User talk:Nikkimaria

FA source

Greetings. Another editor suggested that you're an FAC source expert and might be able to help with a dispute over a source in an previously promoted article. The matter is at FAR, and the question is whether to go on to a full review, or if the main source is sufficiently "high quality" that the review can be dropped. If you have the time and interest, could you share your opinion? Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)/archive1   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for taking the time to look at that matter and giving your opinion.   Will Beback  talk  06:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Hi Nikki, I have a question for you about formatting sources. I've seen FAC reviewers criticize an article's references for being inconsistent when a particular ref is Wiki-linked in one instance, and not linked in another instance (for example, linking Billboard in ref 20, but not in refs 24, 28, 30 etc). But I've also seen an article criticized for over-linking when the work was wiki-linked in every instance. Which is correct, or better yet, what do you personally look for? I've been working on the prose, and I'm about to start the ref clean-up for this article, and I'd love if you could let me know. Thanks. Orane (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My personal preference is to link the term on first occurrence in references and not link on later occurrences - following that rule, your example would be correct. If for example Billboard was linked in ref 24 but not ref 20, or in refs 20 and 30 but not 24 or 28, I would query it as being inconsistent. However, if a particular article wikilinks either always or never, I wouldn't question it so long as it was done consistently, although that certainly wouldn't preclude someone else from doing so. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that helps a lot. Thanks. Orane (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Long and short scales

Hello Nikki. I spotted your name on the list of PR volunteers and remembered your name from the FA review for the above article. The article is currently a GA under Language and Literature, but is likely to require a little specialised knowledge - it could arguably sit under Mathematics or Science and probably other categories (it's not the average Language and Literature article..) As a result, I suspect I might expect some difficulty in obtaining a willing PR reviewer. Would you consider this, in light of your engagement with the FAR? Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I can take a look, particularly at the sourcing/formatting issues, but I don't know that I have the specialised knowledge to go much beyond that, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Ian Cairns (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the Peer Review has now been closed. Rather than leave this inconclusively, I thought I'd report on where I thought the review re-work had reached. I believe I was able to close many of your identified points; but others may still need further work. As a result, I think that the article has improved:

Work-in-progress comments

• A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one source per paragraph, usually more depending on content

Agreed - you can never have enough good sources. There are now some open issues which require sources to resolve. Work-in-progress.

• Generally speaking , italics should be used for emphasis, and sparingly, never bolding or capitalization - see WP:ITALICS - the use of italics in the article follows WP:WORDSASWORDS, which is a subsection of WP:ITALICS - this is therefore compliant with WP Manual of Style.
• WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms, don't link the same term multiple times (especially not in close proximity)
• Bibliographical annotation (ie. when you explain what a source is, what its purpose is, or similar) is usually confined to External links, if used at all
• "...value within each scale - the short scale logic...": phrases like this should use spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes, not hyphens. See WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH for usage rules
• Why are prefixes bolded in the tables?
• Why are certain paragraphs in History indented?
• Don't tell the reader to "note" something - see WP:W2W
• Try to avoid very short subsections and a very long table of contents
• Don't link terms in See also already linked in article text
• All book citations need page numbers
• This link returns a 404 not found. See here for other potentially problematic links
• Web citations need publishers and retrieval dates
• Don't cite anything to a wiki
• Make sure similar citations are formatted the same way
• Make sure all sources used meet the reliable source policy. For example, who is the author of this site, and what are his or her qualifications?
• Don't repeat cited sources in External links.

However, to achieve this, I have removed a couple of inadequate references, in favour of 'citation needed' flags. Also, I have compared this Good article against its Polish equivalent (also a Good article). This has highlighted differences of fact between the articles, as well as different sources / references, which is raising other remedial action.

I am not sure where to take this now. I hope to complete the above workload in a few weeks. At that point, I would appreciate re-applying for Peer Review or for FA. In the meantime, I would appreciate your opinion when you have some time. Is this article improving the way you foresaw? Have the above points been closed down? Have any new issues been raised or come to light? Many thanks for your work on this review, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

On a quick look, I see some problems that would be big issues at FAC: more citations are still needed; the article is in places written more like a textbook than an encyclopedic article; you're still using some lower-quality sources like ask.com; there are still MOS/formatting issues in both article text and references (for example, FN 28 is missing a publisher). If at all possible, I would strongly recommend finding a subject-matter expert to review the article. If that's not possible...I don't know what to tell you. It would not pass FAC in its current state, but I don't have the specialized knowledge to do much beyond give you generalized recommendations. Maybe ask one of the relevant WikiProjects to take a look? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Helpfulness

I could have done that if I wanted it done. Why change a quote? It's not as if anybody's going to need to click on it. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Missed your note at the end, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad temper. The comment was actually posted by User:Darwinbish. I wish I could find a nanny for those twins! Is Nikkizilla in the market by any chance? I was impressed by the roaring. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Sure, so long as the pay's enough to afford steel high-tops - I'd be afraid for my ankles otherwise! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey

There was a discussion on the talk page of Selena but nobody contributed to it because they didn't care. So I reverted your edits, sorry. AJona1992 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I had already reverted back before I saw this, but...can you show me a diff of what you would consider a notification? Looking at the talk page, I see a request from you to contribute to your sandbox, which unfortunately doesn't count as a notification. If you can show me such a diff, I'll revert myself, but you shouldn't until this is worked out. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

India FAR

Hi there, The history section expansion of India in response to FAR comments is now complete. All remaining issues have been addressed. Please weigh in at FARC. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Better Than Today/archive2.
Message added 23:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Emancipation of Mimi

Hi Nikki, I hope you are doing well my dear :) So TEOM just got promoted to GA, and I've nominated it for PR, before taking it to the difficult FA. I know you are an active member, and have great knowledge of the FAC process, so I was wondering if you could chime in if possible. Now, even if you can't, or don't have time to make a thorough review, and post info, I would appreciate if you could maybe have a quick glance, and give me an idea of the position of the article, and how its chances look in its current state. Any info or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks anyways! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

• News and notes: WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news

• In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news

• WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!

• Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual

• Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder

• Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks

Hi Nikkimaria (and your talk page stalkers) - I've noticed you've been noting on FACs when spotchecks aren't done. I'm happy to do a few, but I don't always keep my eye on FAC; well honestly I get overly involved in content development sometimes. But if a page needs spotchecking and someone pings me, I'd be happy to do it. Just wanted you to know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Truthkeeper, I'll keep that in mind. Honestly, I usually note "spotchecks not done" because I don't feel like doing them as part of my source reviews. (And what do you mean, "overly involved in content development"? I thought that was the whole point of this place...). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They're a pain to do, but my eyes aren't good enough for source reviews and frankly you're very good at it, so I don't mind doing spotchecks. Re content development, I feel as though I should help reviewing more, and this is something that I can do, though the one I did tonight took almost an hour and I only checked a single source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I award this to Nikkimaria for her contributions to FAC, PR and GAN. Keep up the good work Nikki! Novice7 (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I laughed so hard reading your comment :D Novice7 (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1 which helped in the process of getting this article to FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Gracias, Nikki.TCO (reviews needed) 18:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

De rien. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oo lala! ;-0 TCO (reviews needed) 19:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Reno

Sorry about the conflicts. Let me know how we can work together on improving the article. I'm a source hound and am good at finding/formatting sources. I'd rather improve things than delete them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It seemed like there was a lot of trivia/advert stuff in the article, which is why I went through deleting a whole bunch. There's some good content in the other sections that just needs referencing, if you want to tackle that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there definitely was. I'll see what I can do. Do you know of any US City articles that are featured? Maybe I'll use that as a sort of "guideline". Thanks again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a few - Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Minneapolis and Washington, D.C. are all featured, and from Nevada there's Rhyolite. Check here for a more complete list. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive2.
Message added 20:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Andrew_stalk 20:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you take another look sometime please? Ta —Andrew_stalk 10:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

S&M FAC

Everything will be addressed today. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 15:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 21:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 21:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And again. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you get a chance

Could you do a pre-FAC check on Richard Nixon, presently at peer review? I am sure there are a lot of nitpicky things in such a long article, but I did spend a lot of time trying to get everything in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I can, but I likely won't get to it for a couple days. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, getting caught up in other things. Sunday at the latest, hopefully sooner. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconvenient convenience links

Hi, Nikki. I just wanted to follow up a comment of yours from the David Morrissey FAC, that "Where page numbers aren't provided, the links act as the source - they're not considered convenience links unless they're in addition to a complete citation, and thus a retrieval date is needed." Maybe it's my sloppy academia, but I've never considered pages numbers of modern newspapers or magazines to be essential bibliographic info. Firstly, this holds true when considering that many online repositories, like Newsbank and NewsUK, which I use in preference to searching the publications' websites, don't always supply this information.

Secondly, what you and I consider a "complete citation" may be completely different; newspapers and magazines are published with volume and issue numbers and ISSN codes but I never include those. I suppose it can prove difficult because I don't supply the intermediary source in my citations, unless it is dramatically different to the piece archived on the publication's website (such as when a story changes rapidly through the different editions published that day). I wasn't totally averse to adding/restoring those retrieval dates - it hasn't caused the article to explode or anything! But that was just a couple of thoughts I had on the matter. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. It's not a huge issue, but simply good practice to allow others to verify the source. I don't have experience with the online repositories you mention - the ones I use predominantly tend to include page numbers, so maybe that's colouring my opinions. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

• Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

• News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

• In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

• Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

• WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

• Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Another look at Calgary Stampede?

I appreciate your comments at the PR for this article, and have addressed your comments, including finding and adding various points of contention/controversy throughout the Stampede's history. I have also added significantly to the article over the last couple weeks (almost 22kb worth), and would be most appreciative if you would be willing to take a second look, as I hope after another pass of my own in about a week to nominate for FA. Thanks (and I think I now owe you a couple reviews and copyedits)! Resolute 03:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look tomorrow or the next day. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Most appreciative of your help.  :) I see you have a PR up for Maple Syrup. I will try to take a look at that in the next few days. Cheers! Resolute 14:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas

Thanks for your help with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Julia Martha Thomas/archive1. I've responded to your comments - could you please take a look and let me know if you are content now? Prioryman (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've amended the citation format to fix the punctuation issue that you spotted. Grateful if you could state whether that resolves the issue for you. Prioryman (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, any chance whether you could say whether you support the nomination? Prioryman (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't generally support on the basis of a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)/archive2

I got the citation issues worked out with some assistance with other users. I request if you can take a look again and see if I missed anything or should add something. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Help a newcomer?

I frequently read the featured article candidates page, and I notice that in every source review you write "Spotchecks not done". What does this mean? And how is it that every featured article candidate has not done this (apparently) important thing? Please help a moderate newcomer understand. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I just found your explanation. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

	Thanks
	Thank you for your help with the review of the Kennet and Avon Canal at FAC, which has just been promoted. — Rod talk 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ITN edit

I'm disappointed that an admin who has not played any part in ITN for at least a year should pass by and change a blurb that has been the subject of much discussion without reference to that discussion, with no apparent concern for the consensus that had built around that phrasing, with no meaningful editnote, and with disdain for semantics (no-one of any other nationality had ever won the 2011 Tour de France either). Please revert yourself. Kevin McE (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of discussion regarding that blurb, I simply saw it on the MP. I'll tweak it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect, that's why changing things without looking at prior discussion or the edit history of the article is not a good idea. But thanks for sorting it. Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger

As one of the opposers of the first nomination, do you think Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger is ready to be re-nominated for feature article on July 30? See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger/archive2 for a list of some of the improvements on the article. -Boycool (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not currently at featured article standard - on a quick look, I see a couple obvious inconsistencies in reference format and a few stray grammar issues. If you want to nominate it, though, that's your decision. Have you checked for overly close paraphrasing? That was an issue at the last nom, and it can be time-consuming to completely find and correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To what obvious inconsistencies in reference format and stray grammar issues are you referring? --Boycool (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is a quick look so not comprehensive, but: TV by the Numbers italicized in FN 20 not 21; generally inconsistent italicization; MOS issues in citations; "Eric Goldman of IGN gave the episode a rating 9.5 out of 10" - missing word? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Boycool (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

request for permission

• Hi, may I edit User:Nikkimaria/How to spotcheck a bit, from time to time? You can always revert anything you don't like. Tks.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, go right ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• See User:Tony1/Plagiarism and close paraphrasing: tips for reviewers & Wikipedia:Cv101  – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pepper

Heyo; thanks for bringing the issues at Pepper v Hart to my attention; I think I've addressed them all. Let me know if there are bigger problems! Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive2

Thanks again for your comments. Can you please strike out those that you feel have been resolved? That makes it easier to see what issues still remain. Thanks. —Andrew_stalk 09:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's on you

PumpkinSky talk 15:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not even close. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't bet on it. But, stay away from me and I'll stay away from you.PumpkinSky talk 15:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK Queues

Hello, Nikkimaria. Pls be reminded that hook sets on DYK Queues are moved onto MainPage by a bot. Hooks removed need to be replaced, or the bot would put in a short set on MainPage, upsetting the left-right balance on MainPage's layout. If you can't fill the void right away, please leave a note on WT:DYK and ask someone to fix it. Also, pulled hooks should go to T:TDYK for further discussion and instructions/suggestions to fix things up. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nikkimaria. I thought I should leave a note here to say that hooks pulled from the prep areas also should be returned to T:TDYK for discussion and instructions/suggestions to fix things up. I think this edit was made by you with good intentions, but it messed up the already complicated DYK nomination process. It's probably best to simply report problems on WT:DYK. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs 1975 Swiss Grand Prix 1983 Australian GT Championship season Ernest W. Adams 1926 Green Bay Packers season Tarra Steele The Algonquin Regiment Nicole Jaffe Olivier Guichard Le Régiment de la Chaudière 1926 New York Giants season Michael McGrath (actor) Robyn and Gandeleyn California gubernatorial election, 1958 Grand Council of Bern 1924 Green Bay Packers season Bard College Conservatory of Music Marina Kuroki Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Michael Lapidge

Cleanup Nelson Bragg Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center 1973 Monaco Grand Prix Merge Muzhik Dream yoga List of compositions by Carlo d'Ordonez Add Sources 1990 Monaco Grand Prix Truckee Meadows Purple Hearts (UK band) Wikify Supreme Court of Georgia (country) Richard Cox (actor) Claudia Donovan Expand Oracle Developer Suite Lebanon 1995 Monaco Grand Prix

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian Roulette

I requested a c/e of the article and WP:GOCE. I would be thankful, if you give me your comments about it and more thankful if you can peer review it. I know that you are one of the best c/e on Wikipedia. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I can take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, anyway :) ! Tomica1111 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I made the most things from your review, however a user from GOCE, still didn't reviewed the article. Can you give grammar review the article, a little bit more, so we can close the peer review and nominate it for GA ?! Thanks. Tomica1111 (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the c/e done? Tomica1111 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's probably good enough for GA now, depending on how picky your reviewer is. If you've dealt with the other points and are satisfied with the article, you can go ahead and nominate at GAN. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will nominate it, and you can close the review. Thank you ;) ! Tomica1111 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please close the review, cause I can not nominate it for GA. :/ Thanks Tomica1111 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't close it myself until it's inactive. You can, though: "nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed". Check out the instructions at the top of WP:PR. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Loud Peer Review

Hi, I and a friend nominated Rihanna's Loud for a Peer Review 10 days ago, and I think that because it such a big article, people don't want to review it. Only if you want to, would you be able to review perhaps the first couple of sections? Say the Lead, Background and recording & Composition? Just so that we can start making some progress with it, as we want to take the article to GAN as soon as possible. Thanks :). Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 01:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC):

Thanks! Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

• News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

• In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news

• Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team

• WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia

• Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case

• Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bialystok FAC

Hi, in regard to this [1] - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by: "

1. File:Bialystok_seal.png: don't use Wikipedia as a source, especially since that particular page has been deleted
2. File:POL_Białystok_COA.svg: source?"

Can you articulate this? I would also very much appreciate if you addressed the question about lede length I left there as well, as that's something I've been wondering for awhile now. Thanks!Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Btw, IS THERE any kind of guideline for FAs in regard to lede length somewhere? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge and delete

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Please read Wikipedia:Merge and delete to see why [2] followed by [3] was a bad idea. Fences&Windows 04:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)

We have addressed most of your concerns regarding Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song). Can you please strike issues that you consider resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are watching the discussion, but we have addressed most of your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please check back in. FYI, I have removed to FU items and changed captions on the rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed even more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you forgot about this one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

FC Barcelona in Europe (FA?)

Hi there. FC Barcelona in Europe was recently delisted from Featured Lists because it was apparently not list-like enough for them. I was wondering if you could look it over and tell me what would need to be done for it to become a Featured Article. If you could give me any guidance it would be greatly appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I know that FA noms are typically done by the top contributors, I am going to go track those people down now.

Never mind, I got a resounding "no" from a few people already. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for If Day

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Hi Nikki, I'm in the process of the preparing McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II for FA candidacy – do you mind you mind doing you spot checks on the article? It is complete, and now I'm fine tuning the article. The more work I do now, the less work I'll have to do at FAC. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean V/paraphrasing spotchecks, or a source review? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, both. I really think that your checks are really helpful and stringent, so I think if I pass your test, I have a good chance of promoting AV-8B to FA. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed your points. I'm standing by for further comments. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jacquie de Creed

Hi Nikki. Just to let you know I disagree with your decision here. Several people have reviewed this without concern and if there was a problem you should have had the good manners to contact me personally so that I could have put any issues right. I intend to challenge your decision if possible because I believe you've acted somewhat disingenuously. I will be finding the appropriate channel to do this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Disingenuous? I quite disagree, but as you will. As you've probably seen, I posted on the article talk page about my concerns here. You're welcome to re-add the article to T:TDYK if you wish, as has been done with articles removed under similar circumstances. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You and I both know that's not possible since it was submitted several days ago. In future, I suggest that if you have a problem with somebody's work, you let them know about it, since that is the usual procedure. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite possible - as I mentioned, it has been done under similar circumstances before. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Nikki. I want to apologise for how I was with you yesterday. It was a bit unfair of me when you were only doing your job. I'd had quite a bad day. Had to give my dog away because he was too badly behaved, and I couldn't cope with him any more. Difficult decision, but the right one. Anyway, I'm sorry, and hope you can forgive me for my outburst. I will take another look at the article this afternoon and see what I can do. You mention that I could resubmit it, though I got the impression from others that this may not be possible. It would be helpful if you could direct me to another article which has been through the process again after being pulled. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, sorry to hear about your troubles. I apologize if you felt insulted, as that certainly wasn't my intention. I've left a note in the discussion at WT:DYK about this, but if you search T:TDYK for my username you'll find another renom; since your article was never on mainpage, it should be able to be resubmitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Lawlor

Hi, could you look at the Patrick Lawlor article again now that it's been rewritten? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, can you take another look now? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Many thanks for your review on McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. I've addressed most of your points, and for those I can't address, I will leave a note. I hope that this would make a future FAC easier for all parties involved. Thanks Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Love on Top for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Love on Top is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed here until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, I don't think I've ever edited that article, why am I getting notified? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Veronica Wagner

I'm new here so I don't know much about editing. You removed trivia from Veronica Wagner article. Why do this? Just want to ask. TimeStandStill (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Because we have a guideline called WP:TRIVIA that says we shouldn't include trivia sections in articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion of "trivia"

Re: Dirty Work (1998 film):

• WP:TRIVIA is quite clear: trivia should be incorporated into the article. Deletion is not the only solution, nor the best, and is never preferred.
• WP:BRD does not mean boldly repeat deletion, it means bold, revert, discuss.
• I will be reverting your undiscussed, hit and run deletion. As a non-contributor to the article, your undiscussed deletion is not welcome.
• If you add a tag indicating that the trivia section needs cleanup, I will not revert that. --Lexein (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Over trivia? That's overkill, considering I'd already gone offline and the only communication from you I saw was the edit summary. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well it seemed like a freight train of deletions, and as noted, I didn't see you offline until after posting. --Lexein (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find the discussion at ANI fairly well wrapped up, pleasant, and I hope, helpful. --Lexein (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, if it's not too much trouble, would you be able to peer review Djungarian hamster for me? I want to nominate it for GA but I don't know if it's ready. Do you think it passes the criteria? Thank you in advance. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can take a look, but likely not until tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Van Gogh "dark" debate

Hi Nikkimaria,

Why did you delete FightingMac's van Gogh "dark" debate archive? We did archive it on our website here but we should have liked it to stay on Wikipedia. She was very patient about all the factoring, archiving and so on taking place at that discussion. It's also not true that's she's a sock by the way. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not she is a sock, and frankly it didn't play any part in my decision. If you have it archived off-wiki, why would its presence on-wiki matter, just out of curiosity? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So what did play a part in your decision? The fact of the matter is that FM was treated with very considerable incivility by the editors at Vincent van Gogh and in the circumstances of all the archiving and refactoring that went on is perfectly entitled to archive the debate so that she could be fairly heard. She is not the first user to resort this in the face of attention from those editors. One of the editors involved (Modernist) has said on his Talk page that he wanted "all that crap wiped clean". So why did you oblige him?

Regarding our website it is designed mostly as a FTP site, is little visited otherwise and its primary purpose is not to comment on Wikipedia. We would have preferred FM's archive to have remained in Wikipedia. Regarding our commitment to FM's cause it is because we believe the function of artists like van Gogh is to teach us how to view the world. To dismiss him as a maniac is thus ultimately an attack on our liberty to choose for ourselves how we see things.

I hope this clarifies matters for you. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't say it does. If you feel FM was treated poorly there are on-wiki resources to help you deal with that issue - see WP:Dispute resolution, or failing that email ArbCom. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to comment on Wikipedia, it's to build an encyclopedia, and the deleted page was not helping to do that. As for your last point, see WP:SOAPBOX. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

FM did email ArbCom with a complaint that there was a personal or professional connection between one of the editors in the dispute and and an administrator that editor had called in to keep "eyes" on the dispute (whereas FM had alreasy asked for dispute resolution through a third opinion). It would be FM's position that she set up her archive precisely to document unhelpful contributions to the encyclopædia including spurious and fraudulent citations by one of the editors. In deleting it as you do it can only be that you are taking sides with the editors who wish to sweep all that under the carpet. Of course we weren't soapboxing in explaining our solidarity with FM. That's just WP:VAGUEWAVE on your part. Last here. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If FM has contacted ArbCom, we'll leave it to ArbCom to work out her issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello, I hope you enjoy this cupcake as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian! SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

T-34

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Ironholds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CSD notification

The page Department of Computer Science, PESIT looks like it may be a valid CSD, but I prefer not to delete a page unless the creator has been notified. I understand that sometimes automated tools fail to do the notification for some reason. Not sure if that was the case, but could you make the notification?SPhilbrickT 17:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like ErikHaugen has already deleted it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Pallas_Peter_Simon_1741-1811.png

This image (File:Pallas_Peter_Simon_1741-1811.png) was taken from Commons so I don't know the source. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you ask the uploader? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No I can't, their last edit was almost one year ago. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Did you see the image in any of your sources, or can you find an appropriate source for it online? If not, you may need to remove it for GA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but I found this http://www.solpugid.com/Past%20Researchers.htm. Is that reliable? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although it doesn't confirm the date/copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Should I just remove it then, also, I made a request at that guild and that may take a long time to get done because of the huge backog, but do you think that the other issues have been resolved? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mostly, and it's up to you what you want to do with the image. As it stands, the prose is probably the most major issue that I can see. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think everything has been done that you said in the peer review, can you confirm this please before I nominate it for GA? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better. If you think it's ready, go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

• Wikimania: Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel

• News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay

• In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news

• WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close

• Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team

Perhaps this needs a copyedit before it is ready to become a featured article. Would you mind? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sports isn't really my area, so I'd be hesitant to alter the prose significantly. Perhaps you should ask a more sports-oriented editor, at least for the initial run-through? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

An example to us all

I'm not just taking the piss, I thought you were an example to aspiring diplomats everywhere.[4] I'm more of a one-man barbarian horde myself though. Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You were right, that discussion wasn't going to end well. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

1380s BC

Hello, I understand that you have recently deleted 1380s BC due to its lack of content, however by doing so you have created a gap on our list of decades, which otherwise lies unbroken from the 1690s BC to the 2190s AD, I feel it would be best to restore the artical, but leave an Expand section template on areas with no information, consulte with me on further Ideas or alternatives – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Artical now recreated, with references, any questions or complaints visit my talk page. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

By a Waterfall

Hello, the edit summary of my reversion sounded way snottier than I meant it. Apologies. I reverted your edit because I don't think the end result was what you intended. Cordially, HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

S&M FAC

Hi, could you give me an update on the status of S&M please? As I have done everything asked of me that I can change. Also, someone has said that the Background and composition section is too short and not comprehensive, do you think I should put the Remixes section in with the Background and composition section? As there is more info about the Remix with SPears than there is about the original. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now, someone closed it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 11:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of DYK hooks

Thank you indeed for checking the DYK hooks and articles and spotting problems in them. There is one procedural issue though - traditionally, we do give the authors a chance to fix their DYK nominations. In other words, when you remove a hook, please restore the nomination at T:DYK page and, preferably, leave your comments there rather than at the article talk page. If the restoration at T:TYK seems too cumbersome, please post a thread at WT:DYK. Regards Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

• Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix

• News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common

• In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories

• WikiProject report: The Oregonians

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress

• Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Reactivate Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Miami/ archive1?

There is no contest on the talk page. It's more than clear that it does not meet FAC, and the tag is just that extra kick to prove it. I mean, even a GA having a tag would be well out of place. Speaking of which, I think this should automatically be downgraded to a GA, isn't that a common practice for delisting FAs? Thank you.

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Miami/archive1

Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As regards your last question: no, usually if an FA is delisted it does not automatically get GA status. I'll take a look at the other issue shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

I've only just noticed this, but thanks. :) --BelovedFreak 09:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review questions

Thank you many times over for your devotion to doing source reviews at FAC. Your latest comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seacology/archive1 raised a couple questions, and I would appreciate clarification or your general reply. Best, – VisionHolder « talk » 09:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

• News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

• In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)

• WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation

• Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography

• Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

• Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Glenrothes FA review

Hi there, thank you for taking the time to review the Glenrothes article. In light of your comments i have spent considerable time trying to amend the article in ordets to comply with the FA requirements. I believe I have now managed to address all of the bullet points you raised following your initial assessment. There should no longer be any errors in format or citations of the notes or bibliography. Would it be possible to gauge your view on whether you are satisfied I have acheived this please?

Many thanks Yoostar (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Maple syrup a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk)

And If Day made GA status too... you've been busy! – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

TCM FAC

Hi, thanks for the spotchecks. I really appreciate it.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Flight Unlimited

I took a shot at addressing your concerns. One minor point of confusion (volume vs. issue) remains, but it should be easy to clear up. Thanks for the review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tadeusz Szeligowski

I have to go offline shortly and trust you had solid reasons for removing Tadeusz Szeligowski from Q5. Could you please elaborate them at the article talk? What you mentioned there is a close paraphrasing of a short sentence stating simple facts. The article author(s) might not understand why this triggered demotion. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Eastbourne manslaughter

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Eastbourne manslaughter. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fascinating article - I'd never heard of this case.--81.106.118.10 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs The House (radio) 1974 British Speedway League Division Two Rabid Rider The Worst Witch All at Sea 1973 British Speedway League Division Two SimTunes California gubernatorial election, 1986 IFPI Denmark Stephen Kramer Glickman 1985 Australian GT Championship season Shadowgrounds Survivor Coyote Falls 2006 Polish Figure Skating Championships 1972 British Speedway League Division Two Red Screen of Death 1925 New York Giants season California gubernatorial election, 1990 Adam Wiltzie 1974 British Speedway League

Cleanup Osama bin Laden 1974 German Grand Prix 1972 British Grand Prix Merge 1987 Australian Manufacturers' Championship The Worst Witch (novel) Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden Add Sources John Walter Bratton West New York, New Jersey 1990 Portuguese Grand Prix Wikify Tables of European biogas utilisation McKesson Corporation Thomas Marsalis Expand 1994 Spanish Grand Prix The Cleveland Show (season 2) 1966 Washington Redskins season

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for the c/e Nikki :) Very kind of you and much appreciated!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nikki. A quick question. Is it necessary for you to specify Cite web and Cite news, for let's say, GAC? Would you pass an article without those proper templates? I have a nominator arguing that it isn't needed. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

• News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results

• In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news

• Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety

• Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four existing cases

• Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Nikkimaria. I've been asked to ping those who have opposed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moonrise (novel)/archive1. Any further comments would be appreciated. Brambleclawx 14:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rehab

Hi Nikkimaria. I have put "Rehab (Rihanna song)" for a PR, cause I want to later nominate it for a FA. However, can you go on the peer review page and give me some brief comments about the article and it's issues. Thanks Tomica1111 (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on September 4, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 4, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Eastbourne manslaughter was an 1860 legal case in Eastbourne, England, concerning the death of 15-year-old Reginald Cancellor at the hands of his teacher, Thomas Hopley. Hopley intended to use corporal punishment to overcome what he perceived as stubbornness on Cancellor's part, but instead he beat the boy to death. An inquest into Cancellor's death began when his brother requested an autopsy. As a result of the inquest Hopley was arrested and charged with manslaughter. He was found guilty at trial and sentenced to four years in prison, although he insisted that his actions were justifiable and that he was not guilty of any crime. The trial was sensationalised by the Victorian press, and incited debate over the use of corporal punishment in schools. After Hopley's release and subsequent divorce trial, he largely disappeared from the public record. The case became an important legal precedent in the United Kingdom for discussions of corporal punishment in schools and reasonable limits on discipline. (more...)

Well done!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Glenrotes FA - citations

Hello Nikkimania, if you got some time, could you please have another look at the citations of the "Glenrothes" article and offer some advice on the FA talk? The main editors put a lot of work in this article and are motivated to fix issues, but formatting of citations (aside from general prose, which is currently checked) seems to be problematic - especially the use of "work=" and "publisher=", when and how to use those parameters. As i am no expert in citations myself (i generally copy/paste examples from other texts as format template ...), any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Hood FAC

A long while back you reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Hood (51)/archive1. Can you revisit it to see if your concerns have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Eastbourne manslaughter

Wow. I see that not only are the British insane, but they always were insane. Great article, congratulations! Bishonen | talk 16:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Thanks! I was off-wiki all day and haven't even checked the day's diffs on that article, which based on past main-page experience is probably a good thing... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Help please.

Hi Nikki. Hope you still remember me. Do you know someone who can coy-edit 1+1 (song)? It is quite urgent. Please reply. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jivesh, offhand I don't know any copy-editors who are good with pop-culture articles, as that's not an area in which I usually work, but you can see if anyone here lists a related area of interest. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nikki, i know that may editors including me have already told you this before, nevertheless, i have to tell you again: You are simply GREAT. Thank you very much. Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

• News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia like "apples and chairs"; should anyone who's anyone get an article?; and why fighting and barriers to editing may be useful after all

• WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport

• Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care

• Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle

• Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Help

I am editing the List of Rihanna songs to become a FL, but I'm not really sure what is expected of the Lead info. I haven't found any of other List of Songs articles which is an FL, so I don't have anything to do by in terms of what content is expected. I was wondering if you could give me a few pointers as to what this Lead should include please? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first thing you should do is figure out the scope of the list. Will it include only songs that Rihanna wrote, or ones that others wrote for her? Will it include only songs from her albums, or ones she has sung in concert, or ones released as singles? Will it include only solo songs, or collaborative efforts? Next, write a concise few sentences defining the scope of your list. Add some information about who Rihanna is, and what style of music she uses. Depending on what information you include in the list, you might also mention awards she's won, records she's broken, albums she's released, etc. Some good examples of leads in related lists are Rihanna discography and List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It table includes every studio song from all 5 albums, featured songs and charity songs. Basically, every studio song she is credited for. I've looked at Rihanna discography and List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, but they are different things to talk about. This list is simply a list of her songs, not chart positions and sales or unreleased songs. Thanks. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the idea of how to build a lead is similar. Unfortunately there's no formula to go by, though. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okayy thanks! Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:MHC#A-class and FAC reviewing

For your consideration (or amusement). - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

When I've peeked in on FAR/FARC in the past, it tended to be more contentious than Milhist FACs. Nothing wrong with that, but as a copy editor, all I have time to do is pick up an article, do my best, and put it down. I'm not sure if FAR/FARC has changed, but I'll go give it another shot since you asked. - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's one MilHist one there now that is getting a bit heated, so feel free to stay away from it. If it's not your area don't worry too much about it, you're doing a lot at FAC and A-class already. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your dedicated, thorough, and good-humoured work as a delegate for the featured article review process and as a regular and conscientious reviewer of large numbers of Military history-related featured article candidates. For the Military history Project coordinators, EyeSerenetalk 10:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)