP:CP states: "Depending on the context and extent of the paraphrasing, limited close paraphrase may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use; close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article." Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. One of the four factors is Amount and Sustantiality... On this point WP says "In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use." In other words a few sentences out of an entire publication is deemed legitimate. The concept of de minimis also applies. The article goes on to say: "In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." I know you have good intentions - but deleting the paragraph on the basis of 16 trifling words - how do you justify this? Offender9000 22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Simple: exact copying is not the only thing you need to avoid, and the rest of that section was nearly identical in structure and phrasing. Furthermore, WP:Fair use limits that type of usage to quotation, which this was not - you were presenting it as an original wording when it really wasn't. On the same article you also copied or very closely paraphrased other material as well. You need to stop doing that, now, or you're very likely to get blocked, and you've been told at much at your CCI. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Where exactly does it say on the fair use page that fair use is limited to "quotation"? It doesn't say it on this page about fair use. I see that under close paraphrasing it says: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text." Offender9000 01:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC) But you need to base your editing practices on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not necessarily on what our articles say - after all, our articles are not reliable sources. Look at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Acceptable_use: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point...", etc. Compare Wikipedia:Fair_use#Legal_position: "It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)" (my emphasis). See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright ("You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement") and WP:PARAPHRASE ("Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources...If a non-free copyrighted source is being used, it is recommended to use original language and direct quotations, to clearly separate source material from original material"). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC) The sentence: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text" is wikipedia policy. Offender9000 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, but a) "limited" is an issue (the part in question was several sentences, not a few words), and b) no attribution in the text was provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Removing claimed trivia sections Before removing an article section, as you did here to the A cappella article, please check the associated talk page for a discussion on the matter. Deletion wasn't urgent. —ADavidB 03:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I did. You posted that its inclusion wasn't appropriate, and no one else had commented. I'm unsure why you would restore the section when you agree it isn't appropriate, and waiting a day before removing is hardly "urgent". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I used the talk page for collaboration, not 'shooting first and answering any questions later'. What I posted is that I didn't think it was appropriate "in its current form". You acted about 16 hours after my posting in which I sought comment from others. Article discussion doesn't always happen that fast. I restored the section because its silent removal wasn't conducive to discussion or any subsequent reformatting. —ADavidB 07:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I agree I noticed your edit summary here. You are correct and I acknowledge the wisdom of your admonition. Best regards, --My76Strat (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Film lists Lists of credits are common on WP director articles. They are usually not referenced, as the on-screen credits are quite good enough and can easily be verified at multiple sources. To remove a whole section because some of it is unreferenced is unjustifiable. If you're looking for excessive, poor, or irrelevant examples, there are pages which actually have this problem, like the Prequel article, which not only lists every prequel imaginable, but also includes films which aren't prequels, but were mistakenly called such by less-than-rigorous writers in certain published sources. Your efforts might be put to better use there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Except that "Alan Smithee" is not a real person, but a pseudonym. You wouldn't expect the article on John Doe to list every occurrence of that name, would you? Instead it lists only the more notable (and sourceable) usages, as the Smithee article should - relying on reliable secondary sources to inform our list. Pointing to other pages that have problems does not mean that this page has none. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Alan Smithee is an official credit given for specific reasons by the Director's Guild. Every use of it is notable, as it reveals a serious dispute could not be properly worked out on that production. The list allows readers to easily see instances where this occurred. John Doe is not analogous and has nothing to do with it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC) No, every use of it should be discussed in the articles about the specific works in which it was used, as that's where the "dipute" is relevant. The general Smithee article, on the other hand, should not be bloated with every instance. It's more analogous to Doe than to a specific director because there is no specific period/genre/whatever for which this name is applied and the long list of works does not give any significant insight into "Alan Smithee" as a topic (whereas a director's filmography can inform the reader's knowledge of his/her oeuvre). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC) This has nothing to do with specific periods or genres. I don't want to repeat myself, but every use of it is notable, as it reveals a serious dispute could not be properly worked out on that production. A list of this - where the DGA made it official - is what I would expect and want to see on an article such as this. A list of instances of John Doe usage was not officially designated by anyone - it just means the subject's ID is unknown. If you can't see that clear distinction, I'm wasting my time here. To repeat myself one more time, to remove a whole section because some of it is unreferenced, as you did, is unjustifiable. I'm done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC) The DGA made it official on non-films? That seems unlikely, so would need to be sourced. Nevertheless, if you prefer, we can remove the list based on it being trivial, undue weight and without demonstrated significance to the topic - as I said before, while disputes on a particular film are relevant to the article on that film, they are not notable within the context of this pseudonym. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Notice Hi there. I just wanted to let you know about a small discussion here in which you are mentioned. Regards Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 07:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much Thanks for becoming involved in Festivus. The user who keeps reverting you, me, and the world seems to have grabbed onto the page and wants to shake the life out of it. We had a huge revert war on if Festivus is "secular" or "parody" (it's been labeled as secular for years, both here and in major media). When I tried to talk with him on his talk page he ignored me, erased the comments, and reverted again and again. Please stay with the page, as it is one of the top 100 articles viewed on wikipedia (81), and as such an important page it has had a total lack of administration. Randy Kryn 11:26 31 December '12 ==December 2012== You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC) This was in regards to the edit war at Hans-Joachim Hessler. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Interesting approach. Given that there were three people involved, no one near 3RR, and a discussion ongoing on the talk page, it might have been better to simply protect the article for a while. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I'm not completely endorsing the block, but given that you are an admin, Nikki, I guess that protecting the page wouldn't have worked. Just some thoughts. — ΛΧΣ21 18:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Seems entirely consistent with the craziness that seems to have overwhelmed Wikipedia over the Christmas period. Maybe some people need to be a little less liberal with the brain juice? Anyway, I'm sure you've got better things to do over the next 24 hours than pay any attention to this place. Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I've reverted your last edit and restored the article to 12th December, before this bout of edit warring. It happens to be one of Andy Mabbett's edits, before you point that out, but I assure you that's coincidence and no more. re the infobox issue – this is one of the clearest cases of edit warring I've seen and the blocks of both of you are thoroughly deserved and warranted as preventative. I don't know your edit history, but Andy Mabbett certainly knows better. Get some consensus or project guidelines sorted out before this sort of simplistic "Any infoboxes are wrong and must be removed" campaign, let alone by edit-warring to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Mark, I'm not sure if this will carry any weight, but I would like to ask (as a personal favour, if you wish) if you would unblock both Nikki and Andy. I am trying hard on the talk page Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler to find some common ground and I don't think the edit-war is likely to continue. You have my assurance that I limit myself to a strict 1RR in every case, so there is no danger of me exacerbating the situation further, and both Nikki and Andy will be certain of the consequences of editing the article further before consensus on the talk page. Thanks in advance for any consideration you are able to make of my request. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I looked in to the 'pedia yesterday and the first thing I encountered was madness. I looked in today and the first thing I encountered was more madness. I'm leaving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)