Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MilHistBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
131,474 edits
Awarded The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) to Nikkimaria
Line 1,391: Line 1,391:
Thanks for your help on this page.
Thanks for your help on this page.
[[User:Cymrogogoch|Cymrogogoch]] ([[User talk:Cymrogogoch|talk]]) 09:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Cymrogogoch|Cymrogogoch]] ([[User talk:Cymrogogoch|talk]]) 09:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==
{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[Image:CRM.png|75px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |  '''''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#Service_awards|Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)]]''''' 
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 11 reviews between April and June 2021. {{user0|Peacemaker67}} via [[User:MilHistBot|MilHistBot]] ([[User talk:MilHistBot|talk]]) 00:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC) <p><small>Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{tlx|WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space</small></p>
|}
<p></p>

Revision as of 00:31, 3 July 2021

Copyright question

Sorry to bother you, but I've got another copyright question. So in my time on WP, I've seen a lot of images of commercial products, and a few are listed as fair use, while many are just listed as a CC own work license. From my understanding, trade dress is considered intellectual property. The threshold of originality will play into if something is going to be considered public domain or under copyright. I just don't know if a photo of trade dress is under copyright or not (there's no WP:Trade dress or Commons:Trade dress, and I don't know where else to look). For instance, compare File:MtnDewmocracyRevolutionVoltageSupernova.jpg (fair use) vs File:Campbell's (Andy Warhol Special edition).jpg (CC-BY-3.0). The Mountain Dew image clearly is above the threshold of originality, and I would image the color design and font effects on the Campbell's cans would surely be above the threshold too. So is there a clear opinion on trade dress and copyright, as it's very divergently applied. Hog Farm Talk 23:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, trade dress is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. A particular product/package design can be protected by copyright, depending on its level of creativity as well as its separability. The relevant Commons guidance is commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to test my comprehension, if you don't mind, (sorry to be such a bother!) with the soup cans example, the shape of the can is not copyrightable (utilitarian object), but the packaging of the can may be (the printed design is separable). And per commons rules, it's only acceptable on Commons if the separable, copyrightable portion is 1.) a minimal part of the image (so like a Coke can in the background of a photo) 2.) if it's below the threshold of originality, and 3.) if it is so old the copyright has expired. So, going back to the images question at the Campbell's Soup Cans FAR, I would be justified in nominating File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 01.jpg for deletion on Commons, right, as the printed design is separable and thus copyrightable, is not de minimis in the image, appears to be above Commons:Threshold of originality#United States of America, and since the image description indicates that these specific can designs were sent to stores in 2012, the specific design would not be old enough for PD. Hog Farm Talk 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, your explanation is correct in principle. The Campbell's case is slightly more complicated because the image is a derivative work of an original label design which is older, and therefore (potentially) out of copyright (depending on the exact date of this design, which I haven't looked into). The question then becomes not just does the design overall meet the threshold of originality, but is it sufficiently different from an out-of-copyright design to warrant separate protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the case of that specific image, I'd wonder about what the OTRS message said. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short footnotes for websites

Hi Nikkimaria, hoping to tap into your FA experience regarding British Empire. I've converted all book and journal sources to the most common format, which is short citations. However, I am unsure how to do it for the websites. (Help:Shortened footnotes provides little enlightenment.) Perhaps newspaper articles have authors, but are the rest cited to publishers? Are the full citations mixed in with books and journals? Is there an FA which provides a good model? Thanks, CMD (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, you have two options: you could leave web and news sources inline (compare Columbia, South Carolina, Sesquicentennial half dollar), or you can develop a ref naming scheme for citations without named authors, based either on website/publisher or on title (see for example Pepi I Meryre). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will leave them and note on the FARC page. CMD (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, that's fine, but the long citations still have inconsistencies - for example whether books have locations or no, whether web sources use citation templates or no, use of website vs publisher (and some that have neither), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just adjusting the cite webs, since they can be left. There were only 9 locations, so I've removed those. CMD (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Vincent

Hi, I see you've reverted my edit (new infobox). If you can let me know what was wrong I'd be grateful. The article needs improvement. Leisad (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leisad , as the subject is best known as a musician, the previous specific version was IMO more appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, military service is relevant and important. (Vincent was brought up in a naval community, planned a long career in the U.S. Navy, discharged following the accident. Started music with his navy buddies.) It was a huge part of his image as a musician: The Blue Caps, Korean war stories, passion for guns and knives etc. Please, check Elvis Presley for its infobox as example. Featured article. Leisad (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it was important to him, but IMO the previous version appropriately highlights the data likely to be of most relevance to readers. To resolve this disagreement, I suggest seeking input from WT:MUSICIANS. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Proposed deletion of Wolfgang Kornberger

Notice

The article Wolfgang Kornberger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable musician. Tagged since 2009

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poem copyright

Hi Nikki, I hope all is well. I’ve recently created Harlem (poem). While the poem is in copyright (1951 publication), it’s only 11 short lines long. Would it be permissible to put the poem’s text on the page? I’m not sure how copyright feels about short quotes that are the entirety of a work. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie891, it's not the total length that's the issue, but the relative length, impacting to what extent the copying is "substantial". There's a couple of cases mentioned here that would lead me to believe that this use would not be permissible, but it's really a matter of interpretation and IANAL. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is in section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 / Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Lukoschus

Hi, just out of curiosity: why did you remove the cause of death? It's sourced to the obituary. I don't edit bios that often, so I may be missing something here. (Like when I remembered that the names of children should not be included unless they're notable themselves after you took them out). Thanks and happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty, that template is a wrapper for {{infobox person}}, which in the documentation indicates that cause of death "should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability, e.g. James Dean, John Lennon. It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, makes sense, thanks. Perhaps we should put a note on infoboxes like that to look for documentation at the main infobox. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miramar

I notice that you approved my request to access the Miramar Ship Index on the Wikipedia Library site. Can you please tell me how I would access my TWL account? Lettlerhello • contribs 00:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lettler, you have email. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Anis al-Naqqash

Hi

Why did yo delete {{Image requested}} tag from Anis al-Naqqash article?

Cheers Shkuru Afshar (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shkuru Afshar, I moved it to Talk:Anis al-Naqqash - that's where those tags go. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Shkuru Afshar (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WL Application

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for reviewing my Wikipedia Library application for access to Springer Link. Aureum doxadius (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nikkimaria: Last February I got access to SpringerLink. But I cannot read many articles. Most of the times it says "this is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.". This articles or books are from SpringeLink. And I don't get access not even through the Wikipedia library. Is there any problem? Or Everything is not permissible even through the Wikipedia library? Thanks in advance. Aureum doxadius (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aureum doxadius, Springer access is pending renewal so is not currently working - in the interim you can request sources via WP:RX. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ada Ballin

Nikkimaria, can you please take a look at this nomination and see whether the short copyvio I found is the sole issue, or if there's more of the same there. I'd been hoping to include this in one of the sets for International Women's Day (March 8), but while that seems less likely, it's still eminently possible for Women's History Month. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March flowers

Thank you for having done the image review for Carmen - and so many others - with Bizet's music "expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters" as Brian worded it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prompted by your edit summary for Frank Matcham, I searched for "the archives" and found just one, Talk:Frank Matcham/Archive 1, with an interesting discussion from 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Carmen: today (IWD): MMMM --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'm meant to be looking at in that link; could you clarify? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to look at what you like, - I liked two women for DYK on International Women's Day, and mention not only those two but five female characters, two of them title roles, and four beginning with M which I found funny, plus a famous colleague also beginning with M. - In case you meant the Matcham link, I found my friends plea to permit even idiots the entry to an article (he was politer) quite convincing: "I would urge everyone not to dismiss lightly the argument that we should not be prejudging how our readers consume articles. If a visitor to our site only wants a brief, "dumbed-down" overview, who are we to deny them that facility? We must always remember we are writing Wikipedia for all of our readers (including re-users), not for our editors." Who are we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since then we have gained many other and better options for reusers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should have made "..." instead of the brackets, - I don't care about reusers much, but was too tired to cut it out. Do we have a better option for the "idiots"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume our readers are? It will of course depend on the case, but too often we go too far. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I never used the term idiotbox, but others do. They claim that a reader should read their "beautifully crafted article", not "factoids, and I say: nothing wrong with the beautifully crafted article, but in addition we can offer something for a reader who just needs one factoid. Some have argued as if it was infobox or lead, and I never understood why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some topics lend themselves to factoids; on others, they miss the point, or worse obscure. And unfortunately having some factoids tends to attract others. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus for a moment on opera. The template has few parameters, intentionally so. None of them is inviting trivia and obscurity. The language should be given in all cases. While English is the default for our sources, it's not for operas. The librettist should be given in all cases that we know the person. If it's the composer, that's extra information worth giving, - while no value for the parameter means we don't know. I thought this was discussed but have no time to check. - Looking beyond opera: the infoboxes for Bach and Beethoven have been stable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When we're at a point where the template is longer than the actual article text, few is too many. And if they truly don't understand "The work is based on X", saying instead "Based on X" is not likely to help. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know and like articles where the template is longer than the text, but I better don't tell you ;) - It's not the same knowing where at a glance to find the based_on parameter, and having to search in the prose. I met many opera articles recently. Some mention the thing in the lead, some in the history, some not at all. The based_on parameter should only be empty when we don't know, or the librettist made the plot (otherwise that imagined reader may not even search), - same as librettist, - what about that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, I don't agree. I don't see a functional difference between saying "X, the subject" in caption versus a separate "Based on the life of X" - actually in the case of Mary the former makes more sense, because it immediately provides explanation of the image. And when the whole article is three sentences long, really no parameter is essential. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thésée (Mondonville)

Can you please explain what "restore" is short for, which you used as edit summary for operas and the architect above? Seeking the common ground mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a previous iteration. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got that much, but why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As above, given the extremely short length of the article I think the previous design was appropriate. Didn't you say as well above that editor wishes should be respected? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For how long do we respect wishes? I - as you may have noticed - do respect the wishes of Tim riley, Smerus and Smeat75, for good relations with editors who are or may be around? I believe that Kleinzach doesn't care anymore, Folantin stopped editing in 2018, and Cassianto vanished. I regard the information of our readers, and accessibility, as the higher values, compared to satisfying their personal preference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that edits like this one improve either accessibility or reader experience. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have a sophisticated way to evade a question. Fine, I include you and Ssilvers in the list of authors whose wish I respect, as active editors with whom I don't want conflict. This goes for articles you and the others have created. I am sorry that I didn't check for Die lustige Witwe, or would not have bothered. The title of the thread is one opera, and can we please look for a moment at that one opera. It was created by a user who hasn't edited in years, and for how long do you think we have to obey his wish (and yours) for no infobox? ... even if the community doesn't agree (asked in 2021 for Cary Grant and Ian Fleming), and, needless to say, I do see better accessibility with an infobox, but would only repeat what I have said in years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's your argument, I would ask you: you advocated above for an editor last active six years ago - to whom does that courtesy extend, or not? Why would we say only active editors for one viewpoint and not the other? And again, this specific article is extremely short, and introducing a (relatively) long template causes its own accessibility concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other things do exist. Please, let's look at Thésée (Mondonville). This looks to me - at a glance - like an article about a person. Anything saying Opera or Tragédie en musique on top would make it more accessible. The formatted date in the infobox works in other languages. (I imagine someone wanting to translate this article.) The article doesn't tell the reader that the title hero is from Greek mythology. Someone searching for the librettist has to read for a while, looking at things they don't care about, while in the infobox, they could see him immediately. - If article length is a concern (which I don't understand), then we better expand the article. In this specific one, all we win by not having an infobox is white space. I don't see your accessibility concerns, please explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What white space you have depends on your screen size. On my tablet with the template in place you have a lot more, plus compress the table practically to the point of unusability. And the first thing the article says is "Thésée (Theseus) is an opera". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

shining star

Thank you for reviewing Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. I'll forget about the little things above, - not worth arguing about an article with 0 to 2 readers on a normal day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Caroline Island, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dr Salvus (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus, could you explain what your concerns were with those edits? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you vandalize. Can you tell me why you think these changes are in good faith? What do you want to do, maybe I'll help you too. Dr Salvus (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think that I vandalize based on what, exactly? What specific problems do you see with those edits warranting an assumption of bad faith? See the article's Featured Article Review commentary. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me. I admit I was wrong. But I did it in good faith. Dr Salvus (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allright Dr Salvus, you did it in good faith and have now apologized. But please be more careful in the future to check out an article’s history, talk page, etcetera; the history of the editor you are reverting (Nikkimaria doesn’t vandalize, and she is the Coordinator of WP:FAR) and also please be aware of WP:DTTR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you

You are a great! Dr Salvus (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donner Party - Nisenan not Miwok

You and I have been undoing each other’s edit for weeks on this topic which seems unproductive. The Donner Party page references the Snowshoe Party (“Forlorn Hope”) ‘stumbling upon a Miwok settlement...’. Although several novelists, some with academic credentials (including King, Stewart, Rarick and others) have said this settlement was Miwok, more detailed and recent research including tribal oral history for Forlorn Hope has determined they were Nisenan. I welcome a discussion exchanging references and resources to help us settle the apparent difference of our findings.

Below is a list of written references from which my findings have been derived. In addition, over seven years of researching the Snowshoe Party, there have been a preponderance of meetings with the National Parks Service, California State Parks, Donner Memorial State Park, Nisenan Museum, Nisenan Tribal Counsel, Maidu Tribal Counsel, Donner Summit Historical Society, Truckee-Donner Historical Society, Wheatland Historical Society, Oregon-California Trail Association (OCTA), Trails West, Inc., Sutter Fort Museum, California State Library, Bancroft Library, several archeologists (Dixon, Johnson, etc.) all who agree with the fact that it was a Nisenan settlement, not Miwok, that the Forlorn Hope discovered in the latter days of their 33 day sojourn.

Many historians have confused that Luis and Salvador were both believed to be Miwok and carried this to assume, erroneously, that the settlements were also Miwok.

Luis and Salvador were pressed into service (some 13:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Imcrowley (talk)say slavery or servitude) by John Sutter to work as guides from his fort in Sacramento. Sutter had found them both in the Bay Area following the war. The Miwok Tribe were predominantly Bay Area (not Sierra foothills) settlers. Luis and Salvador accompanied Charles Stanton upon his return to the Donner Party, bringing provisions.

But the settlements encountered by Forlorn Hope were Nisenan, not Miwok. Indeed Miwok settled in the Bay Area. The foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains were occupied by several tribes and sub-tribes. Specifically along the Bear River which is the body of water the Forlorn Hope travelled in the last week of their journey, was settled by a sub-sect of the Maidu tribe called, “Nisenan”.

I live in this area and have interviewed several tribal leaders pertaining to the verbal history of the area and specifically Forlorn Hope. There is no doubt that the fact was erroneously documented by several - at the time - prominent authors, that the settlements encountered were Miwok. This was then perpetuated by later authors and historians without having fact checked and done further research. The most recent work has discovered the error and going about the process of having it corrected in numerous sources and locations, including Wikipedia.

I hope this explanation helps you understand that the small edit I have made on the Donner Party page pertaining to this topic is done with tremendous prior research and confirmation. As with so many “facts” in history, some can be unequivocally defended and others are recollections recorded, then perpetuated, in many cases erroneously; the latter the case here.

</ref></ref> https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=hornbeck_ind_1 </ref></ref> https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=usupress_pubs </ref></ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisenan </ref></ref> https://sierrafund.org/tag/nisenan-tribute-site/ </ref></ref> http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/california-indian-history/ </ref></ref> https://www.forlornhope.org/research-resources/ </ref></ref> http://www.donnersummithistoricalsociety.org/ </ref></ref> http://www.wheatlandhistoricalsociety.org/ </ref></ref> https://www.nisenan.org/ </ref></ref> https://octa-trails.org/ </ref></ref> https://emigranttrailswest.org/

Imcrowley (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imcrowley, most of those links are to multipage documents or websites - what specific pages do you believe support your version? The changes you made to the article were not accompanied by sources, and the sources already present support the previous version. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave as an External link

Hi, a brief note regarding on our apparent difference of opinion as to if findagrave links can be included specifically in External links sections. Could you clarify the reasoning for actively removing findagrave from External links? For context: I see inclusion of findagrave as adding value to biographies, notwithstanding WP:RS concerns for use elsewhere (I agree that it should generally not be used as a source within an article). I do not see that findagrave lands outside of WP:ELPEREN (which reads in part: "unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images of a grave") or Template:Find a Grave (which reads in part: "contains unique information not already mentioned and cited in the body of the article"). Nor do I see WP:LINKVIO as blanket for findagrave, in contrast to a site like azlyrics.com. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The LINKVIO concern is not blanket, but regarding specific links - there are many that include copyrighted content without evidence of permission, including both text and uploaded media. Regarding ELPEREN, as noted there it should rarely be included, as often it does fails WP:ELNO. This has been backed up by multiple discussions at WP:ELN. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Rather than responding in detail here, I will add comment (at some point this week) over at WP:ELN in the already lengthy "Find A Grave links as external links" discussion. I feel (as others may have already pointed out in that thread) that if we are serious about discouraging use of findagrave and making its use truly "rarely", the TEMPLATE:findagrave needs to be deprecated. I'm actually on the fence about whether that's the "right" action to take, but I do feel strongly that having a Template for it while supposedly having "a widely adopted consensus" is highly problematic. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to include links to such a discussion in your edit summaries; as it is, those of us whose links you are removing having been left to ponder or research why. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox settlement/Wikidata

Hello, why did you cancel my changes on "Infobox settlement/Wikidata" without a comment? I'd appreciate a comment as to what was the problem so that we could come to an agreement to find a way to improve the code. Thanks. - Liinisx (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that land/water areas should be included indiscriminately - the template is mostly used on smaller settlement articles. As for density, I believe in the main template it's calculated based on total rather than land area, and I don't see a reason to approach that differently here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If no data is available on particular territory in Wikidata, it is not visible in infobox, thus I don't see any problems of including it. Calculating density per land area is recommended approach by Eurostat (see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00003/default/table?lang=en) and should be used instead of total area if land area is available. Dāvis Kļaviņš (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest raising the issue of how density is calculated at the main template, if you think it ought to be changed - as I said, so long as that one uses total I don't see a reason to approach this one differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Source review query

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope this message finds you well. I'm in a bit of a pickle with my source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 Tour de France/archive1 and was wondering if you could offer any insight. The source in question is this one by Pieter van den Akker; the source is self published, so fails WP:SELFPUB and the author does not seem to be a subject-matter expert (at least, I cannot find anything about him online). The nominator left a comment, including I would find it a travesty if his book should be excluded as a reliable source simply because he self-published it. That does not make a source unreliable. It might make it questionable, but that question can be answered by taking a thorough look at the source. If he were to be removed from this and all other Tour de France articles, a lot of information would be a lot harder to come by, since we would go through the years-long process that Mr van den Akker has, in great detail and thoroughness, done for us already.—I am not sure what to do, the article cites the book quite a bit, but it doesn't seem to be usable...? The author hosts this website as well if that's any evidence of "subject-matter expertise"?Aza24 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24, another self-published work wouldn't really qualify as evidence of expertise under SELFPUB, nor would just looking at the source as suggested by the nom. What we'd be looking for would be whether he had been published (or potentially cited) by reliable venues on this topic. If this doesn't exist, then unfortunately as you suggest it wouldn't qualify as being a high-quality reliable source. (Noting though that it is possible there is relevant material in Dutch - maybe ask the nom about that?) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I had a feeling the website's existence wasn't enough; I'll ask about their possible authorship of dutch sources, good idea—though I suspect the source may have to be replaced in the end. Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit in your user page

Hi Nikkimaria. Forgive me to edit your page. DrSalvus (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgiven, but please don't edit user pages other than your own any more. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hells Canyon Massacre

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm sharing this with you as the most recent contributor to the page about the [Canyon Massacre]. While watching the TV series, Leverage, they used the Snake River Massacre as the basis for an episode in season 4: Episode 16, “The Gold Job.” Perhaps this could be an addition under the subtitle, "Legacy."

Thank you for your contribution to this page. FairExchange — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.162.160 (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP - do you have a secondary source supporting that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Fontaine

Why did you change the edit on Tina Fontaine? I had changed to article to "Murder of Tina Fontaine" from "Death of Tina Fontaine" as she was clearly murdered. I don't see how that is debatable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The move request closed as having consensus against moving the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French source spot check

Hi Nikkimaria, I have a feeling the spot check for the Tibesti Mountains FAC might be a little intimidating for a lot of reviewers given that about a quarter of the sources are in French. I saw your name on the French-language reviewers list... would you be able to squeeze in a spot check on it? I'm definitely impressed by your work around here. Thank you. Brycehughes (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup ! Brycehughes (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging to see if this weekend you might have time to look at my responses on the Tibesti Mountains source review. I realise we all work for free here, so if not no worries. Thank you! Brycehughes (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

  • New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
  • 1Lib1Ref
  • Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Female perspective

Without further comment or overt canvassing, there's a discussion lacking a female perspective. —ATS (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian image improperly copied to commons?

An editor has started adding images to some of my destroyer articles, but there's a weird issues with at least one of them, File:Corazziere Caria.jpg. It's sourced to the Italian wikipedia, but that says not to copy to Commons. The photo was out of copyright in Italy in 1996, so shouldn't it fall under the URAA tag and be usable on Commons?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, I see the Italian page says the photo had to have been taken in the late 1930s or early 1940s, but do we know when and where it was first published? Not everything that was PD in source country in 1996 necessarily falls under the URAA tag; publication date and details are also important. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was worried about. More than likely it's an official photo from the Royal Italian Navy as the ship was only in existence during 39–43, but who knows? It might have been published in some of the post-war books on Italian ships, but I'll have to check. If it wasn't published until after '96, I suppose we could use it with the reservations about assumed official photographer and no known publication like we did with the Japanese ship photos. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, but I think that agency's control over Italian records was more limited compared to Japanese - for example this source doesn't seem to specifically mention any Italian sources, and the possibility is not reflected in commons:Template:PD-Italy/US. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any publication of the photo and the Italian Wiki page says that it was donated by a user who served aboard the ship during the war. So I'm fairly certain that this falls under the 120-year rule and have nominated it for deletion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

adam lambert musical

can you tell me why you deleted most of the edit regarding the stage musical adam lambert is working on? you also deleted the reference, so even the one short line left has none. there are multiple references on this topic - please let me know your reasoning... at the very least i would otherwise replace the reference. thanks Jordan200 (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jordan200, the reference that was used is not reliable. See its entry here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I’ll replace the ref. Jordan200 (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Jordan200 (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin

Dear Nikkimaria, I had thought that issues on this article had subsided. The problem began when a group of editors tried to steer the article into saying that Chopin was gay, for which in fact there is no evidence from any authority. There is evidence that he wrote erotic letters to his male friend Titus when he was 19 or 20, and reputable authorities have discussed these and put them in context. An RfC concluded rather inconclusively. The problem is now the opposite - some editors, capitalizing on the rout of the previous comabtants, are seeking to deny or delete any reference to the Titus episode and are deleting and redeleting cited material which relates to it. It is clear that this article has become a battleground for some gay activists and some anti-gay activists. The editors concerned have had little or no hand in developing the article to date. I therefore think that while this battle continues the article should have its FA rescinded. On a broader front I am very concerned that WP is being used to fight such battles - is there some forum to which I could refer this? Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smerus, I see that Ritchie has full-protected the article, which should help. You could also try posting at WP:NPOVN. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, "on a broader front", WP is already "being used to fight such battles". I suggest sitting tight for a while until the next target-du-jour comes along. And I agree with Nikkimaria on bringing it to the attention of a noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, thanks. I have made a submission to NPOVN - my first time there. Let's see what happens.--Smerus (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave external link deprecation

So in what cases is Find a Grave allowed as a external link? Because you just removed the template from the article. It doesn't make sense for it to even be a template here if your mass removing the template on almost any biographical page. Are we 100% sure that headstone photograph is copyrighted? Because the find a grave external link contains unique information her grave location. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it's credited to a commercial photographer and source there, yes, we need to assume it's copyrighted. Whether the page contains unique info is a secondary consideration, although in this case the information is not unique - following up on the USA Today photo brings up sources like this one that include that detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Thank you, I will add some info about her grave location using that source you just provided. P.S., So can Find a Grave be used as external link if the subject's entry onto the site has no copyrighted content? ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just the first thing to assess. As per WP:ELPEREN it should be included rarely. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Then I wonder, why do we even have this template on the Wikipedia in the first place if it is taboo to use it? ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because rarely doesn't mean never - it just means usually not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McLaren Senna

I am new to Wikipedia and you removed tons of content from the McLaren Senna article and I am new! I do not know how to source and why do you want people to source? You are too lazy to even tell editors how to source. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to use sources and I am a new user! Why do you expect people to use sources!? This is why I do not like Wikipedia or the Wikia/Fandom websites because they require too much coding and they require you to be a typing expert. You tried to start an edit war on the McLaren Senna article because you deleted tons of content and the links were the sources!!! VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022, this page explains how to technically add citations, but the issue with your addition was not the coding - it's that open wikis like Wikipedia and Wikia/Fandom are not reliable sources. You might find going through the Introduction helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
For finding sources for the Australia article pretty much immediately after I tagged it. CMD (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You are a great! Dr Salvus 19:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nawal El Kuwaitia albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Nawal El Kuwaitia albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

revert of page

I was wondering why you keep reverting this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BadBoyHalo&action=history

Hi ChromiumOverload, because the subject of that page is a living person, we have special rules about how the article has to be written if it's to remain. Self-published sources like open wikis do not meet this standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter

Hi. I wish you an happy Easter. Forgive me if I have edited your user page and thinking that you are a vandal Dr Salvus 21:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Riel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lynch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nawal El Kuwaitia albums has been nominated for deletion

Category:Nawal El Kuwaitia albums has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Angela Douglas

Dear Nikkimaria, I am curious as to why you removed a minor amendment that I made to actress Angela Douglas's page. Please advise. The change I made was to update details of her marriage date to director Bill Bryden.

My amendment was conservative. Both Angela Douglas and Bill Bryden are living persons.

The entry previously stated that their marriage took place in New York City in February 2009 but that a citation was needed. So I did some research and found an article in the Daily Mail online newspaper from that month that directly quoted Angela Douglas. This confirmed to me that they had indeed married. My source is the 5th article down on this url: 

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1155619/Marriage-Caracas-Cracker-fizzles-out.html

However the date of marriage was not given in that article. So I did a search online on the New York City marriage index and found a record of their marriage in October 2008. The information is found by doing a name and date search on my source url: https://www.nycmarriageindex.com/.

After doing the research, I slightly amended the previous text and added both references. As a result of your subsequent amendment, Ms Douglas's entry now does not even contain the unaltered original sentence (where a citation was needed). There is a similar entry that appears on Mr.Bryden's separate entry in wikipedia (re his personal life) and still needs a citation. I was considering updating that one too but will not now, pending any good reason why I should not do so.

I am fairly new to editing wikipedia, so I would be grateful for your response as to why you felt it was necessary to not only remove my amendments but also to not restore the sentence that had been there previously. I am wondering if there is still a way to record the information I found. Do you have a suggestion please?

Yours sincerely, Ortonian (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ortonian. Because of our rules around living persons, we need to be especially careful about sourcing standards. dailymail.co.uk has been found to be generally unreliable and therefore should not be used as a reference. That leaves us with the marriage index, which is a primary source - WP:BLPPRIMARY indicates that court records and public documents of this sort should not be used to support assertions about living people. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nikkimaria, thank you for the information. As an alternative source of information, the Twitter account 'Angela Douglas Official' (@ImAngelaDouglas) states 'Married to Bill Brydon' in the header (although surely a misspelling of Bryden by her agent).

Also her IMDB bio states that she married Bill Bryden on her birthday in 2009: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0234946/bio.

A news story about them in the Evening Standard paper shows they are married: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/supersewer-will-wreck-our-home-says-carry-on-star-8225751.html.

The Douglas History site also gives the February 2009 date: http://www.douglashistory.co.uk/history/angela_douglas.htm.

Would any of them be acceptable for wikipedia? It now is difficult to put the actual date or month of marriage because Ms Douglas's birthday seems to be in October but Bill Bryden's IMDB states they were married in February 2009 (the marriage index states October 2008). Consequently, I suggest a simple statement that "She is married to Bill Bryden" should be acceptable. Ortonian (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ortonian, yes, it should be possible to include that she is married to Bill Bryden. However, note that IMDb is also not considered reliable, and the Douglas History source appears to be questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I am considering adding the sentence about them being married, but omitting a date. The Evening Standard article and the Twitter account references support this so I would use them as references. Ortonian (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot

What exactly do you object Citation bot doing on the Louis Riel article? You've reverted it several times after it fixed a slew of problems on these citations, and have re-introduced issues that were fixed by reverting. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What problems are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those fixed by [1]. What do you object to in that edit? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems being solved by that edit. Can you specify what you're referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answer the question. You've reverted Citation bot's fixed twice now. What do you object to here? If you can't answer that question, I'll reinstate the changes, since you can't explain yours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that any of the changes made in that edit were necessary or improved the article. And since you haven't explained what specific benefits it provides, reinstating it would be inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you have nothing. Several errors were fixed (e.g. using |url=https://web.archive.org/... instead of |archive-url=/|archive-date=/|url=foobar), several things were standardized (e.g. using |encyclopedia= instead of |work=, consistently hyphenating multiword parameters), and several missing identifiers were added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that those identifiers are mandatory; could you point me to the discussion where that was decided? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why do you object to them? These are useful resources to readers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem to me particularly useful, and increase clutter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since that's your only tangible objection, I've restored the edit with the s2cids commented. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. As I said, I don't agree that any of the changes made in that edit were necessary or improved the article, and nothing you've said here has demonstrated otherwise. There is no reason for example to require use of encyclopedia over work, nor forbid using archived links as URLs. And since the edit is disputed, as I've said the reinstatement is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice request

Hi Nikkimaria, I remember you giving a particularly thorough FAC source review, so I thought I'd ask for some simple advice. I've been working on improving the List of artworks in University City of Caracas for a few years now, and at some point would consider proposing it as a FL candidate (there's no GA equivalent, though I know lists can be nominated as regular GAs the reviews for such can be complicated, but I'd probably go through GA first). The advice I'd like is on sources; the official university heritage group, in lieu of an official website, has used a couple wordpress/blogspot type blogs over the years, as have other similar groups (both smaller ones within the university, and ones on a national scale). Now, a lot of this information is duplicated on Venezuelan government websites - but almost all of these are hard blocked outside Venezuela or not preferred due to government propaganda. So, is it "safe" to continue using the original sources, though they're hosted on free blogs (this appears to be because of massive financial constraints and the ability to "host" on non-Venezuelan web servers), rather than use the government duplicates? Kingsif (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsif, the constraints of WP:SPS are that these types of sources can be used if they are produced by a subject-matter expert. I would be inclined to agree that the official university heritage group and the like would qualify, as long as they're not being used to cite anything too self-serving. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Greenough Orr

Hi Nikki, it’s been a long time. I hope all is well. I am still very thankful to this day for how you pulled my butt out of the fire. And I still miss your edits although I haven’t been writing as many new articles the last year due having a job now. But could you do me a quick favor on an article? It’s a pretty short one, I’m not the creator but myself and another editor have contributed significantly to it. It’s a very important rodeo article historically; the subject practically created the barrel racing event. It’s been templated for copyright vio. There’s a sandbox but we can’t seem to make the copyright editors happy. Can you take a look? Alice Greenough Orr Thanks! Dawnleelynn Ps I’m new to using my phone to edit and figuring out the coding. Dawnleelynn (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC) dawnleelynn(talk) 19:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC) PS See “Respectfully...” discussion on JLAN’s talk page.[reply]

Hi Dawnleelynn, I see MBW has asked JLAN for a re-review - I'd be inclined to wait to see what that response is. The issue in this particular case is that the contributions of the editor in question are assumed to be copyvio - so even if what you see there doesn't seem unduly closely paraphrased from the sources that are cited, that doesn't automatically mean it's going to be acceptable. It would probably be much easier to just write the article from scratch. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Actually MBW is the other editor I mentioned in my first message. It has been since 9:30 MST since she asked for a re-review so I guess we were being too impatient for it. However, I do appreciate your response and advice as usual. I can always count on you for some type of assistance even if it isn't what I initially requested. We will see what shakes out when and if they get back to us. Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Louis Riel, you may be blocked from editing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, kettle. Edits are not "vandalism" because you happen to disagree with them; those changes are not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are vandalism because you knee-jerk revert them because you don't like them, and have no substantive objection to them. You're restore a style (bilingual ournal titles) against consensus, removed missing DOIs, removed free links for readers to access and so on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not what vandalism means. You want to make those changes, it's on you to get consensus for them. You still haven't done that. I've explained already that they are needless clutter; you're welcome to disagree with that assessment, but that doesn't mean you can just restore them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing cluttering about them, you do not own the article. Revert this again and I will take you to ANI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you're welcome to your opinion, but you're not welcome to bully the changes into the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Barnstar for hitting 150,000 changes Dr Salvus 20:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Many users think you are a vandal but this is not the case. I advise you to justify your change in the description of it. This way they will understand your good intentions. Dr Salvus 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Maine in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maine in popular culture, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gorodechno "rm EL" Meaning?

Hi, this is about your change within the article Battle of Gorodechno. I do not understand "rm EL". I use books that can be checked online if needed as a source. I give a URL and by giving an access-date I want to show that this source was available at that time and is not dead for the last ten years... Ruedi33a (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruedi33a, your citation included an external link (EL) to an open wiki. Did you consult the book that that citation references, or are you just citing that wiki? If the latter, please be aware that it is not a reliable source, and if you haven't actually looked at that book you can't cite it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have solved the problem.Ruedi33a (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heminghway

I don't understand your revert since most people (famous people) who served in the world wars have that added to their infoboxes. However, I hate edit wars, I won't object to your controversial edits. Double standards are common on Wikipedia. --CoryGlee (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What gets included is decided on an article-by-article basis. If you think this ought to be included here, I'd suggest you make your case on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have more knowledge on policies, perhaps he as writer does not have the same level of importance in his battles as a soldier like Henry Tandey which I recently edited. I just wikilinked "wounded in action" in Hemingway's article, as I think it gives insight as to what he suffered. If I sounded rude in the original message to you, I apologise. It was not my intention, dude. I am all OK with your revert. I now understand it. Hope you understand my POV as well. Kindest regards. --CoryGlee (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

BWV 157

Thank you for fixing the refs in BWV 157, - I was just too tired. I find the pdf via google search (https://) www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi77MGv9v_vAhUKgP0HHX4nDpoQFjAAegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bach-chor-berlin.de%2Fde%2Fcomponent%2Fk2%2Fitem%2Fdownload%2F51_d9ebe1b07048be1e5d3e4c442acd1587&usg=AOvVaw3cySiGLWRHbzpJTra4ZI3g - I don't know how to derive a proper url from it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, here's what you can try: do the Google search through which you found that link, and then instead of actually clicking on the link as you would normally do, look for a little downward arrow just above the title. Click on that and then click on Cached. You should get to a copy of the source with a proper link at the top that you can use. For example, I think this is the one you're trying to get? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Walker

Clint Walker served in the United States Merchant Marine in World War II. The merchant marines who served during the war were granted WWII military veteran status by an act of Congress in 1988. And thus Walker's wartime veteran status is validated by U.S. law. Ldavid1985 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ldavid1985, I'm not disputing that, but it's not what he's known for. It doesn't warrant that level of prominence. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, It doesn't matter if said celebrity is not primarily known for his or her wartime service. The vast majority of celebrities who have served in uniform are not primarily known for their service, be it whether they are known primarily as actors, directors, writers, athletes, musicians etc. And yet countless celebrities have their wartime service noted in their info box on their respective Wikipedia pages. Ldavid1985 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ldavid1985, there are countless articles that lack sources as well, but that doesn't make that something to aspire to. We don't need to shove every available detail in there. I see you've been doing this in a bunch of places; please don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Baldwin edit

Hi, you first deleted two lines from the infobox with the word trim. I reverted because technically that was incorrect. The lines are part of the infobox. You can delete the data added but you should not delete the template fields. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidstewartharvey, there is no technical need to keep template fields if they are not being used, since they are not mandatory. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pierpoint

There is no source document showing the name if Richard Pierpoint's owner or owners. There is also no record of where the names Richard or Pierpoint came from. There have been individuals publishing this information erroneously for a number of years. The first documented record of an African known as Richard Pierpoint appears in 1780 as a member of Butler's Rangers. The Wikipedia page shows both of errors of a name of an owner and the source of the name Pierpoint. I have tried to correct this but obviously have not followed the correct Wikipedia prodigals. I'm sorry for that. However, it is important to only publish information about Richard Pierpoint that can be verified. My brother David and I wrote the book "A Stolen Life: Searching for Richard Pierpoint" and are the leading authorities. Regards, Peter Meyler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.72.249 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pierpoint

There is no source document showing the name of Richard Pierpoint's owner or owners. There is also no record of where the names Richard or Pierpoint came from. There have been individuals publishing this information erroneously for a number of years. The first documented record of an African known as Richard Pierpoint appears in 1780 as a member of Butler's Rangers. The Wikipedia page shows both of errors of a name of an owner and the source of the name Pierpoint. It is important to only publish information about Richard Pierpoint that can be verified. My brother David and I wrote the book "A Stolen Life: Searching for Richard Pierpoint" and are the leading authorities. Regards, Peter Meyler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.72.249 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tibesti thanks

Hey Nikkimaria, I realise all the thanks from an FAC can come across as somewhat forced, but this one is not. Thank you for all your work on the Tibesti FAC. I expect a lot of this is routine for you now, but I hope you know how much your works means for us mortals on here. Half of me still hopes you will review my new sources (obviously don't) even in its archived state, and that is sort-of admiration in a nutshell. See you around, Brycehughes (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tarring and feathering in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tarring and feathering in popular culture, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarring and feathering in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Undelete image revisions

Hi, I'm wondering if you would be willing to undelete the original revision of File:Originally Brown's Ice Cream this PLUTO pumping station is now a Family Golf venue.jpg? The uploader stated on their talk page that they intended to release their copyright of the image—I'm guessing they didn't realize freedom of panorama applies to this image. Thanks! (t · c) buidhe 16:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry buidhe, can't help with that. Try WP:REFUND? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lets establish consensus if you want to revert Reliable Sources again on its talk page

Lets establish consensus if you want to revert Reliable Sources again on its talk page Uni3993 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uni3993, that's not how that works - as per WP:CONLEVEL, bold changes to guideline pages are rarely appropriate, and especially when objections have been raised discussion is needed first. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check the WP:RS talk page again. Uni3993 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a draft article review

Hello User:Nikkimaria my name is Dan Cook or User:DanDavidCook. I have been attempting to help a British satirist/comedian named Sheridan 'Shed' Simove restore his article. It was up since 2011 but then summarily deleted last summer by another editor who said it failed the notability standard. I have reconstructed the article with new sources. Would you have the time or inclination to take a quick look at it in my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DanDavidCook/sandbox ? I think he does just meet the standard but as I am a COI editor my opinion counts for little. If he were to hear an opinion from an experienced editor like yourself I think he could live with the verdict even if it were 'not notable.' I am reaching out to you because you recently edited the Paul Reubens article and Shed reminds me of Pee Wee Herman. Thanks in advance for any advice you could offer. DanDavidCook (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DanDavidCook, I think the subject is probably notable, but some of the references don't seem to be working for me - could you verify the links are correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will go back and double check them. I'll ping you when I've done so. Thank you so much! DanDavidCook (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have found a link for the BBC cite that was missing and found another rather weak source for the 2017 PRCA awards (which could be removed if you prefer). The Reuters blog simply does not exist; it was live when I wrote the article and still shows up in a google search but apparently Reuters took down her posts. Otherwise I think it is in good shape. I am a bit concerned about taking it live myself because of my COI status. What would you recommend? And thanks so much for taking the time to help out! DanDavidCook (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PSCOI suggests that either you send the article through WP:AFC (with disclosure of the COI), or go through the request-edit process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do and again many thanks. DanDavidCook (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, sorry to take up more of your time. Quick question: I would like to use the edit request route to propose the article on Sheridan Simove. I have used the template previously, but only for revisions on existing articles. Where would I post this request for a new article? On my talk page? Again, apologies for being a pest, appreciate your guidance! DanDavidCook (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest posting it on the draft's talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAM Request

Hi. Since I have failed so many GA, FA and FL nominations and would like to have articles in FA and FL would you be willing to help me? Dr Salvus 18:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For start, I would like promote in to a FL List of Coppa Italia finals. Thank you Dr Salvus 12:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting by making sure you've addressed all of the issues raised in the previous reviews. Once you're satisfied that has been done, you can try asking the previous reviewers to have a look outside of the FL process, if they're willing to do that. That will help ensure that when you do end up going back you're on a more solid foundation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Would you help me with other articles such as History of Juventus F.C.? Dr Salvus 12:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest picking one article to focus on to start, rather than trying to work up several at the same time. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll focus more on the History of Juventus F.C. article. Could you help me since I had problems with Featured content topic Dr Salvus 13:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you start by making the article conform as closely as possible to the FA criteria. Once you think it's there, submit the article to peer review to get more eyes from other editors, particularly those with an interest in the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Dr Salvus 14:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox person/Wikidata

Hi, I noticed you oftenly "rework" "Infobox person/Wikidata". Could you explain to me what is the purpose of this work ? Thanks for your feedback, Le Passant (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Le Passant, because the two projects have different sourcing standards, there are often cases where material is technically "sourced" and therefore passed through, but not appropriately sourced for our purposes. For example, GeneaStar cites Wikipedia as a source, so including material cited to that creates a circularity problem. There are also differences in other practices, such as including non-notable relatives. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior

I saw that you left a 3rr warning at User DagneyGirl's Talk page. They are continuing to edit war. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jules_Massenet&type=revision&diff=1022273181&oldid=1022253413

and: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orpheus_in_the_Underworld&type=revision&diff=1022253370&oldid=1022253238 All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those were before my warning - let's see if the issue persists after it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

  • New Library Card designs
  • 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Curley Christian

On 11 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Curley Christian, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Curley Christian was the only soldier in the First World War to survive a quadruple amputation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Curley Christian. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Curley Christian), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

doc

Kindly explain why you - not even a member of project opera - change the documentation of the infobox back to a less useful version? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but I am a member of project opera, and the person who made the bold change was not. As to why, I don't agree that the change was more useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK about membership. The one who changed, to match the documentation to how the parameter is actually used (which was just forgotten to add), was one of the people behind the template, as are you. - Example Akhnaten: not every reader will realize from the title that it's about this pharao; why not give them an easy clue? Another: Adrien - I had no idea that this means the ancient emperor. Why not help to that knowledge at a glance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the latter case, even with the change in documentation this wouldn't be something shown there - the work is more immediately derived from the Metastasio libretto. In the former case, there is an easy clue, in the first sentence displayed before this field, but the details are more complicated. Plus, having looked at the usage, in the vast majority of cases it is used as the documentation has indicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have readers who only look at the infobox, and others who never do. Let's please serve both. I replied at the template talk, and suggest we take the discussion there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not meant to replace the article, just supplement it. Anyone who only looks there will always miss out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

Thanks for helping with source-finding at the Research Desk!

EpicPupper (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

Thanks for helping with source-finding at the Research Desk!

EpicPupper (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The Barnstar of Diligence
Just thanks for your continued unobtrusive efforts to keep articles up to a decent standard and our featured content processes ticking over -- I can't check my watchlist without seeing your name somewhere, Nikki, and your work is appreciated. :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted a draft, but have a question

Hello User:Nikkimaria, you kindly helped me with my question about the comedian Sheridan "Shed" Simove. I finished working on the article today and I think I moved it from my sandbox to the draft space. But I'm not certain it is in the right form. It is here: Draft:Sheridan_"Shed"_Simove. I made my COI declaration on the talk page. Would you have the time to check it and see if I did it properly? Truly appreciate your help with this. DanDavidCook (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine. I've just moved the AfC template to the top of the draft. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks! DanDavidCook (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Susan Beharriell

On 19 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Susan Beharriell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Beharriell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Susan Beharriell), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

Hi! I've noticed you've commented on previous FACs of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and was wondering if you'd be able to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/archive5. Thank you. Pamzeis (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sevenhampton, Wiltshire

www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Findagrave_removed_as_a_source_for_information Seeing the discussion, community consensus is that the website can't be entirely dismissed. I get mostly the website is user generated and anybody can post anything, but pages for famous people are curated by the website staff and WP:FINDAGRAVE confirms that. This isn't a contentious article and mostly just put in the link for somebody reading the article and wants to see more pictures of the headstone which is allowed under rare exceptions Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find a Grave. Cladeal832 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As those pages make clear, this isn't a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually others disagreed with your position and the policy guidelines established exceptions i.e. other sourcing or famous entries [see Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus]. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No "policy guidelines" that I'm aware of have established famous entries as being reliable sources on English Wikipedia, and none of the pages you've listed do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're unaware of it, but it's in WP:FINDAGRAVECladeal832 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cladeal832, that is neither a policy nor a guideline, and also explicitly notes several times that the site is not considered a reliable source. Additionally, there is absolutely no reason to replace a reliable source with this one, as you did here. Please revert yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice you put in a another source. My mistake. But notes this website can be used under conditions I outlined in that page. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cladeal832, no, again, that page does not say what you're saying it does. It says the source is not considered reliable. Furthermore, it says that "if all the material you add is sourced from reliable sources, do not add a Find a Grave link" - the opposite of what you're arguing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the only source provided so the point is moot. Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find_a_Grave, rarely, but yes, it's allowed a backup and nothing in the articles are solely sourced to. You had this discussed already www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Findagrave_removed_as_a_source_for_information and please disagreed with your position. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's never to used at all under any conditions, why would Wikipedia have a template specifically for it. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cladeal832, Wikidata is a separate project; discussions there are not applicable here. The consensus regarding that source here is outlined at WP:RSP. And again, the page you're citing also doesn't support your argument either - it doesn't say anything about it being used as a backup source, or that it is acceptable to be cited so long as other sources are also cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing. It give specific conditions where findagrave.com can be used as a source. I'm quoting directing from the page,
Sometimes, a link is acceptable
Cladeal832 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cladeal832, you are making arguments that lack foundation. The quote you provide refers to using that site as an external link, not as a cited source. Additionally none of the conditions listed there regarding use as an external link match up with the rationales you've been providing - nothing about famous people, nothing about being cited as an additional source where other better sources already provide the information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my foundational question is just is it inaccurate. It's on the page for Wikipedia page for famous people on findagrave.com Wikipedia:Find a Grave famous people and how it's curated so it's not user generated. I'm just repeated myself. So you'd rather have it in the external links section rather than just right next to relevant part of the article? Cladeal832 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - since there has been no good reason provided to include it, I don't think it should be there at all. We have reliable sources confirming the details in question, and it doesn't provide any added value warranting inclusion as an external link. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your thinking since one can't see the epitaphs on all sides of the monument up close nor it's position within the churchyard which are the specific circumstances cited for why to include it. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are readily supportable with reliable sources - eg this source which actually does a much better job. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it only shows one side of the monument. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you click the link that I've just provided and scroll down, you will find it includes more than that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A flock o' reversions

Hello. You might have noticed that I reverted a goodly number of your edits today. I did so mostly because you did not explain them fully enough for my understanding, nor that of other editors, I might assume. It would help if you would give a fulsome reason, even longwinded, if you please. Well, *I* would appreciate it, and so might other editors. When you challenge a citation or anything else as unreliable or not acceptable, you might consider that the person who used it thought it was okay, so it's just a courtesy to explain why that editor was wrong and you are right. Also, on a separate note, it is not necessary to use a federation's name, even its abbreviation (like "US" or "USSR") when a widely understood State names is used, like Missouri or California or Ukraine (or England even though that country is really a kingdom joined with another). Anyway, thanks for all you do, and best wishes to you in the spirit of Wikipedia Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, an edit summary that is not to your satisfaction is not a good rationale for reverting edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback on an article

Hi there, hope this is the appropriate place to post this. I'm a student working on the following article, String Quartet No. 10 (Shostakovich), and I see that you have edited articles in this domain. Any feedback you could offer is much appreciated. Thanks so much

Zawinul lava (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zawinul lava, nice work so far. Here are some suggestions:
  • Some of the article's sections are currently quite short. Is there material available to expand them? If no, could they be merged into other sections?
  • Are there any appropriately licensed images or media files that could be added?
  • Is there any information available about the work's publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright question

Hi, I was wondering what is the copyright status of File:Tornado Over Kansas (Curry, 1929).jpg for its FAC. The painting was created in 1929 and its artist, a US citizen, died in 1946. The painting was published in the 23 Nov 1936 issue of Life magazine, which was copyrighted and renewed, however there was not a separate copyright notice for the painting. Thanks in advance. (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was Life the work's first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit more investigation, the painting was also published by Time in 24 December 1934 issue (issue was also copyrighted and renewed, no copyright notice for the painting itself—only stating "Courtesy of Century of Progress Fine Arts Exhibition")[2]. I can't find an earlier publication but can't say for sure there was none. (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The courtesy notice may allow for further investigation, but the information we have isn't sufficient to conclude the image is free. It's pretty common for republishers to not include copyright notice or information; that doesn't mean they shouldn't have. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

E. V. Loustalot

Could you please explain reversion of findagrave link? That site provides an image (of uncertain ownership) of Lt. Loustalot not present in the article, not just a picture of gravestone. Thank you. AndersW (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AndersW, if the image is of uncertain origin, how do we know it is of this person? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNH presidents and Find a grave...

I am using the links to find other sources to improve the subjects...

Just work on stuff of your own, instead of making it harder for others

Hi Slulek, check out this statement from our Five Pillars. Please also do not restore linkvio - in the absence of permission for that content to be reproduced, we can't link to it. You can link to the original source instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point?

Two points, Slulek: don't make (and especially don't repeat) edits after copyright issues have been pointed out, and if you really don't want your work to be edited at all, then unfortunately here's not the place to post it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find a grave is not a copyright issue (I am not using them a references... just a link for a starting point to find other more information)

The purely factual information contained on Find A Grave — the names of the deceased, their dates of birth and death, the places of the burial — are not and cannot be copyright protected. The law couldn't be clearer that point: only original works with some degree of creativity can be copyrighted

Slulek, if you look at the specific link in question, you will find that it contains text that copies from the link I provided above, which is clearly marked as copyrighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... here is an interesting wrinkle from 1923 to 1963 the copyright was only valid for 28 years.. unless they renewed it.. which unless they were famous.. newspapers didn't... So, wouldn't using any Find a grave info or link before 1963 be ok? https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2012/09/12/copyright-and-the-obit/ _____________________ another wrinkle from the article (the word research)_________________________ And if those aren’t enough “maybes” for you, let’s throw in one more big one. It’s called the fair use doctrine, and it’s set out in federal law at 17 U.S.C. § 107:

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means …, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright

In the case of "maybe", we err on the side of "no". The exemption for fair use, in particular with regards to WP:LINKVIO, is similarly limited, and in the particular case under discussion here I don't agree it would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we just disagree... not sure why you think your opinion is the only one that matters... I could see if the Wikipedia page was copied word for word from an obituary after 1963. I find the Find a Grave links a great way to start looking for pertinent information from better sources, especially with birth and death dates and locations (definitely not good to use as direct references though) if it wasn't meant to be used... why is there a template? slulek (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The external link we're talking about is copied word for word from an obituary after 1963 - this one that I linked above. If the article was also copied, it would need to be deleted entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so much for the on-going attention and care you bring to the review of edits to the Canadian IRSS page. I had to stop paying close attention after it passed FA review due to bad-faith-argument fatigue so I'm grateful that you've been able to keep on top of things over the past few years, not to mention this week. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chasing the dragon in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chasing the dragon in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chasing the dragon in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Waxworker (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wo Menschen sich vergessen

I must have problems with English (what's new). If the template documentation doesn't help to specifically say who wrote a text when and who wrote music when, even if the person and the time are the same, we must change the documentation. You cite |written=. The documentation is for "written" as a more general word for "composed". In case of a hymn, however, "written" means specifically the writing of the text. Would you suggest to have a different parameter for that? ... or the same parameter, with different wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding: the parameter received the new function when infobox hymn was merged. Probably we just forgot to update the parameter documentation. Actually, I don't recall examples of "written" as not the text, and - for oratorios, hymns etc. - it's the exception that author of text and music are the same person, and rarely are the years for text and music the same, - we better show. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOX supports the exclusion of unnecessary content and repetition; the documentation is consistent with that. I don't think we need a different parameter to say the same thing we've already said. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That a poet wrote a text a certain year, and a composer wrote music to it a certain year, seems not the same thing even if the year is the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The work that is the subject of the article was written in a certain year. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't tell you that text and melody were written the same year. It's rare among hymns. Many are written with new text to an old melody. Others have text with a melody added much later. There is no default noticeable for a reader who doesn't know our - perhaps too complex? - instructions. Why would you - to save one line - fight to say it without making the reader having to guess and assume? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an average reader would have any problem understanding that when it says the work was created this year, that means the whole work was created this year. I think it's appropriate to continue to default to that and only identify cases where that isn't true. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand, though, that for all works with text that is really the exception? What you say would make sense for collaborations, but in an estimated 95% of hymns, the creators never met, and in many cases, they even lived in different eras. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, it doesn't say "created", but "composed" which only says something about the music, nothing about the text. Until yesterday, both people didn't even have an article, so lifetimes gave no clue. The text could be written before or after the melody. The author isn't famous like Shakespeare where people would possibly know about when he worked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may be overthinking the reader's interpretation. The average reader sees that the work was composed in a year, not that the text was written by a person without an article whose dates they don't know etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For hymns - and it wasn't my idea to merge them in, but that's where we are - it's much more important who wrote the text, and when, Martin Luther, Paul Gerhardt: the content is much more important than the music. Some have a handful of melodies, - the melody doesn't define the work, but the text does. The template docu should say so, and request that written be filled for hymns if known, whatever the other parameters say. Right now, I have to improve an article of a woman who died yesterday, - seems more important. Busy week ahead. Could you, perhaps? You are good in wording such things. - The text author has an article now as I said above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I would suggest splitting the hymn template back out, but I see you supported the merger? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Library advice

Hi Nikkimaria! I recently lost full access to my University library' s online journal and publication platform. I still have access to a smaller database via the local College; it includes JSTOR but is really weak when it comes to newspaper archives, which I use to verify BLP content in offline and archived sources. My question for you is, does the Libray Bundle include a newspaper archive, or would it be best to apply for the ProQuest or NewspaperARCHIVE.com access? Also, is there one of those two that has more licenses/access available than the other? I don't want to apply and take the space of another editor who might use the database more extensively than I do.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, TWL does include some ProQuest access but for newspaper archives you need to apply for NewspaperARCHIVE.com (which mostly covers US newspapers and only some of them). Also, if you just need something occasionally, you can always ask at WP:RX. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, buidhe. I'll apply for both the library bundle and NewspaperArchive.com. I was going to try to tackle a few articles here, so a ton of individual requests via WP:RX probably isn't feasible. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like the standard Library Bundle access to ProQuest includes newspaper access, so it may be all I need for now.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe. Yep, ProQuest is Bundle, and Newspaperarchive effectively has unlimited access at the moment so it shouldn't be a problem to apply for that if you do find you need it, Ponyo. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA Grave removals

I've noticed that in your tidying up articles, you are removing Find a Grave where it has been used as a source. I have no issue with this, especially the ones that are from "back in the day" when I was first beginning at Wikipedia and didn't know it wasn't accepted as a source. However, I notice you also removed one from External links on Sarah Selby. May I ask why? It wasn't being used as a source, and as far I know, that which is in External links does not have to be a reliable source. If we are removing non-reliable sources from External links, it seems over-kill. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maile, as per WP:ELPEREN it should be included as an EL only rarely. In this particular case it doesn't seem to provide any unique benefit. Do you feel otherwise? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do, and it wasn't hurting anything to have it there. It does say her body was donated to science, and none of the media coverage specify a funeral or burial, no last rites, nothing. Maybe some other reader will find a reliable source about her final remains. Presently, Find A Grave is all there is. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, if there isn't an actual source that confirms that claim, this site isn't going to do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox radio station}} and country listing

Putting the country has never been done as a standard in this template. I tried to add a |country= field to it last year but couldn't figure out how to get it and the short description generation to play nicely. There are more than 22,000 transclusions of this template, about 14,000 in the United States, so this would be a larger editing task to handle. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we can get the short description issue fixed so this displays properly. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Michael George Levy

Hi Nikkimaria: I've just promoted your Michael George Levy article to prep 6, but have a question about the sentence which reads "He escaped from Lunghua with four other internees who made their way on foot and by riding junk to India." What does "riding junk" mean? Can it be clarified, or wikilinked or something? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC, fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that was it, but didn't want to make an assumption. After all, you know what they say about those who assume... ;) MeegsC (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of lines from a template

Information icon Hello, I'm Fleets. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Fleets, I've explained the issues to you on multiple occasions, and included a link in my edit summary to the Manual of Style which supports the changes. You're welcome to start a central discussion if you think the MOS ought to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing a line from a template, the MOS does not support this, and the 3O was half in favour of what you were seeking to hear and half against it. Please stop removing lines from templates.Fleets (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fleets, there is absolutely no need to retain blank lines in templates, and as already explained assigning a fixed px size based on what looks good on your screen is not appropriate. Additionally the 3O you reference does not support the edits you are making. Please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is could be deemed an optional field, but there is certainly no need to remove the line altogether, that is just plain wrong, almost like you are trying to remove something altogether. I'm not sure what you're past history is with that line, but it certainly does have validity as there are huge ranges in sizes and quality of images uploaded to wikipedia.Fleets (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fleets, that is incorrect. As has already been explained several times, image size should generally not be fixed per MOS:IMGSIZE, because it overrides user preferences. Aesthetic reasons are not a rationale to override these preferences because what looks good on your screen may not look good on others, and may even cause issues with accessibility. If the parameter is not in use it is perfectly valid to remove the line altogether. Similarly aesthetics is not a good reason to create a sea of blue instead of using the more specific link. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a non-mandatory field that can be set, and the MOS you cited expressly states that fact. I am not using the fixed size, but to remove the line is just plain wrong. I am stating that you are removing a line that should not be removed from the template; filled or otherwise. The removal of that line will remove the ability for future editors to display "reduced images sizes" and other such issues when low quality images are scaled up for example. Perhaps I have got you offside with the SEAOFBLUE stuff, but to remove the image size line just seems plain wrong.Fleets (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fleets, if the line is not used there is absolutely no problem with removing it. If there is a policy or guideline that says otherwise please point that out so it can be addressed; to my knowledge there is not, because parameters that are not used are not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll leave it there, as I've tried to engage, used the links you helpfully provided, but obviously got you offside with the SEAOFBLUE stuff, so I'll just walk away.Fleets (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to be sure you saw this.

I have appreciated your patient work with me as we attempt to reach consensus on possible "lack of consensus doesn't support a revert unless ..." text. You have not reacted to my most recent post. I hope that means that you just missed the post. If so, I draw your attention to it now. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Butwhatdoiknow, I've seen your most recent question, but I want to make sure I understand what you're looking for. If I remove something longstanding from an article, does that count as a revert or a non-revert? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call that a "change." In contrast, a "revert" is something that rollbacks a particular edit. To clarify that we may want to link the word "revert" in our draft text to wp:Reverting#What is a reversion?
Either way, our current first sentence would apply: "Base edit summaries in support of a bold edit or revert on policy, sources, common sense, or another substantive reason for the change." If the removing editor doesn't doesn't do that then the reverting edit summary might say "unexplained change to longstanding policy." If the removing editor does do that then the reverting edit summary should be substantive (and might include a reference to the effect of the change on thousands of existing articles), Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Butwhatdoiknow. As I said there, I don't think that first sentence is problematic in principle (although looking now there is a very similar sentence in DISCUSSCONSENSUS - might be worth consolidating). But I also think you've given a decent sample answer to your own question: even if someone feels they have a good, common-sense-based rationale, changes to longstanding policy generally shouldn't be made without seeking consensus first, as noted in CONLEVEL. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the current proposed text results in a different outcome: (1) Editor makes a bold change to longstanding policy, giving a substantive reason. (2) Another editor boldly reverts, pointing out (for example) that the change affects thousands of articles - which is not same as saying "no consensus" and nothing else. (3) Discussion ensues. The original supported-by-substance ILIKEIT edit is not privileged over the reverting supported-by-substance IDONTLIKEIT edit. Or is it privileged and I'm missing something? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "the change affects thousands of articles" is an appeal to CONLEVEL. There is a difference of scale, but the underlying policy is the same as it would be if you were reverting a change to a single article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm still lost. How does a reverting editor's appeal to CONLEVEL privilege the proposing editor's change? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't - what I mean is, why is it okay for the reverting editor in this hypothetical case to appeal to CON, but in other cases it is not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the reverting editor in the "thousands of pages" example isn't basing the revert on an appeal to the procedural lack of consensus. Rather, they are reverting based on an appeal to the substantive effect of the proposed change on thousands of articles.
Hence, this footnote at Layout concludes with "Whatever the merits of the original rationale, there is now the additional factor that readers have come to expect the appendices to appear in this order" not "... there is now the additional factor that there is presently no affirmative consensus in favor of a change." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we decided that really we should have external links first, and had a discussion that reached consensus to that effect, we would make the change regardless and expect expectations to adapt. However, in the absence of such a discussion, if there's no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs, then we usually default to that state - the argument being made in that footnote is that statusquo is a factor that has some weight in decision-making. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... if there's no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs ..." I agree 100%. All I'm trying to say with my proposed text is that the phrase "no consensus" is not, by itself, an argument for or against anything (unless there is or was discussion). Does the current version of the text say something else? (The current version is: "Lack of consensus, standing alone, only supports a revert when the content of the reverted change is the subject of a current or prior talk page discussion") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying something else and you're agreeing with me, so I'm not sure which one of us is confused! I think our policies, practices and guidelines have generally supported the following statement: If there is no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs, then we default to the status quo. Your proposal is suggesting that if there is no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs, and no current or past discussion, then the non-status quo is the default (because the bold edit can't be reverted without a substantive argument). Do I have that correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're close. Keep the first sentence in mind: Base edit summaries in support of a bold edit or revert on policy, sources, common sense, or another substantive reason for the change. The original edit should be supported by an edit summary with a clear argument (or, as I would call it, a "substantive rationale").
If it isn't then "unexplained change to policy" would be a clear argument for a revert. In short, if there is no clear argument for a change then the status quo prevails - not because there is no consensus for the change but because there is no rationale for the change.
If it is then the change prevails only if there is no clear argument for the revert (and "no consensus" isn't enough because it is a procedural, not substantive, rationale). If there is a clear argument for the revert then the status quo remains in place during the talk page discussion.
So, as you say, "If there is no clear argument for or against a particular state of affairs, then we default to the status quo." Do we need to modify the second sentence to make this clearer? If so, what would you suggest? (The second sentence: Lack of consensus, standing alone, only supports a revert when the content of the reverted change is the subject of a current or prior talk page discussion.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the argument "unexplained change" apply to non-policy pages, where the bold edit did not meet the standard suggested? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before we get too far afield, I want to make it clear that the proposed text does not speak to whether "unexplained change" is sufficient to support a revert. It only discourages "no consensus" when, in fact, there has been no discussion which might or has resulted in a consensus.
That said, I personally think "unexplained change" would be sufficient on any page under the first sentence because it tells the proposing editor what they need to do when they start a discussion on talk: give an explanation. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to modify the second sentence to make this clearer? If so, what would you suggest? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned, I don't have a suggested wording for the second sentence. Your argument is linking the two sentences, but I don't think currently that is inherent to the wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patient help with this. As you'll see on Consensus talk, I've decided to work with the community on the first sentence first. Later, depending on how that goes, I can take a run at the rest. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Günther von Hase

Dear Nikkimaria, you have again removed the link to the German Empire article from the infobox in the article on Karl-Günther von Hase. As I believe the link should be there, could you please explain in a few words why you consider the link wrong or superfluous? Thank you in advance.--UKcrow93 (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UKcrow93, there are two reasons in MOS:LINK why this should not be linked. First, major geographic features are not linked per MOS:OLINK - Germany certainly falls into that category. Second, MOS:EASTEREGG indicates that linking should be intuitive - if people see a blue link on Germany, they expect to end up at the article for Germany, not some other entity. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your explanation Nikkimaria, the legal pedant inside of me is tempted to elaborate on why I disagree with your second argument, but since the first one is definitely correct and applicable, I will not bore you with that. So Thank you very much and my apologies for the unjustified revertion. Best regards --UKcrow93 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just noticed, another user has again reverted to include the link. I am opening a new section on the article talk page and will copy this discussion there, to include other contributors in the discussion. I hope that will meet with your approval.--UKcrow93 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

DYK for Michael George Levy

On 11 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael George Levy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite not identifying as Jewish, Michael George Levy was denied a Military Cross due to his commanding officer's anti-Semitic views? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael George Levy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Michael George Levy), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/BigID

Nikkimaria, there has been a bit of back-and-forth on the level of close paraphrasing/copying in this article, and I was wondering whether you'd be able to take a look now that the most recent set of fixes has been made (they were completed a week and a half ago, but no response by the reviewer has yet been made). Under the circumstances, it would be great if you could check it and see whether it's in good shape now. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review request

Hi Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you would be willing to provide an image review at the ACR for the Armenian genocide article. I would greatly appreciate it. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Indian Residential Schools

Hi there. I am doing you guys the courtesy of trying to discuss any change that might be considered controversial, and expect the same. Now. You reverted an addition to the See only section because it is "linked above". Ok. This is indeed a rule, and a good one, but I suspect you may be misapplying it here. Would you *kindly* tell me where it is linked, then, so I can assess this? My concern is this: the list contains a lot of detail that is not in the overview and probably won't all fit in the overview, and deserves some visibility. If it is linked to something like "school system" then it may not be noticed by people who are looking for specific information about local schools. If it's a section hatnote somewhere and I missed it, that may give it more prominence than the See also section, and I will withdraw my objection. In the meantime, the attitude that the article should not be edited really really concerns me. The article was probably as good as it could be four years ago, but a whole lot of new information is coming in. After spending some time on the talk page for the Kamloops school, I understand why you are guarding this one, but I am probably as experienced as you and almost certainly have more experience with controversial topics. I suggest you reconsider your dismissive attitude to constructive edits, use revert less, and discuss more thanks 01:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby: It is a section hatnote: Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system#Self-governance_and_school_closure. As to the rest of your comment, constructive edits and informed discussion are welcome; if you have concerns about other edits of mine feel free to identify them. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will check it out, thank you. If this is the case then it probably *is* better than what I was trying to do. PS: it is possible to edit without using revert, you know, and prior reverts count against an editor who gets hauled in front of the Administrator's Board for trying to explain that translation is not a copyright violation. (For example) Just so you know. Elinruby (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, just so you know, it is very possible for a translation to be a copyright violation, depending on the details of the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I wasn't clear, and you don't realize that I primarily function as a translator on Wikipedia. So let's clarify: The article appeared to be a Google Translate of the Korean Wikipedia article, This would not be a copyright violation, if it was tagged as such, but the editor took the suggestion as an affront, especially as I also flagged it as needing an edit, and demanded an apology for supposedly accusing them of academic dishonesty, eyeroll. Then they filed the complaint when I refused and told them the tag was required. So yeah. I realize I was just unclear and this is why you are attempting to instruct me in my area of expertise, lol, but when when we say page needing translation, we mean from the corresponding article of another language's Wikipedia ;) The actual point of my remark though was that I do not enjoy contention, but sometimes it finds me, and lazy reverts sometimes have unintended consequences on the drama boards Elinruby (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:STATUSQUO:

Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.

Elinruby (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - the tag mentioned above is Template:Translation attribution shell which is what we use, because different Wikipedias are subject to different copyright laws, but as long as it's Wikipedia, and has the attribution, it is legally required. Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harmattan - Wikipedia Library

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you on this project but I was not sure how to contact you on the Wikipedia Library platform. I was wondering if you might be able to see my query viz the Harmattan application which I believe you approved a month ago? Many thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron, you have email. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DNB

Thomas Laubach: "You'd have to take up the formatting at the template, but the content (link) is the same" - Sorry, I don't understand, because I don't see the link in the template. I see countries when I open, but not Germany. Help? - (On top of finding all collapsed content not suitable for accessibility even if I could find it in AC.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, I believe you should be able to uncollapse the template at the article level if desired, but both autocollapse and lack of "Germany" text are design decisions best discussed at the template page, if you disagree with how they're presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you because often you see something that I don't see. If you also don't see Germany how can you say "dup"? - I'd accept that the template is collapsed if the one information relevant to this person - an author! - which is his representation on the German National Library, was available immediately, and would not even care if it was duplicated somewhere hidden. Today is Sunday, - I'll address the template talk tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say "dup" because it's the same link, and I don't see a need to provide the same link twice. As an alternative you could take it out of the template and just show above? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see the link? Still the same question. I don't see it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first link in the template - here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See? What I said. You see more. I looked where France is, and could bet that other readers will also overlook it, hidden under a header that makes no sense to me. Why not have it explicit also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think people will miss it, and do not pursue a change to the template, why not just have the inline? What do you see as the value of having it also? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow ... - Can you tell we what "Integrated Authority File" means? ... and where Germany isn't where France is? (just for curiosity) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on it, but to simplify it is a database of records managed by DNB used for eg. distinguishing one person from another in cataloguing. As to why Germany isn't where France is, I know the template was recently redesigned, but I don't know why that particular decision was made. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, helped, and will eventually inquire, after my planned article of the day, and unplanned updating another recent death bio I just discovered, Gianna Rolandi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked over there. Some flowers and music for you, with more thanks for consistent improvements than the little clicks can say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Same for "Commons category" template and "In other projects: Wikimedia Commons" (on the left column). It's also a redundant external link. The problem is, that 218,549 pages have this redundant link. And same for "Musicbrainz artist" template. Grimes2 (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it would be better to remove MB from the authority control template and allow it to be added more selectively. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Infobox of Death of Seble Tefera

You removed an infobox in Betoch#Death of Seble Tefera. Why you do that? The infobox doesn't make any problems with an article.The Supermind (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That person isn't the subject of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
  • This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hanged, Drawn and quartered.

Thanks for your help on this page. Cymrogogoch (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 11 reviews between April and June 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria&oldid=1031672741"