Dear Nikkimaria, would you please consider doing an image review for the article Pepi I Meryre, which is currently at FAC ? The article has been posted there a while ago and as received only one text review so far, so I am worried about it failing for want of reviews, in particular image and source ones. Thank you.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue VIII, August 2020 Headlines Albania report: Wikivoyage edit-a-thon - Editing Albania and Kosovo’s travel destinations Brazil report: Open innovation and dissemination activities: wrapping up great achievements on a major GLAM in Brazil Czech Republic report: First Prague Wiki Editathon held in Prague Estonia report: Virtual exhibition about Polish-Estonian relations. Rephotography and cultural heritage Germany report: KulTour in Swabia and 8000 documents new online India report: Utilising Occasion for Content donation: A story Netherlands report: WMIN & WMNL collaboration & Japanese propaganda films Serbia report: Enriching Wiki projects in different ways Sweden report: Free music and new recordings of songs in the public domain; Autumn in the libraries; Yes, you can hack the heritage this year – online! Uganda report: Participating in the African Librarians Week (24-30 May 2020) UK report: Spanish metal and ... USA report: Wiknic & Black Artists Matter & Respect Her Crank WMF GLAM report: Wikipedia Library, new WikiCite grant programs, and GLAM office hours Calendar: September'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.

Hey Nikkimaria, is there by any chance you could restore Fagerbakke's "Personal life" section back in the article again? because I've been constantly requesting it in the talk page to be restored back in the article again. But no matter how many sources I keep on providing to help restore it, they still won't add it back. I was just curious if you could restore it back? If that's ok? I've been trying hard to provided the best sources I could, but they still won't count, as I've been told. 2600:1000:B046:332A:9843:9F32:493E:74 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, are you talking about this sentence, or something else? Just wanted to clarify because that content wasn't in the infobox. Also, it looks like the first of the two sources in your most recent request on talk is a dead link - do you have a replacement? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there were some other ones I found, but I've been having trouble trying to show them on the talk page. whenever I tried to post it, I keep getting this message saying that it's been disallowed. So I don't know what other replacment source I could find, because those were the only best ones I can find for now. Until you told me it's a dead link.

P.S. I actually ment to say "article" not "infobox", I just made a mistaje in my typing. And yes, I do mean that same sentance as before. But does the Hollywood Reporter count? Here:https://www.hollywood.com/general/actor-bill-fagerbakke-splits-from-wife-59442806/ 2600:1000:B051:E1A8:C435:632A:39C8:C30C (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great link because its source is TMZ, which often publishes rumours. Given that the subject is a living person we generally need stronger sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Filmreference.com"? Because that one actually shows his info of his marriage to her and his two daughters. The problem is, I can't share the link here because it won't allow me to post it. That source is currently used as the source for his date of birth in the article. 2600:1000:B06D:53A0:5DF9:6786:3966:5D9C (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that that source names his wife, but it doesn't appear to discuss the divorce information that you're wanting to add? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.9.108 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, your change has been disputed, and you've restored it twice. Please take it to the template's talk page to explain your rationale and discuss. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my external link on Neutral Milk Hotel and wrote "See WP:ELNO," but after reading I fail to see why the link is not valid. It certainly gives more information about the band than what is written on the Wikipedia page. TheThingy ^Talk 02:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an open wiki. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you very much for forwarding my application for access to Springer Nature journals. I seem to have easy access to all articles in all publications save one—Scientific American—also listed under "Nature Research journals" at the Springer Nature website'.

As it happens, I am discussing a rewrite of the lede for Anthropic Principle with another editor who wishes to simplify the lead. I believe our views mesh, but I wish to be carful to avoid compromising accuracy. I am familiar with Scientific American—it would be a great resource for improving ledes.

Scientific American has published dozens of articles related to the 'anthropic principle. I'd like to get clues from these articles to help express a competent summary in the lede.

I can not find an appropriate link at Springer Nature to ask for assistance. Am I missing something? I may be able to get access through my local library—closed now by the pandemic. Do you have any suggestions? — Neonorange (Phil) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neonorange, looks like because that resource has a different base URL to the rest of the journals, it's not getting picked up properly by the proxy. I've reported that on Phabricator. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! If you ever need unskilled help at the Library Card, please call on me. — Neonorange (Phil) 22:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, is it ok to keep "fourth oldest person ever" without a reliable source? The "editor" with the IP address 141 126 101 68 has added this on many occasions and it has been reverted by myself and others as many times. MattSucci (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an interim step you could tag it {{citation needed}}, but if no source is forthcoming it should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article cites "Adams 2010" but there is no such reference in the bibliography. Can you please add? Thanks, Renata (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renata , I do not know what source was intended there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there by any chance you coukd respond to this talk page request I made here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Angelis#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_September_2020_2, because there's a mistake in the article I wantee to be fixed so badley abd it still hasn't been corrected yet. 2600:1000:B033:2B98:94F3:F07E:BD35:DC86 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please care to tell us where you are reverting the find a grave links on Baden-Powell grave. --Bduke (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is being discussed on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes it clear. --Bduke (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179 Online events: Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebratiaon: Women in STEM Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hey I saw you removed climate change from the Japan article. I added it again as it is quite an important subject and just explains a bit about how climate change affects japan and the goals of the government. Finn.reports (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finn.reports, please don't do that - the topic is already covered in the Environment section. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is barely anything about climate change. I just think that it is important to add climate change and talk about the goals of the japanese government and the effects of climate change in japan. It is a pretty important topic as it has big effects on japanFinn.reports (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not covered in the environment section. It doesn’t say anything about the goals of the Japanese government concerning climate change and what the effects are for japan. So a little section for climate change is needed as it is an pretty important subject for japan and any other country. Finn.reports (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not really covered in the environment section. There is nothing about the goals of the Japanese government or the effects of climate change in japan. It is an pretty important subject so I don’t get why it can’t be added to the page. Finn.reports (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your copyedit at the BBQ page--but I always had the impression that the "proper" way was the other way around. What's the relevant MOS guideline on this? Thanks Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingoflettuce, you're talking about this edit? The relevant guideline is MOS:SEAOFBLUE - see this recent discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks a lot. Makes sense but gee, never knew till now! That actually saves me the effort 😆 Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my Hubert Laws contribution to "Amazing Grace" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyScholar (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ScottyScholar, many many many people have recorded some rendition of that song, so we can't include every single one of them in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted cause of death here. For whatever reason. The page had been somewhat improved by me because I came over from the list of prominent Covid deaths that exists. There the person got an entry, so is notable. Did a good job, bad job? I'm not sure what to say, honestly I don't think you did. Fix it. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.72.62 (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, please see the template documentation regarding the appropriate use of that parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had, after all I added the Infobox. Template:Infobox_person/doc#Blank_template_with_all_parameters, service for you:
death_cause = < should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability >

Mr. Mwalwanda is on the List of deaths due to COVID-19, had been servant (UN and state) and economist, but no high-ranking politician or businessman. The entry 'death_cause' is relevant inasmuch as his life was cut short because of Covid, it had a significant impact. Quite some people listed actually got articles in WP for that fact. How to measure 'notability' objectively? Usually not so many doctors, state servants, teachers, care takers etc., even actors, artists, influencers get included. I'm alright with it, doesn't hurt anybody. Probably an expression of Zeitgeist that we add them now. ppl might want to read about them to remember this tragic event, so they may become notable to us (literally, we notice them) first and foremost for having perished in this pandemic, sadly.

Whatever, this data entry you deleted is practical, to compile infos/listings e.g. of those deceased thanks to that nasty bugger. I do understand the point, others like to include religion, marriages a.o., sth I myself consider rather kept in the article as personal info. One can argue it is irrelevant to have 'death_cause' in infoboxes, but the entry is to be read automated by a script, the data value is caught. In that particular case (roughly 1 mill confirmed perished already) it may not be so smart to purge it. The info might or might not be included in meta data too. But you do not want to parse whole text for e.g. 'died', 'covid', 'infection', if it can be avoided. Is where defined data entries shine. My intention is to better keep a redundancy. Consider this.

To set things straight − I am not angry or whatever, far from it, but I'm still wondering what you do such deletions for. Nonetheless I assume good faith, greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.74.190 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, if your primary concern is completeness of data for automated scraping, I would suggest using Wikidata instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NantucketHistory (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NantucketHistory, see the explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for sharing that link. I also see this there: "A grave stone is a reliable PRIMARY source for saying what the text that appears carved on the stone is. As with all primary sources, I would be cautious about using it for anything else" -- I am citing the date of birth and date of death, which are on the gravestone -- ??? NantucketHistory (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NantucketHistory, I've added a better source for this information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really great source! It has more information not contained within the article. Thank you for finding this Nikkimaria. NantucketHistory (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three images were downloaded onto Commons and used in the article this past June, the source being http://www.acolumbinesite.com/. I went looking into the sourcing for the one with Brooks Brown but now I think all of them are lacking the proper permissions and the permissions seem...well, to not be quite right. AColumbineSite's FAQ states

• Can I use photographs from your website for my school report/documentary/news production/etc.

Yes, you can, provided your work is NOT for profit. As far as I'm aware, everything here is public domain

But then the editor who uploaded the photos onto Commons claims that

• File:Eric-Harris-Little-League.jpg...This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Richardson Elementary School.
• File:Dylan-Klebold-with-Brooks-Brown.jpg...This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Sue Klebold.
• File:Eric-Harris-1999-Yearbook.jpg...This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. (Author being Columbine High School)

I nominated the Brooks Brown photo for deletion because of the permission issues but am now thinking that all three should be nominated to go...but am I wrong on this? Anyway, would appreciate someone with more expertise - such as yourself - to look into the situation. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shearonink, it would depend on what basis that FAQ claims everything is public domain. If those credited authors really did release the images then it'd be fine, but we'd need some proof of that - at the moment we don't have it. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So should I nom all three for deletion? The individual claims of permission seem to be made up out of whole cloth... Shearonink (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nommed the other two. No responses at any of the three, including the Brooks Brown image... Shearonink (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Hello, the Biblioteca Marciana was promoted at FA, and I want to thank you for all of your time in reviewing the images and helping me to resolve the problems. Kind regards, Venicescapes (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and congrats on the FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I'm learning how to contribute to Wikipedia and appreciate your guidance on my contributions to the article of Jenner. Would just like some of your help on how I could better improve some things I did say, because I believe adding information about Jenner's relationships are important to the article and notable about her life. Thanks, Emilywillingham (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emilywillingham, I'd suggest having a read of our policy on biographies of living people, particularly the section on sourcing. We really want to avoid having material in these articles with questionable or tabloid sources. (I will mention that there are other parts of the article that unfortunately don't meet that standard at this point, it's not just your contribution that is concerning). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you've been removing my content from Amelia Earhart's "in popular culture" section, citing "unreliable sources". I can understand how the Wikia source could be seen as unreliable but how was my IMDb source unreliable? I'm not a veteran editor by any means so, if you can explain that to me in a way that makes sense, I'll take your word for it and drop it. DaveA2424 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaveA2424, take a look at WP:RS/IMDB and this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okiedokie, I accept that. It sucks though that it's such a hassle to add content to a page. Every word you write has to be sourced, but only certain kinds of source are allowed. Like, in my situation, it's frustrating because I've literally played the video game I'm talking about so I know my information to be true but I can't add it because of this reason or that reason. But I digress. Have a nice day. DaveA2424 (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would a link to a YouTube video literally showing the quote be considered a reliable source? I'm really not sure how much more valid it can get than that. DaveA2424 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DaveA2424, that would be a primary source, and in the context of "in popular culture" entries, current consensus is that that is not sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've re-added the content that you removed but with what I believe to be a more reliable source that isn't from a wiki or IMDb and isn't a primary source. You can take a look and see if it's acceptable in your eyes. If not, I really don't understand this website. DaveA2424 (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have revert my edit. Thanks for the reminder. But, did you read the article or the reference that i type? Griffith reference is only one source and the journal was deleted on the source. The journal was also only book review of the book that i cited, so i think what i cite is more valid that the previous reference. I add the readable link also and it was the same book. May you reconsider your revert? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agus Damanik (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agus Damanik, it was the same book but not the same edition, meaning that all of the other references to that book would need to be changed as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue IX, September 2020 Headlines Brazil report: Wikidata birthday celebrations, Wiki Loves Monuments, new partnerships and more! Colombia report: GLAM and virtual education France report: AAF training course; Workshops in Strasbourg; European Heritage Days: Rennes; Wiki Loves Monuments Germany report: Ahoy! Wikipedians set sail to document the reality of modern seafaring Indonesia report: New GLAM partnerships on data donation; Commons structured data edit-a-thon Norway report: Students taking on GLAM Wiki women in red Sweden report: Musikverket: more folk music and photos; Hack for Heritage 2020; Wiki Loves Monuments; Wikipedia in the libraries; Digital Book Fair on Wikipedia UK report: National Lottery; Khalili Collections USA report: Virtual events MetFashion, 19SuffrageStories, WikiCari Festival and more Open Access report: New publication about access to digitised cultural heritage WMF GLAM report: Launching Wikisource Pagelist Widget Calendar: ctober's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

	The Original Barnstar
	For your massive improvement of the problematic Disney family article. Theroadislong (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why do my links to find a Grave keep getting deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.241.109 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, because the links you are adding do not appear to provide a benefit. See WP:EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

Hello Nikkimaria, I recently saw your review of my FA nomination of Stephen Dee Richards and how it did not pass because of the issues you listed. I have addressed most of those issues as the following:

• "The Old West's Ted Bundy" Bolding- Removed bold
• "Kearney County Murderer" issues- Added source and name to infobox
• "seeking his fortune" quote- Issue with minor copy-editing from GA reviewer fixed as it is not a quote
• "Richards would become notorious by way of a posthumous biography" claim- Richards was notorious during the period he was still alive

• This claim is still in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded statement.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "about $19,855 as of 2020" - Most roundups of money as far as I have seen in FA articles are not sourced

• If I saw those I would question them as well, as they should be sourced not only for verifiability but also to make clear how the conversion was being made. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of reference should I use to round up the money value?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did you use to create the given statement? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the original amount, I used the source provided. The adjusted amount was done through a website that adjusts money for inflation. Not sure I can cite it though.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a reliable site, you can. If it isn't, you probably shouldn't be using it in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of sites that might be reliable enough to cite. The best is In2013Dollars.com, which give a more accurate explanation of the adjusted money.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "This would be the only confirmed photograph of Richards. " and Skull location - Very similar to Begotten canceled releases, this is a deliberately open-ended information

• ... which still needs citing, otherwise it approaches being OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will remove it then.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Short cites would benefit from being formatted for human readers- I am not sure what you mean...

• Rather than using an abbreviated anchor like "NYTimes", it would be more appropriate to actually spell this out as "New York Times". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a more general point than that particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning it applies to all shortened cites right? And should I italicize all newspaper publications when sourcing them in sfn format--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, and I'd strongly suggest including the normal spacing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article relies quite heavily on contemporary newspaper accounts - do later sources corroborate their claims?- Richards is mostly forgotten and largely unreported in modern-day society, I should probably address that in the Legacy section
• FN23: page?- Added page number
• Be consistent in whether authors are presented first or last name first- I am not sure what you mean...

• If you have a source authored by John Smith, you can present that citation as either "John Smith (year). Title" etc or "Smith, John (year). Title" etc. But you should pick one or the other and do it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it now.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For articles without a byline, it isn't necessary to specify Anon.- Fixed
• How are you ordering Sources?- Alphabetically by Last name, Anon's are done by date

• This is not done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranged reference list to sort periodicals by date published.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the ordering of books is still not consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For multi-edition works be sure to include edition statement for version cited- Done

• This is not done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 or 3 books that are multi-edition, fixed it to include editions.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books- Looking over the book citations I do not see any of them that list the location
• Ramsland 2006: link provided gives a different publisher- Fixed citation

• This does not appear to have changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally corrected the problem--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Copy editing- I am still looking for a good copy editor to help me out with that
• File:Stephen D. Richards Hanging, Nebraska, 1879.jpg- It is in the commons as the template states on its page, buidhe overlooked that

--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an image that I personally photographed in Israel is being questioned for copyright at Template:Did you know nominations/Hadassah (dancer). Are you familiar with copyright law in Israel for outdoor street art? Images of this and similar street art portraits are posted at Solomon Souza and Mahane Yehuda Market#Artwork. Thanks for any enlightenment you can provide. Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the relevant guideline (on Commons): COM:FOP Israel? Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yoninah, Israel does have freedom of panorama for 3D and "applied" 2D works, but not so far as I'm aware for artistic 2D works, unfortunately. There is a provision for fair use in Israeli copyright law, or since the artist in this case is known, perhaps there could be a release of some kind? (after ec) Yes, that's the applicable guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The Mahane Yehuda Market is an outdoor public area, and the municipality arranged for this artwork as a public service. Won't this qualify for 2D works? If not, what do I have to do to get permission from the artist to freely license my pictures? Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the distinguishing factor for applied vs artistic is whether it has a functional purpose beyond being artwork - for example, if it were an ad for a particular store that would qualify, but this doesn't seem to be that?

When you say the municipality arranged for this artwork, do you mean they commissioned it? In that case they might hold copyright. If the copyright is still held by the artist, you'd need to get them to follow the process at WP:CONSENT (or the Commons equivalent). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In The Maid of Orleans (opera), you replaced an image related to the opera by one showing the composer. Project opera promotes images related to the opera in the top position, and an image of the composer only if none is available. Consider self-reverting. If not, please explain, and restore the other image to the opera article where it was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the other image is appropriately licensed for use, in either position. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

now I know, - can you please inlcude some hint, such as "license?" next time because my ability in mind-reading is limited? - GRuban, what do think about File:Jeanne d'Arc portrait.jpg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I think she is right. This says it is a photo of a 1986 Swedish poster, so will generally be copyrighted for 70 years after author's death, or if anonymous 70 years after publication, so 2056 at least. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Sweden has the details. She didn't nominate the image for deletion on Commons, but I think I should. Nikkimaria, if you have some reason it shouldn't be nominated for deletion on Commons, please do say, but otherwise I'm just going to assume it's "didn't get around to it", and will do the nomination. Though there is something to be said for explaining one's reasoning for removing the image in the edit comment, yes. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know HOI4 content is generally considered content unfit for Wikipedia as most people are not aware of the content of mods. However, Bill Hammons himself has acknowledged his prescence in Red World numerous times and is in contact with numerous mod devs. Therefore, I think this fits according to Wikipedia's policies on notoriety.

Thanks, 73.234.135.49 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - my initial objection was to the sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria, It has been a while since I have talked about the article on Begotten. I Just want to let you know that I have been working with Brandt Luke Zorn to try and get it up to FA status before it is renominated. I was wondering if you could give me your assessment if you think it is ready for renomination?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick look, there are still sources I would question should I be doing a source review of this at FAC. I would suggest you take a look through and consider what your response would be for each source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the sources, I did find some that might be considered questionable. I am going to list my response to each one here (If I missed any please let me know):

• 'Muzzleland Press- This was highlighted as questionable during the first FA review. I will remove it. Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nightmare on Film Street (NOFSPodcast.com)-Semi-professional editorial, interviews, and film review site. It is rather difficult assessing this one as it might be self-published or maybe not.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• UltraCulture- Professional editorial/interview website run by author/journalist Justin Louv, who interviewed Merhige in 2015. The site is under a registered and copyrighted organization Ultraculture Incorporated. Looking into it, I found more information on Louv, specifically on his website http://jasonlouv.com/

It gives information such as radio interviews, podcasts, speaking events, and his past journalistic endeavors for Vice, and Boing Boing. I am not sure if it confirms the reliability of the interview with Merhige, but it does give more room to suggest the possibility.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SmellsLikeScreenSpirit- Although the site is now dead, the archived information leads me to suggest that it was legitimate. Due to the site no longer existing, it is difficult to find out about its reliability and I do not know how to go about doing that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com- Originally served as a placeholder till I found the book the information was from, I found it now, and as such this source has been removed from the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• '13thFloor- Questionable and will remove.

--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that a source is legitimate, great, but I'm gonna need a bit more information about why that's the case! I also see some other questionable sources, eg. Reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made more progress with the sources now. SmellsLikeScreenSpirit has been removed and replaced by a more reliably sourced interview (CHUD.com). The Nightmare on Films Street site I have looked into and found that they are a branch off of Bloody Disgusting's network.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria, You removed the find a grave link to William McIntosh in the External Links section of this article. The information you deleted does not seem to be redundant, and might be regarded as useful. Could you explain your reasoning? Gulbenk (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulbenk , I don't agree that it is useful to an understanding of the article topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I'm not sure whether you saw my ping here, but it's clear that there is some significant close paraphrasing, if not copyvio, in the Marian Anderson article, which was unfortunately not found during the article's GA review. Now it's at DYK, and the nomination has run into trouble because of what's been found so far. What I'm wondering is how severe this is overall. If what's been found is the basic extent of it, then this can go forward. If there's more of it, then the article probably needs a reassessment. Can you please take a look and see how much of a problem this is? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, with the disclaimer that I haven't gone through in a great level of detail and don't have access to some of the sources to try: there is some concerning closeness with a different NYT piece cited earlier in the article's history, but nothing stands out as being obvious copyvio outside of the sources identified. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, and doing so very quickly, Nikkimaria. Can you please let me know which NYT piece was the other one? There are quite a few uses of NYT articles in the reference list, and it would save a lot of time to know which one was involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one. It also looks like several other sources than just the WCSU one have copied from our article, including myblackhistory, Hollywood Walk of Fame, and this book. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I appreciate the link. I'm not able to see exactly what concerned you with this one, so if you could please post the phrase(s) or location info of the Keiler issues to the DYK nomination template, I'd appreciate it. The earlier places, plus another found by Yoninah since then, have been worked on, and it makes sense to get yours taken care of as well. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your welcome! I noticed that you reverted the edits I made to the Aragorn and Arwen articles. I just reviewed the guidelines here on linking to external websites, and was wondering if you would be willing to point me to which specific policy you believe was violated? I wouldn't add links to random fansites, but believed links to the LotR wiki would be acceptable given its size and wide usage. Thanks! Bitterhand (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bitterhand, specifically WP:ELNO. If you disagree with my removal, you're welcome to raise the issue at the external links noticeboard, which is a venue for the discussion of disputed external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you said that my addition to the article on Guy Fawkes Night did not require a new section. I can understand why you said that. I looked for a place in the existing structure to add it, but could not find it.

I feel that its non-observance in York especially and, to a lesser extent, other parts of Yorkshire is a significant fact and would be of interest to many readers. (On a personal note, I can remember being told by a teacher at junior school in Wakefield that we didn't burn guys in Yorkshire.) Is there somewhere else that it can go in the article? It is just two sentences. Can it not be fitted in somewhere else?

Thanks. Epa101 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epa101, I'm not convinced the sentence about the specific school warrants inclusion at all. With regards to the preceding sentence, does the source give any more detail? For example, was it once a tradition that has declined more recently, or is the nonobservance consistent throughout history? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. This is the entry from the Arnold Kellett (2002) source for the word guy:

guy effigy, esp when paraded round by children ('A penny for the guy!') and then burnt on a bonfire. The term comes from the first name of the notorious Yorkshireman, Guy Fawkes, now one of the most overworked words in the English language, mainly in the USA, where it can refer to any person, male or female. A guy is not burnt at St Peters School, York, where Guy Fawkes was a pupil, nor usually at Scotton where he lived, and in former times guys were not burnt in certain other places, such as Wakefield.

That doesn't say very much more than what I wrote in my edit, but I thought that I'd paste it anyway so that you can see for yourself. Cheers. Epa101 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Does the entry provide any sources for this content? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no.  :) Epa101 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other sources available that elaborate? If this is the only source that mentions it I'd be inclined to leave it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

You removed the link to Find a Grave from the external links section of Bruno Bertagna. You cited “EL” which doesn’t tell us much. I see nothing under EL “ Links normally to be avoided” that would suggest this use of Find a Grave is improper. In fact it supplies burial info not otherwise found in the article, which is specifically cited as a reason for including a Find a Grave in external links. As we are told on the entry for the Find a Grave template HERE:

To comply with WP:ELNO, only place [the Find a Grave template] in External links section if the website contains unique information not already mentioned and cited in the body of the article and is not a WP:COPYLINK violation. Remove from External links if Find a Grave is already cited in main body, if burial information is provided in main body by a more reliable source, or if the page contains any unlicensed copyrighted information (e.g., professional portrait photography or copies of obituaries from a newspaper). [Emphasis added]

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bmclaughlin9, as explained at Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites, this is rarely an acceptable external link, as it fails several elements of ELNO. In this particular case the burial location is readily verifiable with more reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe that is true. I search very hard for burial info before adding a Find a Grave template to EL. I’d love to see you add that info. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“US” after city, state is not a requirement of WP:MOS and further isn’t consensus for infobox templates for baseball, basketball, football and NCAA coaches. That’s why I removed them. Rikster2 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2, "not required" is not in itself a rationale for removal. What is your argument against including this information, which helps readers from outside the US identify these locations? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have not read the second part of what I wrote - also not consensus for these templates. The nationalities of the subjects are (or should be) spelled out in the lede and are easily deciphered in context. Take a look at the template documentation for Template:Infobox college coach – the example doesn’t list “US.” There is a reason for this. The infobox is a small space and over the years it’s been determined that this information just isn’t worth the real estate, By the way, the basketball infobox template drops country for Canadian and Australian provinces as well. If you are looking to add country to a relative handful of cases, you should probably look to obtain consensus at the template talk page as this creates a new standard of consistency. Rikster2 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2 is correct regarding the standard practice for these templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2, could you please provide a link to where consensus was established not to include country? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the template for the basketball biography template with a link to the original consensus discussion. You added US to Charlie Hoag (and others) against that consensus. I will look for the discussions on the other templates. Rikster2 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The linked discussion shows two in favour and two opposed - not really something that could be described as a consensus for mandating a particular style. Will see what else you find. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a consensus backed up by years and 1000s of articles and if you think it is weak and are interested in going against it you should try to form a consensus to the contrary. Rikster2 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything stronger to show for the other articles in which you reverted, which use other templates? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to User:Jweiss11 as he is much more involved in college coach and football articles. I also posted the question on the WP:BASEBALL to see if there is formal consensus and tagged you in it. If there isn’t then certainly you are within your rights to add “US.” On basketball, it’s in the template documentation so adding it needs a discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, you're editing disruptively now on this subject. You must a build a new consensus to overturn the prevailing standards for these infoboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11, you've not been able to provide any evidence that a consensus exists on this matter. It is far more common for biographical articles to include this information, which helps non-US readers who are not familiar with US geography. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus exists in the examples used in the template documentation and in the prevailing standards used on thousands of articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11, as I said, there are thousands of articles that do include this. The template documentation doesn't give explicit instruction one way or the other. Do you have any links supporting a consensus against inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the specific infoboxes in question, virtually 0% out of tens of thousands of articles use the "US". The template documentation indeed gives explicit instruction by virtue of the examples. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An example which may or may not have been constructed in a specific way is not an explicit instruction. There are literally tens of thousands of articles that do use "US". What is your reason not to do so? What makes these particular biographies uniquely suited to not doing so? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly testify that the example at Template:Infobox college coach was constructed in a specific way, because I was of the editors who constructed it based on standards reached from discussion and collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. The subject matter here is inherently North American, and in most cases inherently American. The tens of thousands of articles that do use "US" employ infoboxes with more global applicability, e.g. Bill Clinton. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you point to discussions demonstrating a consensus around this specific issue? And no, it is not true either that using "US" is limited to "global" articles or that these articles are in any way inherently American. This is a global encyclopedia written for global readers, and that's true whether you're writing about a president or a college coach. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. Go look at MOS:TIES. All these infoboxes by definition are for athletes who are strongly connected to the United States and therefore should comply with formal written American English. And formal written American English is (1) concise and (2) uses U.S., not US. When it's clear in context that the article's subject is an American (because it's stated in the first paragraph of the article), there is no need to add US in every infobox. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're writing here for an international audience, meaning that we should aim to make articles accessible to all readers. TIES in no way precludes providing that context. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your tireless review work. I am specifically thinking of ACR and FAC image reviews, but this is only scratching the surface of your contributions. I don't know how you do it all, but it is all much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is regarding this edit. According to the template documentation, the |birth_name= parameter can be used if it differs from the |name= parameter. In the article John Witherspoon (actor), it is clearly mentioned and sourced that the subject changed his surname from "Weatherspoon" to "Witherspoon". I believe it should reflect in the infobox as per the template doc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk - sorry, that was my error. I've restored it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant genus names (L–P)/archive1 I've got a request to "standardize" the format to either mention the country or not ... "Portland, OR, US" vs. "New York, NY". Looking at a bunch of recently promoted FACs and FLCs (other than this one), I don't see anyone asking for "New York, NY, US" ... is "New York, NY, US" ever required at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Technically both OR and NY shouldn't be used unless you're employing a specific citation style that requires that usage, per MOS:POSTABBR. If you were using such a style I'd advise you to refer to that style guide for guidance on this point. If not, the question comes down to consistency: you'll sometimes see just "New York City" on the basis that people likely know where that place is, but in this article you've got "Chicago, US" which is along similar lines, so I'd weigh the consistency argument in favour of including it for all locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apologies ... I guess I should have learned this stuff long ago. In recently promoted FACs, I'm seeing a lot of "Chichester, West Sussex" etc. without a mention of country ... I think I'm more comfortable with that. Thanks for setting me straight. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, you can do that too, it just needs to be consistent. When I'm looking at that article, I'm wondering why you would include a country and no state for Chicago, and a state but no country for NYC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fixed already? If not let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue X, October 2020 Headlines AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: Wikipedia in African Libraries Project Brazil report: Abre-te Código hackathon, Wikidata related events and news from our partners Finland report: Postponed Hack4FI GLAM hackathon turned into an online global Hack4OpenGLAM France report: Partnership with BNU Strasbourg Germany report: Coding da Vinci cultural data hackathon heads to Lower Saxony India report: Mapping GLAM in Maharashtra, India Indonesia report: Bulan Sejarah Indonesia 2.0; Structured data edit-a-thon; Proofreading mini contest Netherlands report: National History Month: East to West, Dutch libraries and Wikipedia New Zealand report: West Coast Wikipedian at Large Norway report: The Sámi Languages on wiki Serbia report: Many activities are in our way Sweden report: Librarians learn about Wikidata; More Swedish literature on Wikidata; Online Edit-a-thon Dalarna; Applications to the Swedish Innovation Agency; Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete; Librarians and Projekt HBTQI; GLAM Statistical Tool UK report: Enamels of the World USA report: American Archive of Public Broadcasting; Smithsonian Women in Finance Edit-a-thon; Black Lunch Table; San Diego/October 2020; WikiWednesday Salon Calendar: November'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.

Hi Nikkimaria. I tried to renew my Library access to Fold3 back in September and I see you approved it and sent it off to them, but for some reason my membership there isn't yet active, it just has me as an expired "free" member. I'm reaching out for help :) ♟♙ (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EnPassant, if you go to this page and click on "Access collection" under Fold3, what happens? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That page says "Expires on: Sept. 6, 2021". When I click on it, it asks me to login, and when I do it logs me in, but my membership on my Fold3 account page says "Expired Membership". Something didn't connect, somehow. ♟♙ (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, is this a new way of accessing the collection? The URL is different, so maybe I'm not supposed to log in or something. EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out LOL. ♟♙ (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a proxy-based access instead. So you're in now? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am, thanks again! ♟♙ (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not start edit wars. It may result in you being banned from Wikipedia.

Have a great day. Politialguru (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politialguru, the onus is on you to get consensus for your changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know you don't know me from Adam, but I have [Biblical criticism] undergoing an FA review that is stalling for lack of a source review. The coordinator says they will archive it if it doesn't get more response soon and to go look at frequent reviewers and ask shamelessly! So I am! I see that you are a frequent reviewer, and I read your requirements and have no problem with any of them. You sound tough but I think that's absolutely necessary. I respond quickly, with a good attitude and cooperation - or at least a really good reason for compromise. ((Smiley)) Please come and help get this important article what it needs to be among Wikipedia's best. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk777, it looks like there's already been a source review? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Two people have checked the formatting of references but that's all so far. It requires going to the reference, finding the page that's referenced, and reading to see whether or not the reference actually says something akin to what is claimed in the text. It's tedious and detailed work, and this is a complicated topic, that is still pretty obscure for most. I asked a friend who is a programmer who does detail work all day long, and he did one source, and said he couldn't tell heads or tails what it was saying or if the text was accurate and didn't feel like he could do any more. It was a direct quote, but it was two sentences out of a paragraph and it lost him. The things we know seem so obvious to us, but to others, not so much. I appreciated that he was willing to make the effort. Just as I would appreciate anything you felt like doing. A review of ten sources - heck, one - would be more than there is so far. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why are you removing the location parameter from references? This is valuable information, both for identifying references and evaluating their context. —Michael Z. 04:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mzajac, the rest of the article's citations omit the parameter, so I removed them here to maintain consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent style doesn’t seem like any reason to permanently delete valuable data. Where does the idea come from? Is there a guideline supporting this? —Michael Z. 14:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is featured, one of the criteria of which is that it uses a consistent citation style. Additionally, I wouldn't agree that in a typical case the location is valuable, so long as the publisher is known (excepting a few ambiguous cases). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is consistent citation format. Presence or absence of data is not style. Are you going to remove editor and second and third authors because not all books have those? Of course not. I am adding them back. Please don’t do this any more. —Michael Z. 01:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, please don't edit-war. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t intend to. Your interpretation of the guideline is mistaken. The guideline clearly explains that it refers to format and not content, and even exemplifies it showing footnote markup, and refers to WP:CITE which shows what info citations typically include, saying “ other details may be added as necessary.” It can’t be much clearer. If you disagree, let’s call an RFC and see what consensus says. In the meantime, please stop deleting valuable data. —Michael Z. 02:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to call an RfC you're welcome to do so, but in the meantime, please leave the status quo in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Mzajac, introducing a difference between content and format is not helpful here. If some citations have locations and others don't, it's simply not consistent. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t introduce the difference. It’s inherent in the concepts. The format is consistent; the data is obviously different because they are different sources! What do you mean “status quo”? You started deleting parts of my edits. I can’t believe we are having this conversation. —Michael Z. 02:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to your edit, the article consistently did not include publication locations for sources of any type. That is what I mean by "status quo". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10#Location, and there is no consensus for your view. Sorry, but you are completely misconstruing the meaning of “format” in the FA criteria. Please call an RFC or otherwise find consensus if you can’t see that. —Michael Z. 03:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got that backwards: you don't have consensus for the change you want to make, so the onus is on you to find consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure adding references with available data is supported by consensus and is not a “change” of consistently formatted inline citations. By the way, I added a source from 1755 that lacks an ISBN. I hope you don’t “reformat” the inconsistent references by deleting all ISBNs before someone launches an FA review. —Michael Z. 17:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will make you feel better about consistency in the article’s citations: I went through and added missing information. —Michael Z. 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, some of your changes were helpful and consistent with the article's established citation style; I thank you for those. Others were neither, and those I have undone, along with making other citation improvements. As previously, you're welcome to start an RfC if you want to seek consensus, whether for changing this particular article's citation style or mandating the inclusion of locations more broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just blew away a lot of work. Please let me know what about it didn’t match the article’s established citation style so I can enter it the way you want. Thanks. —Michael Z. 23:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have already taken the time to sift through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE#Generally considered helpful discusses the difference between citation format and content, and makes this explicit: “The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information.” Please restore the place of publication in the article, and any others where you’ve removed it. —Michael Z. 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citations already provide bibliographic information sufficient to identify the source and so allow for verification. That provision is not intended to require the addition of optional parameters such as location. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two data points are marked “(optional),” and place of publication is not one of them. —Michael Z. 19:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, if you want to start an RfC to make locations globally required you're welcome to do so. But at the moment they are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are globally allowed at the moment. Are you familiar with the phrase about “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin . . .”? —Michael Z. 02:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed != required. If you disagree with the idea that citation style should be consistent within an article, you're welcome to start an RfC on that point as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And !required != banned. Also, content != format/style. —Michael Z. 03:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed they're banned, simply that this article has an established citation style that omits them. Again, if you want to see that change, you have several different RfCs you could pursue. Continuing to post here isn't going to accomplish that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#RFC: Does following style guidelines on consistent citations mean consistent inclusion of “place of publication”?. I tried to ask the simple question without specifics about this article, and without advocating. Let’s see what others think, okay? —Michael Z. 21:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind assistance. FunkMunk and Czar were very helpful.Venicescapes (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm conducting an experiment with a Find a Grave listing for a "famous person" who also has a WP article. The listing has no biographical material, so I've suggested some bare facts (gender, POD, and bio data) to describe the person. I'm curious to see how long the material gets incorporated (e.g., approved by FAG editors) into the listing. And, BTW, I've reviewed the edit history for James Garrard. This was a TFA on June 7, 2013, at which time it had FAG listed in the EL section. And the FAG page did not contain photos of his burial site. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that oversight. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You might ask the editors who worked to make Garrad a GA and FA and TFA – with the FAG EL – if they appreciate your edit. They include admins Acdixon and WOSlinker. (It was WOSlinker who converted the FAG url to the template.)

Also, late last month I suggested some minor edits to the Robert Korda listing. (Korda was an orchestra leader of noteworthy repute. I might work-up a WP article on him.) The suggested edits were approved today. What's the point? Individual FAG users exercise control over the individual listings they manage. (FAG editors control the "famous" person listings.) In this regard FAG exercises more editorial control over its content than WP. With FAG the users provide their e-mail addresses, which are verified before they can edit. (I don't think WP has this safeguard.) With the Robert Korda FAG listing, it is managed by Romper90069. (The data on Romper's FAG edits is generated by FAG, not Romper.) The FAG "community", like most family genealogists, assumes GF.

Back to Garrard, suppose the FAG page on him had a photo of his gravestone, would you still remove the EL? – S. Rich (talk)

I couldn't say without seeing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute! You removed the FAG template link from James Garrard without looking at it? Please don't evade my question – suppose the FAG link did have a gravestone photo, would you still remove it?

I looked at the page that exists; I couldn't say what I would do with a different page, without seeing that page first.

Also, I will posit another question/challenge. Please look at Ray Barker. Prompted by your challenging edits WRT FAG, I searched out and revised much of the article. And I included a FAG link. Did I help improve WP? (Caution, please, my edit—question to you has two "trick" aspects to it.) Thank you so very much for engaging in this talk. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly interested in engaging in "tricks". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I wasn't trying to trick you. Rather I had two points of concern: 1. arlingtoncemetery.net, which is seen on many military related articles, is not a "secure" link and is largely comprised of user contributions. 2. The FAG listing for Ray Barker was contributed by a reputable source – the International War Graves Photography Project. So: 1. what do you think of arlingtoncemetery.net? Is it acceptable for photos of gravesites? Is it acceptable for biographic info? And: 2. does the status of IWGPP, as a FAG user, change your evaluation of FAG? (Again, thank you for engaging in this talk, and for your patience.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "secure" in this context, and do not see a mechanism to log in and contribute to the arlingtoncemetery.net site. On the second question, what leads you to believe IWGPP is reputable?

In this particular case, there's a photo of the gravesite available on Commons, so there's no need to rely on either site for a photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about IWGPP. Here is their FAG contributor page: [1] and here is their website. Another major contributor to FAG is the War graves. These are institutions with huge databases. when you dismiss FAG links without looking beyond the basic source you are dismissing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. – S. Rich (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first profile and website you have posted do not seem to be about the same people, and the second profile provides no information that would lead one to believe their contributions are particularly reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created this 11 years ago, but I don't think it would survive WP:AfD, and it has been edited extensively by a SPA that appears to be the subject. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you with the SPA piece, but I think it would survive. Much of the available sourcing is non-English. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looks like there is no SPA content persisting - the article is almost identical now to what was first posted. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about working up together a general WP:URFA/2020 message (after US Thanksgiving) to be posted across WikiProject talk pages explaining the process and encouraging editors to tune up and comment on FAs, and at URFA/2020? Sort of like what we would do in a FAC newsletter, or FCDW Dispatch, if we still had one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, think that would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it post-turkey and then ping you and other coords, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i know your always being asked to do things...so will ask but with the intent of starting in the new year. Long ago - ten years Aboriginal Canadians passed its GA review....thinking its time to redo the article. Would you be interested in overseeing my edits and perhaps doing an informal review after fixup?--Moxy 🍁 03:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the display of extra large images, as at present on top of BWV 37: I don't think we should have them at all. For whom and what? Everybody needing a pic larger can click on it. IF larger, why not within the infobox? IF any reason for not in the infobox, why not below the infobox? But back to the beginning: I'd go for a normal-size image (not larger than upright=1.3) IN the infobox. IF a specific image should be shown larger (to make detail visible at a glance), it could go to the context in the article body, and a different one could be lead image, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This particular image warrants being larger than is reasonable to display within the template, to allow users to see the detail within it without having to leave the article. Placing it within the template makes that very wide. As for why above vs below, if it were in the infobox it would be nearer the top, so having it at the top rather than below all the content makes it consistent with that expectation. If you have a different lead image to propose I'd be happy to take a look at that, although this one seems quite appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This particular image is in other Ascension cantatas and the Ascension Oratorio without being extra-large. I'd understand better if the details of the image had anything to do with the cantata, or if this was an article about the image. - I don't see what's wrong with the infobox being extra-wide. - As for expectation: a reader expecting an infobox will be disappointed because the pic pushes it out far enough to not being visible without scrolling on my screen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I uploaded the image for BWV 29 (the obbligato organ solo for the sinfonia), I took the opportunity to upload a new image for the ascension, choosing one that seemed appropriate. Since the same image seems to have been used many times for different cantatas, I opted instead for Rembrandt's "Ascension of Christ" from the Munich Pinakothek for BWV 37. I hope this is OK. At the same time, I realised that I had a high resolution image of the sinfonia for BWV 76 (previously used for Organ Sonatas (Bach)), so have included that image for the cantata (it is a 1723 autograph manuscript). Mathsci (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183 Online events: New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Other ways to participate: Help us plan future events Join the conversations on our talkpage Become a member Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you. I currently have an article at FAC at which a user has stated their opposition to a lack of images. I have a number of player images available, such as File:Hardy, Billy.jpg, which I've avoided using because I'm doubtful they would pass under their current licence. You've provided image reviews at a number of my FACs previously, so was hoping to run these by you to get your thoughts? Would they pass as they are? Kosack (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kosack, the US licensing on that image is fine. With regards to the UK licensing, as per the tag, "If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added all I can on the Hardy image. Would this past muster in your opinion? Kosack (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Kosack (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very, very much. You are absolutely the most amazing person. You could have dumped me at any point, but you never quit and never even yelled at me once - which surely you must have felt like from time to time! If this succeeds, I feel as though it is more due to your work than mine, because I could not have done all of this on my own. You are just wonderful, your work is wonderful, and I am a permanent fan. It would be nice to think I could repay the favor someday, but I know the likelihood of me being able to help you with anything is pretty low, but if you ever need a friend, please count me as one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As said in some edit summaries: the opera sidebox which duplicates the navbox, often has a picture of the composer at a "wrong" age, and has no picture related more closely to the opera, is no service to the reader. Could you please NOT restore it for operas mainly edited by VivaVerdi (who is dead so can't object, but before added infoboxes to all Verdi operas) and Voceditenore whose vote is clear? ... while I leave Handel and Offenbach alone, for respect of editor's wishes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I appreciate you don't like these templates, but the TfD found no consensus for their deletion. I would encourage you to restore those you've removed during the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus - at least to me - says exactly that there is no consensus, - not support. While there was support for keeping the template for Handel, I saw nothing of the kind for Donizetti where all the masterworks had infoboxes for years, and the only reason for side navboxes left was my laziness to spend time on the lesser works. I'd hate to go into another round of discussions. Repeating, VivaVerdi opted for infoboxes long ago, and respect for him would - imho - lead to no longer use the so-called "clunky" navbox in articles where he was a main author. Today is Sunday, I enjoyed music and sunshine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of deletion discussions, a "no consensus" finding results in the template being kept. Contrast the other discussions about specific templates, where even when authors opted for using those templates, they were deleted. I don't doubt there will be another round of discussions if you do not restore the templates you've removed, since as a result they are unused. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It being kept doesn't mean "it is useful". No more today. It makes me sick, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you don't feel it's useful; others do. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, please think about the close if it results in this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question: "Why apply that to this one and not to the other?" - this being the opera composer sidebar, the other being the composer navbox: because this has accessibility flaws, and the other is the normal navigation on Wikipedia. I don't mind both in one article, as I have accepted for years, but to deprive readers of the normal and accessible form is not acceptable. Please self-revert your reverts of my reverts. Primefac may be interested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You previously indicated that you felt having both in one article was redundant. However, both are navboxes: if the rationale is that any article linked must include it, then that rationale applies equally to both. See above. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are days when I question my ability to express myself. Trying again: we have two navboxes in a given article. I don't mind. That's what we had for a long time now in the Donizetti article. Not ideal but I let it go. Today, in a rather bold edit, you removed the navbox, added in 1916 and stable, and left the sidebar with its problems of not showing the image to many readers, and occupying space where a more relevant image or an infobox could be. Why? Why not add a more relevant image or an infobox? I reverted your rather bold edit, and you didn't go to the talk. I recommend you self-revert. - Other question: what makes a user a principle editor to an article, in %? [2] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my question would be why this argument does not apply to both cases: side navboxes that had been stable for years were boldly removed, and re-removed after revert with no talk. See above. I'm not sure why one would be more accessible than the other: from my understanding both are not shown on mobile, and if someone has difficulty uncollapsing one that is collapsed I would imagine they'd face the same difficulties with the other. Thank you for explaining that you don't mind having both; I must have misunderstood your previous statements on that topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I would have minded having both, and still left it that way for four years? When I added the navbox I left the sidebar, - you please leave the navbox. I understand that the navbox shows on mobile. All other Donizetti operas, compositions, and the composer have the navbox. I see no reason to make any exception for Pia. Last call. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last call for what? It was in Pia before you posted that. FTR though it does not show, just checked. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I walk my watchlist top to bottom. Thank you. I wanted to undo my edit but you were faster. (edit conflict, twice) - How about Debussy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing the article Bagger 288! Sorry about the random image lol.

Ilikememes128 (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here As Barbas do Imperador. There was more information in the automated infobox. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tetizeraz, it was producing an error - see the title. Also genre should be specified only for fiction works, |subject= is appropriate for non-fiction. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry for being a bit angry. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 07:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas, the template you're adding didn't and doesn't apply. Perhaps you meant to add a different template. Also, if you see a tag being removed and you don't understand why, I would suggest asking rather than templating. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The template I've added noted that the citations were not complete. And in fact they were not. They did not have accesdates or who published them. They require it. If you don't want to be templated, do not remove templates without fixing the problem. People who are "regulars" would know that to be the case. I've re-reverted your recent edit as you have removed the access dates of citations and added unsourced information. That is against WP:OR and WP:RS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas: (1) You added a template claiming that the article contained bare URLs; it did not. As I said, perhaps you meant to add a different template, such as {{incomplete citations}} if your concern was that the citations were not complete. (2) Access dates are not required for sources with a set publication date that does not change; all of the sources currently cited fall into that category. (3) My edit added no content to the article, unsourced or sourced; it only affected citations. Please be more careful in making such claims. (4) Your revert reintroduced errors (eg claiming a publisher of "MedisaSmarts") and actually made citations less complete (eg removing |website=Campaign). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue XI, November 2020 Headlines AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: Launch of Wikipedia in African Libraries Project Pilot Cohort Brazil report: Accessibility through audio descriptions, GLAM tutorials, WikidataCon 2021 and more updates on Brazilian GLAMs Canada report: Taking a tour of CAPACOA workshops and some recent example sets from commons Germany report: German symphony orchestra releases audio samples under free license India report: Re-licensing of content on water & rivers in India Indonesia report: #WikiSejarah WPWP Campaign Netherlands report: Wikipedia and Education, Funding granted for two projects in 2021, KB completes collection highlights project Serbia report: GLAM in Serbia makes important steps in the digitization of cultural heritage Spain report: Edit-a-thons on women scientists and painters Sweden report: Music, UNESCO and Wikidata UK report: Hundreds of Khalili images USA report: Black Lunch Table & Museum Computer Network 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.

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for processing my Wikipedia Library application. I'm sorry but I realize I applied for the wrong collection: Nature instead of Link. Should I "return" the Nature and make a new application for Link, or is there some other procedure to switch it? Thanks! Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, yep, please do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

I thought of both Bach Cantatas Website sources as posts. This is apparently the misunderstanding.

• If Kommt, laßt euch den Herren lehren is a publication, wouldn't the author/date be "David Denicke (1648)" via "Bach Cantatas Website"?
• "Kommt, laßt euch den Herren lehren - Text and Translation of Chorale" might be a better title with "Francis Browne (September 2005)" as translator/date.
• "Chorale Melodies used in Bach's Vocal Works - Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele" might be a better title for the other post.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to get consistent, useful cites. User-duck (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) we have one user who doesn't accept Bach Cantatas Website as a reliable source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User-duck: Fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are WP:FOLLOWING my edits and removing the FindaGrave ELs. Why? Because you are an editor who doesn't like findagrave. And it doesn't matter when the site is posted simply as an interesting and useful link for readers. Here is an example [3]. The particular findagrave link is maintained by Findagrave. That is, FAG has active editorial control of the page. Accordingly it is not WP:SPS in the sense that any FAG contributor can change it. Any data that needs changing must be suggested to FAG -- they review those changes. You ignore the fact that some readers who conduct genealogy via FAG. E.g., they can use the website to locate relatives. (And some readers are interested in their famous relatives with WP articles. For example, someone is interested in Ely's children or grandchildren. FAG is a useful tool in this endeavor. But you are obscuring the starting point. Why? Because you simply don't like FAG, and nothing more. Such edits are WP:BATTLEGROUND in nature, inhibit the WP:ENJOYment of editing, and do nothing to improve the quality of WP articles. Please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your edits; I'm following maintenance categories and searches used to identify links unlikely to meet WP:EL - for example, where there is already an ANC link or image of the grave in the article. You are adding such links at high volume. I understand that you like these links, but current consensus is that they should rarely be used and are almost never reliable. You're welcome to start a discussion aimed at changing that, keeping in mind that recent ELN discussions have reached a similar conclusion. In the interim though, please stop adding these links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to those maintenance categories and searches. I should like to learn what (and how) they provide such useful information. I may use them for my own efforts to improve WP. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example articles that already have a gravestone image, burials at Arlington, and articles where the associated Wikidata item has a different link. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you. Cokie Roberts is buried at the Congressional Cemetery in Washington DC. I've just added her Find a Grave listing to the EL section. Roberts is listed as a famous person and the listing is managed by Find a Grave. The photos of her gravestone were added by the Historic Congressional Cemetery Archivist. Is it improper to have Roberts' Find a Grave link as an EL on the article page? If improper, then why? And if proper, then why? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they credit Wikipedia for the biographical information, it would not seem that being managed by Find a Grave is anything to recommend a particular profile. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I understand: It is improper to include Roberts' FAG link in her WP article because the curators or editors at the cemetery have included info from WP in their description of Roberts. How about Adelaide Johnson? She's buried at the CC. Adelaide Johnson at Find a Grave. The bio info on her is a 2 sentence description – and it does not attribute where the info came from. (The CC search page verifies her burial.) Is it proper or improper for WP to include her FAG link? (A link which shows the very simple grave marker for her.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What benefit do you believe the reader derives from including that particular link, as opposed to the CC search link? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I ask a direct question about whether particular ELs in particular articles are proper or improper. I'm hoping for answers that are grounded WP policy.

We don't ask readers to justify their choices or decisions when they click the wikilinks or reference links – we supply the links and let the readers decide if the info is useful. But to answer your question, a reader interested in Adelaide Johnson might look at the article. And that reader might be interested in her burial. Well, the reader can learn about her burial in the WP article. Next, that reader might be interested in what sort of grave marker was placed for Adelaide. (Does she have a glorious monument done up in emulation of her own sculpting style?) But WP and the CC website does not provide his info. (The only way is through CC's virtual visit. But using that tool means they must know exactly where her gravestone or monument is.) BUT the FindaGrave website, curated by the CC Curator, does this for the interested reader. So, your question is answered. I believe readers using the such particular links can achieve their objectives if WP supplies such helpful links as ELs. Where am I wrong in this regard? – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reader interested in a particular topic may have a variety of objectives, and therefore there may be a wide variety of external sites that may be of interest to them. But we don't respond to every possible objective, or provide every possible external link, because there are some things that we are not - including a directory. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because your edit summary said "rm non-RS" at Robert Alter and the source was a dead link, I interpreted the addition in the diff and read it as a removal. I thought I was adding it back with an updated source. Sorry about the confusion. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just found out you approved my application on the wikipedia library, and then 4 minutes later sent it to partner. What does that mean? How do I log in to get access? Thanks in advance, Ghinga7 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ghinga7, you should have an email with that information - check your spam maybe? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I nearly never check that email... I'll do that now. I didn't know the information would be emailed to me. Thanks for telling me. Ghinga7 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, found the email, made account. However, it says my subscription expires on the 23rd. Is that an error or is that how long it lasts? Ghinga7 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you followed the instructions in the email, it should get processed on their end before that date. (Assuming there is no delay due to holidays). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, cool. I followed the instructions, so I should be good. Thanks! Ghinga7 (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, the ongoing FAR drive that hit Japan will no doubt hit Cameroon soon, which is in a much sorrier state. I noticed you saved it in a 2013 FAR, so I thought I might elicit your opinion on its quality and viability. Personally I feel that it would take quite substantial work to bring it up to current standards, and there's not really anyone looking after it well. Best, CMD (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria is saving the world, one country at a time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CMD, I actually don't feel that's in too bad of shape - there's definitely some dated content and a few missing citations, but I think less so than there was at Japan. However, I don't have capacity at the moment to dig into it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised, that doesn't tally with my experience of both articles at all. I'll leave it for further opinions then. There's enough country articles in the FAR process already, adding another right now doesn't feel productive. CMD (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, as I said I don't have time to dig into it right now, so possibly I'm overlooking some deeper issues - was there something in particular you noticed as problematic? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface level there's quite a few MOS issues, but at a deeper level it's suffered from the general sporadic and incoherent edits country articles tend to accumulate, that haven't been put together (a few months ago I consolidated multiple different references that were all just the CIA factbook). As you note the content has become quite dated, some parts are unsourced, and some citations don't seem to lead anywhere. It suffers from acute Culture section syndrome, with that section being a list with no overarching information about culture, and many of the other sections feel similarly unfocused. I've removed a problematic lead tangent, and done some face-level tweaks, and while I haven't delved into each source, edits I've seen and the changes I've made so far haven't left it feeling good for me (especially compared to much better non-FA articles). CMD (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this particular article I think it would read better if most of the subsectioning was taken out. Take a look at the version at the time of the last FAR and see if that's any better (wrt things other than datedness).

(Sent: 05:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

Hi Here's my source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6MDXQ6KAsY&t

Please watch the whole film, but the specific number is stated at 5:50

I hope we can correct this, if 15,500 aboriginal children were in residential schools in 1977 (cited in the article), a place they would often stay for less than two years. The numbers don't add up. That number only includes children in residential schools for that year, not the hundred years this practice happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.138.5 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, just looking at other sources, there seems to be far more supporting the 20k number for Sixties Scoop - eg Canadian Encyclopedia, APTN, Canadian Geographic. Do you have other sources for 150k? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't because all the 'verified' sources are from western newspapers that downplay the numbers massively. You only have to look at the history to know that that number of 20k does not match the hundred-and-fifty years these schools operated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_residential_schools_in_Canada

There must be something you can do in terms of separating the official number published by the government and the supposed true extent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.138.5 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, is it possible we're looking at different things? The article Canadian Indian residential school system uses the 150k number, but the article you were editing was Sixties Scoop. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have changed the correct access-date in multiple articles to the older format of accessdate. That is the same with archive-date and archive-url. Unless I'm mistaken, a quick review of {{Cite web}} will support that claim. Also, it is considered rude to revert without notify the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, they are aliases. If you look at the article output you will see they display correctly with no errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the ProveIt edits: between the formatting changes and the parameter reordering those diffs are quite hard to parse, so I apologize if I'm overlooking any improvements. But the substantive changes that I did spot were errors - for example using |editor-last= for full names and in some cases multiple names. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know they are aliases, and as such it is unnecessary to change the new formatting back. If you don't know what's happening, reverting is entirely inappropriate, wouldn't you say? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that your edit introduced errors. If it also introduced improvements please feel free to point those out and I'd be happy to reinstate them. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, your latest edit reintroduced those same errors, and still does not seem to have had any positive impact. Could you please explain why you continue to revert? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to explain what error or errors were introduced. I clearly explained the ones you've added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, no, you haven't - aliases are not errors. I mentioned above that your edit used |editor-last= for full names, which is an error. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of fixing the error, you reverted the correct changes in favour of your formatting. Again, aliases are not the correct form, they are a temporary measure before being deprecated. So rather than changing them, stop doing so. There is no need to change them at all. So don't do it.

I fixed the few editor-last errors I missed on the first pass that you reverted and I did not bother looking at in my second pass. Are there other errors? If so, fix them in-places. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the errors by undoing the change. It seems that that particular tool is not well-suited to reference cleanup, at least on well-developed articles - it makes so many unnecessary formatting changes that it becomes difficult to spot substantive ones, and of those there still don't seem to be any that actually improve the article. As to aliases, again, they're not errors. There is no need to change them at all. So don't do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you reverted my edit. You're also annoying other editors now. I suggest you stop making unexplained changes to reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I undid the change because it didn't seem to contain any substantive improvements. I'm sorry if that annoys you. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, your recent changes did not annoy me, they have annoyed others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Dear Nikkimaria, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2021 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Natalis soli invicto!
		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) 15:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of your recent boldly stated, well reasoned and stalwart comments at FAC. They are noted and appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia nice. We appreciate your effort, but you are unnecessarily flagging David Salzman's page. There are a sufficient number of citations; IMDb is one of twenty-five sources. A. Julian 23:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A.JulianEditor, there are 50 citations to IMDb in that article, outnumbering the citations to other sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there are a lot of citations from IMDb, but there are still other citations. There are many other sources. IndyBoy IndianaBoy33 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IndianaBoy33, the tag doesn't indicate that there are zero other sources; what it notes is that there is attribution to IMDb, which in this case is quite extensive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, but I am only citing IMDb when I am referring to his role in the production of movies.A. Julian 01:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A.JulianEditor, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is considered credible when referring to movie credits. I had many other sources supporting other aspects of his life. A. Julian 01:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC) IndyBoy IndianaBoy33 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. It should be replaced with more reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is niche and known to be reliable in the entertainment industry. Please stop. A. Julian 01:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

On Wikipedia it is not. See WP:RS/IMDB. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way I used IMDb was appropriate. I used it as "a tertiary source for hard data on released films." Because of this fact, I am allowed to cite IMDb when referring to movie credits. Also, I added in even more citations to back up the article. I did what you asked, so I hope you now find this satisfactory. I understand you want to keep Wikipedia great, but the page should definitely not be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.JulianEditor, you did not fix the issue flagged: the citations provided do not support the content. Please don't remove that flag until you've actually addressed that problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you actually read the articles cited before you flag pages. Everything cited supports the page. A. Julian 18:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

A.JulianEditor, I have, and no, they do not. For example, the claim that he earned an English Literature degree is currently cited to this source, which states his degree was in journalism. That same source was previously cited for him being born in Brooklyn (doesn't say that), his parents' names (not in there), and him having had polio (definitely not) - all just in the first section. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all? You could have been more direct. A. Julian 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

No, that is not all, which is why I said "for example". This is a pervasive problem, thus the tag was and remains warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not read the source because it says, "Salzman grew up in the Flatbush section of Broklyn, N.Y., a few blocks from the baseball sandlot known as the Parade Grounds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, yes, I read it. "Grew up" supports "raised", but not "born". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I will cite another source supporting this. I hope you have something better to do than make other's lives a living hell. Thank you for making me miserable for no reason. A. Julian 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not for "no reason"; it's because we need to be able to verify the information provided, and the information you've provided is not supported by the citations given. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Gottlob! nun geht das Jahr zu Ende is quite a good private comment, - perhaps I should not have made more of it. I confused two cantatas, one that I just heard - Ich freue mich in dir, BWV 133 - and this one to come today (31 December already where I live). I wanted to expand both, but better stick with one. Wishing you a good 2021, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll be alone in being happy to see 2020 over. Best wishes, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I put the hook on my talk that didn't make it in time, to be exchanged for a Magnificat tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough. You have effectively ruined David Salzman’s page. You should be ashamed. A. Julian 01:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

A.JulianEditor, as I told you before: it's important that the information you add is actually supported by the citations you provide. You've removed tags flagging these problems multiple times, but that doesn't solve them. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh! I have literally done exactly that! I have cited everything. I am sure you have more important things to edit. You are hurting my mental health. A. Julian 02:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't. The claims in this edit are not supported by the citations given for them. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leave his page alone. A. Julian 02:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

A.JulianEditor, again, removing the tag doesn't fix the problem. I provided above the specific statements currently not supported. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I tell you. I went through everything you noted, and I added additional citations. Leave me and the page alone; this is embarrassing. I have been so nice, and you have turned out to be the most disrespectful editor I have ever encountered. I am not trying to shame you here, but your behavior is not okay. Edit other pages, and leave it up to me to fix the page if an actual problem arises. Happy New Year. Goodbye. A. Julian 18:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but again, unfortunately your edits didn't solve the problem, and you reverted mine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look through my new citations? You have my word that they covered each problem. Can we just move on from this? I will keep fixing the page, but it will not work if you keep interfering. Thank you. A. Julian 18:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

Yes, I did, and no, they didn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker: User:A.JulianEditor take your issues to article talk. And please avoid the kind of personalizing and WP:BATTLEGROUND statements you have made above. You will find that Nikkimaria is quite experienced in evaluating sourcing and source-to-text integrity, so I suggest that you try to understand instead of insulting. Watchlisting the article; if you again add text that is not supported by a source, it will be problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria

I wish you a Happy 2021 (while it's still January...).

Thank you for processing and approving my application to use Sabinet (via the Wikipedia Library System) on Dec. 6/7, 2020.

The message I've received on December 7, said:

"You can expect to receive access details within a week or two once it has been processed."

I'm quite new to the application process, assuming the above is just the ordinary standard message.

But then everything fell silent (I've also checked my Spam-box). Fair enough, I assumed, it was December, after all.

Therefore I have a few questions. I've only read Wikiproject:Sabinet today, and the following sentence struck me:

"There are up to 20 one-year accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership."

At this moment, the 20 "slots" are already filled, [according to the page https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/50/].

So, just for clarity, I'm now officially on a waiting list? Meaning the moment someone's 'time window' expires during 2021 and becomes open again, the next Wikipedian on the list 'fills' it? And then you will receive the necessary access details, etc. etc.?

I don't mind waiting my turn at all, I'm just unsure about the procedures (or if I skipped a vital page of reference). And whether the access details were already sent to me, etc. There could be a thousand reasons, perhaps an error from my side. Or those of the partnership(s).

And moving on with the process, after your time has expired and you are planning to renew your 'membership', it means it's back to the application form once more?

That's quite a lot of questions, but thank you for your patience. Suidpunt (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suidpunt, you got caught up in a holiday processing lag I'm afraid. That 20/20 includes you, but the person on Sabinet's end who would set up your login is on vacation. If you haven't heard anything more by end of month let me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, so much. What a relief! Suidpunt (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria, it's me again.

I hate bothering you over such a trivial matter once more, but Sabinet still hasn't responded, almost two months after the approval of my application. It might be because our secondary schools start on the 15th of February (not 27 January) and universities even later, somewhere between March and April. So... I'm unsure if I should wait a little bit more.Suidpunt (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Suidpunt - I will see if I can get any more info on that for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Suidpunt (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 is {{in use}}, please respect that. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken, I would hate to see you put too much effort into making more changes when you haven't found the necessary consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not your concern, is it? If you have remarks or suggestions during the update session you can post them at the article's talk page, Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, best in a new section, the last discussions on that page appear over half a decade old. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken, {{in use}} tags are not meant to "reserve" the article for long periods of time. You're welcome to start a new discussion on that talk page to seek consensus for your proposed changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The major edit is not finished. Your shenanigans without discussion on the article's talk page will, because of the additional time I have to put in these disparate actions, only make the major edit last longer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, the onus is on you to seek consensus for the changes you want to make. And also as I've said , the {{in use}} tag is not intended to be used that way, but only when you are actively editing the article for a short period to prevent edit-conflicts. If your intended changes will take more time and you want to avoid others editing it during that time, I would suggest you use a sandbox for drafting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria Hi. The Appendix on Page 926 of "The Cantatas of J. S. Bach" by Dürr & Jones (CUP, 2005/2006) lists Cantata BWV 53 as spurious, i.e. no longer regarded as by Johann Sebastian Bach. There are two references to Alfred Dürr's work on the dating and authenticity of the early cantatas. These are his monograph (2nd ed, 1977) and an article in the 1955 Bach-Jahrbuch. Various editors have worked on this article, including User:Gerda Arendt and you. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:@Gerda Arendt: In my comment above, I mentioned that, in the Appendix of his 2006 book on cantatas, Alfred Dürr wrote that cantata BWV 53 was spurious and definitely not by Bach. That still raises the question of who wrote it—hence the entry "G. M. Hoffmann?" So a date before 1715. It's not then possible to ignore Dürr's scholarly assessment, and provide an alternative explanation that Bach was the composer and wrote it in 1723–1734. The faulty chronology and failure to establish authenticity are a result of using out of date sources, namely those of Forkel, Spitta and Terry. That's why we use WP:RS and WP:V. Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you raise these issues on the article talk page rather than here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing on the page of BWV 53 is unjustified and blatantly ignores sources. Your reversions seem uncontrolled: you have made no attempt to explain yourself on the article talk page. Please explain yourself on the use talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, as I told Francis, if you feel something you added has been reverted and shouldn't have been, you're welcome to start a discussion on talk to try to get consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of unexplained... Mathsci, "deleti ngthe" is not a good rationale for either restoring disputed content or adding errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria! I noticed your edit here and was wondering if you could explain what the alt text and genre removal was about. Checked the infobox documentation but can't work it out. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv, per the documentation |genre= is used for fiction, and this work is non-fiction. As for alt, it would probably be better to replace it with a more extensive description, but I don't think simply repeating the title is likely to be useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, appreciate it—I know I've had that mistake pointed out to me before so I'll try to remember in future... For the alt, I don't agree that nothing is an improvement on a short functional description. I find MOS:ALT hopelessly confusing in all regards, but my understanding is that the alt text is read out in place of the image name if present, and otherwise the image name is read out. The image could be moved or whatever, so the alt text override is important because it serves a different purpose (what a screen reader should read aloud, rather than a unique identifier for where the image is held internally). MOS says that [for non-decorative images,] the only situation where blank alt text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked. But after re-reading the policy, I agree that a description of the front cover is ideal here, so I've had a go—is this broadly what you imagined? — Bilorv (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, looks good, thanks! If the text down at the bottom of the cover is meant to be a subtitle, I'd suggest putting that somewhere in the box as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, done. — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue XII, December 2020 Headlines AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: Wrap up of the Wikipedia in African Libraries project pilot cohort Canada report: Branding Toolkit released by the Canadian Museums Association for GLAMs Finland report: Hundreds of thousands of new photos released Germany report: The Karl-Preusker-Medal 2020 goes to Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Netherlands report: Documentation of workflows for the ingestion of bibliographic data into Wikidata; Wikipedia & Africa: Why contributing to Wikipedia matters New Zealand report: Māori Women Weavers Edit-a-thon Serbia report: GLAMorous end of 2020 Sweden report: Wiki Loves Monuments submissions livestreamed; Nordiska museet uploads; Sjung med oss, Mamma! UK report: Wales, Women in Leeds, and the Hajj USA report: WikiConference North America and Salons WMF GLAM report: The GLAM & Culture office hours Calendar: January'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.

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue XII, December 2020 Headlines AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: Wrap up of the Wikipedia in African Libraries project pilot cohort Canada report: Branding Toolkit released by the Canadian Museums Association for GLAMs Finland report: Hundreds of thousands of new photos released Germany report: The Karl-Preusker-Medal 2020 goes to Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Netherlands report: Documentation of workflows for the ingestion of bibliographic data into Wikidata; Wikipedia & Africa: Why contributing to Wikipedia matters New Zealand report: Māori Women Weavers Edit-a-thon Serbia report: GLAMorous end of 2020 Sweden report: Wiki Loves Monuments submissions livestreamed; Nordiska museet uploads; Sjung med oss, Mamma! UK report: Wales, Women in Leeds, and the Hajj USA report: WikiConference North America and Salons WMF GLAM report: The GLAM & Culture office hours Calendar: January'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.

Hi, Nikimaria; in [], you used the term "disinformation", but I am unable to determine to what it referred. As I'm more opposed to disinformatsiya than most (particularly on Wikipedia), I'd be gratified if you would provide me with your meaning of the term in that context. Many thanks, --Quisqualis (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It referred to this link cited by the previous commenter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...The commentator previous to what? I'm not actually interested in Steve Bannon. I know you are a VIP, but please take a sec so I have a clue as to what you meant by

" As to the source you cite, it's not about providing more or less correct detail, but specifically about disinformation."

There is no link given anywhere in proximity to that particular phrase on Talk:Jackie Robinson. I'm sure you meant something of significance. Please help me to find out what it might be.Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The commenter to whom I was replying posted "In case you haven't heard of it, Vox ran an article a year ago on "flooding the zone" and how that's a problem because people have limited time and bandwidth". If you search for that quote you will find the comment. As I said, that link is irrelevant to the discussion actually going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why were edits about the British folk revival reverted in the page linked above? Certainly mentioning in passing the artists that recorded ballads about the subject is significant in the context of the section of the article that talks about Turpin's cultural legacy. The source given is very interesting IMO and the article benefits from it, so i wanted to know how to better represent notability? YuriNikolai (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YuriNikolai, the source given appears to be a fansite. Do you have more reliable sources demonstrating the significance of that content to the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, looking into the website i believe it qualifies as reliable. The website was started as a fansite, but it claims to have grown into a database with official support by English Folk experts. Even assuming these endorsements aren't legit, which they seem to be judging by everything i read about the website, each entry on it is cross-referenced with several different academic databases of folk songs and the website lists all additional bibliography for claims in a separate Bibliography page. I can, indeed, add links to the books and databases cited in the mainlynorfolk page, but i believe the website itself serves as a better source for having all this information condensed, considering it isn't a website allowing user-generated content. And if you mean the mention of the British folk revival itself ("the significance of that content to the subject"), I'd argue that the mention of these songs being recorded for the first time as part of this movement, which is currently not in the article, is very relevant, otherwise that would hint at this revival not being encyclopedia-worthy, which it is. YuriNikolai (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YuriNikolai, my concern is not whether the revival itself is encyclopedia-worthy, but rather its significance to this particular subject, ie. Dick Turpin. As you might expect he has appeared in multiple cultural works of various sorts over the years, but we don't have space within the framework of this article to discuss all of those appearances in depth. Given that issue on this and similar articles, an RfC on the topic of cultural mentions found that referencing was required to demonstrate not only that the mention existed. Additionally, this particular article is featured, which carries a requirement for high-quality sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand! Perhaps when i have time I'll start research for a separate article about the cultural work depictions themselves, like how the Vietnam War article is being split into more specific articles. One last question, though: In "[...] found that referencing was required to demonstrate not only that the mention existed.", i got the impression that you meant there was some other requirement besides demonstrating the mention, but what is that req.? Might just be me misreading the comment. In any case, thank you for clarifying the situation and for linking me to that RfC. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YuriNikolai, to demonstrate significance to the subject - see the RfC close. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that - please also see the revision history of .950 JDJ where the same editor did the same thing and got snippy in edit summaries upon being reverted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, could you give a source review (a spot check has already been done) on Paper Mario: The Origami King? It's getting really close to promotion at this point. Le Panini ^[🥪] 15:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled across Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 – had no idea it existed. Thank you for a fantastic, interesting and unique article! - Aza24 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

Hey, wanted to ask about this edit on Arthur C. Neville. This is maybe the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen someone delete Template:Find a Grave from an article in the last couple weeks -- is there some guidance I'm missing? What's the point of the deletion? --Asdasdasdff (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdasdasdff, in that particular case the relevant guidance is WP:LINKVIO - content at the link is copied from a City of Green Bay website with an "all rights reserved" notice. On the broader question, see Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#findagrave_in_general and WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I searched "linkvio" and didn't find anything that made sense to me and thought I should just ask. Got it. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my edit [4] regarding Peter Sellers and Melvyn Douglas regarding it's "significance". The instance of meeting Sellers in Burma during WWII is mentioned in both the page for: Melvyn Douglas#Career and in Being There#Filming. Coincidence? Yes. Insignificant? No. It's not merely a piece of trivia but something Douglas and Sellers purportedly bonded over during the filming of Being There, and as it exists in the other two pages I deemed it worthy of mentioning in Sellers' article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CaffeinAddict, would suggest making your case with additional sources demonstrating significance on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the title of these journals isn't "English Journal/Journal Français", but rather either "English Journal" or "Journal Français". Databases like PROJECT MUSE will display a combined title because they want to show it can be cited as either and generate citations with the combined title because they don't know if they are being cited in French or in English, or simply don't bother choosing which of the two titles to use.

Case in point, if you go at the bottom of the first page of that article, you'll see

• Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies. All rights reserved.
• Copyright © Revue d'études canadiennes. Tous droits réservés.

And not

• Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. All rights reserved.
• Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. Tous droits réservés.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, the title of that journal is actually "English Journal/Journal Français" - this is not an uncommon practice among Canadian journals, and shouldn't be "corrected" to one language only. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It it not, no. You can even go on [5] where you'll see "Home > Journal of Canadian Studies > List of Issues > Vol. 48, No. 3 > DOI: 10.3138/jcs.48.3.79". In English, you use the English title. In French, you use the French title. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, it is, yes. Compare its scope page. The breadcrumb is shortened for convenience, not because that is the official title. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wrong. They show the title in English, because that is the title of the journal in English. The scope page mentions the French title because those landing there may have seen it cited as the French title, not because it is the 'full' title. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That page provides the full, English/French title. Again, this is a pretty common practice among bilingual Canadian journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full English title is Journal of Canadian Studies, not Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'Études Canadiennes appears nowhere in the actual journal. See again, the actual article itself, which lists Journal of Canadian Studies and Revue d'études canadiennes separately. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual article itself has both together at the top of the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listed separately, as two distinct titles, one in English, the other in French. This is no different than listing the date on the website as "Fall/automne 2014". In French you would say Automne 2014. In English you would say Fall 2004. Same for listing number/numéro 3. In English you say "number 3", in French you say "numéro 3". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we've hit a brick wall, I've started an RFC on the issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, pending the outcome of your RfC, please restore the previous, stable version. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given 'my' version has better bibliographic information, like DOIs and such, I will not. I was looked at putting an {{Under discussion}} tag on the section, but that's apparently not for articles, so I'm still looking for a notice template of some such. If you know of one, feel free to tag the section with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, you can easily copy and paste the two titles without affecting DOIs and such. By the way, your RfC doesn't account for the second title; you might want to address that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments are exactly the same for the second journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that would be the case given your argument above, since the second has the slashed title in the actual journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, clearly distinct titles, one in French, the other in English. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try scrolling down. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only keep vote but even I read the discussion as consensus to delist. (courtesy ping: User:Casliber). DrKay (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the comments re delisting were thorough and reasoned. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot locate the page where we have guidance on sentence vs title case in titles on citations ... cluestick? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, MOS:TITLECAPS? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that. I guess we just expect consistency, one way or another? Gog the Mild has been mentoring a potential FAC editor who has made very good progress at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ted Kaczynski/archive1. Would you have time to glance at the citations there just to make sure they are on the right track? The article is looking like it will be well prepared when it presents at FAC, and I already had the nominator jump through some hoops, but maybe just a quick spotcheck from you to see if they are on the right track? I think Gog is still working with him on prose, but the article is close to FAC ready. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy enough on prose, which is, IMO, FAC-ready. I would probably pick up further bits on another pass, but I think that would be diminishing returns. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, the citation cleanup at Wii is proving to be quite a chore, and I need more guidance re things that have been fiddled with in the templates since the days when I used to do extensive citation cleanup at FAR. Wii has a nasty mess of one of everything (missing authors, missing dates, wrong titles, partially linked publishers), but the worst of the mess is a mixture of work= , publisher= , website= and even others, almost none of which are correctly italicized. Rather than approach it as I have been (editing every single citation), I will need to do some of it globally. So, it is clear I can switch all instances of The New York Times, for example, to work= to render italics. Ditto for The Guardian. Both are hard print sources. I believe I switch all instances of BBC News (some of which are listed incorrectly as just BBC) to publisher= as it is not a hard print source and should not be italicized. I will have to check everything that looks like a magazine to see if it is a magazine or a website, that is, whether to use work= or publisher= for italics. Then we get into websites. Engadget is a website. Why do the cite templates italicize websites? To switch it to non-italics, I guess I have to switch website= to publisher= and that solves that. But then it gets tricky with things like Eurogamer. Eurogamer is a website, just like Engadget. So why is our article italicized while Engadget is not? There are issues like this everywhere. This work is going to be horrid; I am looking for a way to search on each source used multiple times and fix them all at once. Advice? @ImaginesTigers and Panini!: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, If it helps at all, I use the find tool (ctrl + F) for this kind of thing. If I search up "publisher=", it shows every instance on where it appears, allowing for me to easily notice them and change them to website if necessary. Panini^🥪 15:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is the way I am approaching it. Here's another one: Kotaku is a website. Why is our article italicized? Did something change while I was not editing? Websites are not italicized; journals, magazines, newspapers etc are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I would assume that a glaring issue like this would have been mentioned in the past; are you sure you aren't getting it backwards? For now, I'm making changes. Panini^🥪 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing the same changes I was planning to do, pending confirmation from Nikkimaria as to whether something has changed in the days since I used to do extensive citation cleanup, as it is quite possible I have missed something. Even if I have missed something, it is not clear to me why some articles about websites are in italics while others are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, these are websites, not journals, magazines, or newspapers: The Verge, CNET. More of same-- why is one of our articles in italics, the other not? Once we get beyond the big ones (which you have done), I am going to have to check each one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: let's all get on the same page before continuing ... sorry I didn't ping you in here, Masem ... Panini, I am willing to do all of this in a coordinated fashion, so let's get sorted first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just remember that the big mess from a year ago on the mass CS1 changes that website names were generally to be italicized, whereas when you had a news agency with a website, like BBC News, that should remain the name of the news publisher without italics (eg using the publisher= field). I'd have to look for this discussion but I am certain that italics for general websites was a net result from it. --Masem (t) 16:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, some context. I woke up to a threatening email, promising likelihood of same to continue, and little likelihood that the arbs will do anything about it, so please, let's work together here in a coordinated fashion, as I am about to walk, unrelated to Wii or FAR. Don't Need This Shit Kind of Day. Masem, those are my concerns; wherever we have ended up, our own articles are inconsistent. And I suspect we again have bot owners and citation template people forcing their own preferences on citations -- which adds to my About To Walk again. Let's get on the same page; I was asked to clean up the citations, I am willing to do it, but I am Pretty Damn Sick of Wikipedia at the moment. So let's all decide what style to use on this article, as I am going to have to check dozens to hundreds of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a bit of history, it was back in last 2019 that the CS1 template made a change that caused a sea of red to appear in footnotes, leading to a massive amount of complaints against the CS1 team and to this 2019 RFC that concluded that websites generally should be italized in footnotes - but with various cavaets as one can read through). I know for the VG project we've generally followed that for the websites in question on the Wii article (eg Eurogamer, Kotaku, etc.) all being italics before and after that that RFC. --Masem (t) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Masem; I will look at that RFC when in a better frame of mind. And then post a workplan to the FAR talk page before I continue cleaning up. You saw what you and I went through on our recent RFC, and it looks like that is to be what the rest of my WikiDays will look like. Not today. For now, I may just continue with the part of checking titles, authors, linking, etc, leaving the italics issue aside. Or I may just turn off the computer for good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the worst RFCs I've ever seen, and I've been part of what I previously thought were the worst RFCs ever seen. I am unable to determine anything from that mess. No wonder people at FAC are refusing to adjust their citations for consistency; why even try when those running the templates are making it an impossible task. I have no idea what to do next to help out here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, Couldn't we just start another RFC? It's only been a year, but there's obvious disagreement. Panini^🥪 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rather disastrous record when it comes to RFCs. My suggestion is that we just agree on a consistent scheme for this article, and leave the bigger mess to others. But waiting to hear from Nikkimaria ... with the current state of the citation templates, I am reminded why I ALWAYS used to write my citations manually, so they couldn't mess up my citations. And I regret ever having converted to citation templates, which I only did last year. As long as we pick a consistent scheme here, we should be OK. The problem is, when I go to check our articles on the sources, some are in italics and some are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to punt and say "not our problem"; that is, I clean up everything except the italics. We have citation templates and articles at complete odds with MOS:ITALICS and MOS:BADITALICS, and an inconclusive RFC that is too much of a mess to read. This is "out of our hands" territory, and not worth worrying about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panini, Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Italics_2 may be of interest. Sandy, what counts as a website and what counts as a publisher is complicated, especially since in many cases they have the same name - this accounts for some of the differences in article usage. I would suggest doing exactly as you propose: make things consistent within this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another discussion with a conclusion that is clear as mud and a conversation dominated by MOS warriors. I am no less clear on exactly what I should I do next than I was last night. The only advancement is that I now know that our articles are inconsistent as well our citations, so I can't go by what the article has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out. When multiple discussions of this matter involve editors who are threatening me, or who have in the past (that is, none of you), I simply don't need this. I will copy in the corrected medical text to Wii, and leave this to the rest of you to sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is clear now why I am done rubbing elbows with MOS warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm having my own concerns with citation template amendments at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two of them together are one of the reasons I stopped editing, If I want to keep editing, I just cannot go there. In short, I never should have converted the articles I wrote to citation templates. The reason I initially used manual citations was so articles I wrote would not become inconsistently formatted based on the whims of the three or four editors who dominate citation templates and MOS discussions. Usually with unpleasantry included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

An editor keeps removing sourced content on the Moorgate tube crash article, and I don't think they are right to as the information is sourced to the Me, My Dad & Moorgate documentary. I've seen you've edited on the page recently, could you perhaps give me an indication of whether the info is okay to be there or not? 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I would suggest opening a discussion on the article's talk page. The fact that information can be sourced doesn't necessarily mean it must be included, so it would be best to make your case there as to why you believe it should. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll do that, I think the information doesn't have to be in the lead but seems wrong to say the source is not acceptable for the body of the text. I tried sending a message to the IP that removes it but no reply. 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP is dynamic it's possible the person behind the edit wouldn't have seen your message. It's easier to message named users than IPs, both for that reason and because you can ping them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You received no reply because I was opening a thread on the talk page explaining the problem with what you were trying to do. I’ve provided a link to the template needed, and I’m happy to help format it if you can’t get it to work properly. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nikkimaria, I understand that Find a Grave does not require references, and it is not considered a reliable source for information, but a high percentage of deceased twentieth-century entertainers have Find a Grave in the list of External links, so I thought that it was acceptable to include such a link. (Just now I looked at articles for the first 10 deceased performers I could think of, and 50% had a Find a Grave link.)

When I created the new article Jack Prince (singer) I knew that I could not find a photograph of him that would be without copyright restrictions, and so my thinking was that providing a link to Find a Grave would also provide a link to a photograph of him. I understand that no article "belongs" to me, and other editors are free to change anything they feel needs changing. I do not want to obtain a reputation as a troublesome editor, and so I will make no further attempts to attach External links to above-named article. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karenthewriter, his IMDb page has a photograph of him - you could link that if you wanted. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I'm confused by your reply, for I said I will make no further attempts to attach External links to the article. If others wish to expand the article they are free to do so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karenthewriter Karenthewriter (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter