User talk:Nikkimaria

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedians celebrate International Women's Day, Women's History Month

• Traffic report: War and awards

• Featured content: Ukraine burns

• WikiProject report: Russian WikiProject Entomology

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Annie Hall (round 3)

I give up. Daft. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ike Altgens FAC

A great deal of work has been put in to Ike Altgens since I first listed it, including a new free image. It should be about as "done" as a living article for a dead man (xD) can get. Please revisit at your convenience, with my thanks. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

hi

ok thx 4 reminding me. Ninjadude8 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks and Google Books links

While I would agree with you that the format of Reflinks could be better -- as it is not exactly the the most accurate of algorithms (it seems to be based on a embedded page information). However I think that its output is better than that a raw HTML link as shown in the example we are discussing, and it has some clear advantages over the raw url link (primarily presentation (text is better than a raw url, and secondly the protection it gives against link rot (both by providing text and an access date).

That is not to say it can not be improved by hand crafting the output, but that is a separate issue and on balance I think that the page is better for the alteration than it was before Reflinks was run.

OK so I have explained the benefits, but you say that the "output is inaccurate at best", but you will have to explain to me what it is that you think is inaccurate as I don't see which inaccuracies you are talking about. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Access dates are unhelpful for GBooks links - they are not archived, so access date provides no protection against link rot
2. The title is incorrect - it is incomplete and includes non-title information in the title field
3. The authors are listed in the "title" field
4. The date is entirely incorrect - the book was originally published 1957 and that edition in 2010
5. The publisher is incorrect
6. The output excludes ISBN, which would be far more helpful
7. The output excludes page number, which is needed for verifiability
8. The presentation is incorrect, both in that it uses cite web for what is clearly a book source, and in that it does not match the citation style used for the rest of the article. This is a problem for both CITEVAR and common sense.

Having a raw HTML link would flag someone to cite this properly, while the Reflinks version looks somewhat complete but actually is quite the opposite. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what is produced:

• "The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined: An Analysis of Cryptographic Systems ... - William F. Friedman, Elizabeth S. Friedman - Google Books". Books.google.co.uk. 14 April 2011.

What you are doing is looking at it from the point of view of an editor and worrying about what is or is not in specific fields within a template, but from the reader the view is somewhat different.

• Access dates fulfil two functions one is for the reader and when a page was read, the second case is that it gives an editor an idea of how long a problem has existed. In this case while I agree with you that it is of no use to a reader it is of marginal use to an editor, and it is not inaccurate. whoops I see not accessdate. The date field seems to be accurate.
• The title is not incorrect it is just shortened
• The authors are present
• The date seems to me to be accurate.
  • The three pieces of information will allow a reader to find the source even if the link goes dead.
• The field is not filled in with the true publisher's information, but as the whole display is not being presented in a standard way so the reader is not likely to assume that the publisher is called "Books.google.co.uk" so I do not see that as a problem as the reader is informed that the link is to Google books.
• The page numbers are missing but they are missing from a raw html string as well
• The output excludes ISBN it is missing from the raw html as well

For any editor interested in altering this information it is blindingly obvious that the template is not filled in correctly, indeed in this case it will need to be split into a short and long citation. However from the point of view of a person reading the article the text that is there is far more useful that what was there before and I think it is a useful first step in sorting out the problem. I think you are wanting perfection without incremental editing (which is not the Wikipedia way). -- PBS (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be a coincidence but the raw html link was put in 11 July 2013 (so there has been no quick fix) I altered it on 18 March 2014 and a day later its been improved again. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

PBS, I know what it produces; I looked at the article before I posted the diff. The date field is not accurate, as I explained above; as a result, without the ISBN or a publisher, the reader is unlikely to be able to find the correct source. The page number is present in the raw html, but is not present in the output. There's no point talking about perfection when basic accuracy and completeness is absent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have not persuaded you to see it my way or vice versa, we will have to agree to differ. So I will write no more here about it. -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the misunderstanding on WP:MISS last night. I think what I thought "instructions" meant was different from what you were using it to mean--i.e. while (I think) you meant the way HectorMoffet's username was spelled, I thought you were talking about the stuff at the top of the page (under the "purpose of this list" section). Also, the reason the text was "untrue" was probably because I don't know very much about the reason HectorMoffet left, other than the diff I linked to. Jinkinson talk to me 12:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Jinkinson, I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps if you don't know what happened it's best to leave out the details and let someone who does know fill them in? The diff you linked to was a) not actually the account's last edit, and b) the subject of a dispute that ended with the account being blocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I guess next time I should just go on WT:MISS and ask that they be added. Jinkinson talk to me 17:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent user block

Hello Nikkimaria. I saw that you recently blocked User:Jdogno5 for edit warring and I would like to ask you if you could keep an eye on them. They have been using reverting and edit summaries to state their case, rather than the article talk page to discuss their edit histories. As well, they have taken to the talk page of all the editors who reverted them, telling us they would request page protection as a way to deal with "the matter in a constructive way" and seeing if that is "reassuring" for them to get eventually get their way, and, after being blocked, stating that they are "being persecuted on the grounds of having a different opinion". It appears they do not have an understanding of Wikipedia etiquette and procedures. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly try... I don't know that I'll get further than anyone else, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Just watching to see if once the block is lifted, if they continue the same editing habits/style, is all that is asked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, may I ask which article did I edit that caused you to block me when you did?

Jdogno5 (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jdogno5, you were blocked (and have now been re-blocked, I see) for edit-warring on Space Jam. I suggest you take this time to read the various policies and guidelines that have been provided on your talk page as well as the discussions linked from there. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

Hi Nikkimaria,
I saw you name Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. So I will be very much obliged if you do a peer review of Mahatma Gandhi. Thanks. RRD13 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Language problem

We seem to have another language problem. I said I respect if an editor fills |nationality= in {{infobox person}}. So did kosboot, for a person who's place of death would let you infer a different nationality, in an article that I nominated for DYK with that infobox. I wanted respect for the decision, so logically had to revert what you did. You seem to have a different logic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep: I respect that editor's choice to include a template that shouldn't be there, but since it's there it should respect its own guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If the guidance says not to use nationality when two countries are mentioned in data of birth and death, the guidance is not good. Who says "template that shouldn't be there" if we are reminded again and again that it is decided case by case? See for example Imogen Holst. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you say that the reversion of an addition is a removal, then "logically" the reversion of a removal is an addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say that? - You didn't comment the guidance remark, and you didn't answer my question. - I would appreciate if you would extend your generosity - accepting a template, that you (!) think shouldn't be there, just a little bit and also accept a parameter that you think shouldn't be there. It would save the time of several people, - another way of showing respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Example. It would "save the time of several people" if you didn't ask questions to which you already know the answer, or if you took the advice you've been given. Another language problem, perhaps: just as "compromise" doesn't mean "capitulation", "respect" doesn't go only one way. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your logic is not mine. Enjoy your Sunday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nikki, I am starting to have some real concerns about your attitude that a mere guideline, subject to IAR, is a policy, which it is not. Particularly when it appears you yourself created the guidelines in certain situations. Observing this from a vantage point of who is doing the mass editing here, you may be starting to have an obsession about this issue. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create the guidelines, nor do I think them policies. As to the rest, "your logic is not mine". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Looked at current instructions. "Nationality. May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ. Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace. Do not use a flag template." Here, the definition is "inferred." Where, as in the UK, things like being from Scotland, Ulster or Wales does matter deeply to some people, seems to me that the UK editors should be granted some deference on the matter. Seems that those who care, care deeply. I can also see this as an issue for Native Americans or First Nations people who might be US/Canadian citizens, but also view themselves as members of their tribal nation. Not a moral issue, just think that completing the parameter does no harm, and it IS, after all, part of the infobox parameters allowed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

• Forum: Wikimedia Commons mission: free media for the world or only Wikimedia projects?

• WikiProject report: We have history

• Interview: Nate Ott: the writer behind 71 articles in the largest-ever good topic

• Featured content: Spot the bulldozer

• News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny

• Traffic report: Into thin air

• Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

banning enforcement

You know, you could have deleted those pages and already had them restored, instead you seem to have some elusive point to prove by interfering with banning enforcement and waiting for someone else to get involved.  Care to explain?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of deleting some poor newbie's talk page for reasons they would not understand? Banning enforcement is meant to be applied using common sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing these needless tags, Nikkimaria. I went to remove them and found you got to them first. No reason to delete an article talk page that hasn't even been used. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Banning policy applies to all edits, good or bad.  If you want to discuss that, the place to go is WT:Banning policy.  Assuming that you re-create the page after the db-g5, your WP:IAR explanation doesn't hold water, because the only flaw you can find that makes the newbie a "poor newbie", is an entry on the deletion log for the page.  For my part, I've never looked at that log on my talk page and I'm confident that newbies won't either.  Aren't you claiming that an obscure entry on the newbie's talk-page deletion log is more important than supporting a policy?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• As the banning policy already makes clear, "obviously helpful" edits can and should be allowed to stand. For my part, I have my userpage (and so my talk page also) watchlisted (and encourage newbies to do the same, when I do training sessions), and can quite easily imagine myself as a newbie being quite confused to see a deletion with a "banned user" notation pop up on my watchlist. So since there is no clear benefit and the potential for harm, since it'd be a waste of time to delete the page and then just recreate it with the same content for the sake of process alone, since the policy already allows for the retention of obviously helpful edits, since user talk pages are not typically deleted unless their content (not creator) is somehow problematic (ie copyvio or defamatory)...nope, not seeing any reason to continue this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Further reading section in Camp Aliceville

Thanks for your attention to the article; I originally had the further reading section below the refs per the MOS, but the trouble is that there's a citation to a reference in it, and the reflist template doesn't pick it up if it's below the template transclusion, thus leaving an error message in the references section. Is there some fix for this? It's the only reason I put the sections in the order I did.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose my question would be whether we really need that quote and citation in the section at all - it's nice, but doesn't seem essential. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Vanda Godsell page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please restore DYK time between updates to eight hours

Nikkimaria, I was very surprised to see what you had unilaterally changed the interval from eight hours to twelve at DYK. Normally, this is only done after discussion and consensus under WT:DYK. Having two sets a day is going to royally mess up April Fools Day on Tuesday—we have far too many hooks waiting for two sets, and probably for three—and you've changed over at a time of day that will take the bot over a week to reset to 00:00 UTC.

Please revert your change, and start a discussion on the DYK talk page. We have two queues and nearly two preps in reserve at the moment, which is why there are only five approved hooks—the review rate is steady, but the prep build rate has been a bit higher. It looks worse than the situation really is. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: When you do reset the interval to eight hours, please also set the time of the next update to 16:00 UTC, when it should be (eight hours after the 08:00 UTC update). Otherwise, we'll still be off cycle with a 20:15 UTC update, and it will take several days for the bot to move at 15 minute increments to reset as above. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I would be very uncomfortable with resetting to 8 hours right now, when over a third of posts to WT:DYK are late update warnings, when updates have repeatedly been several hours late, and when even after that change we still needed to reduce to 6 hooks per set to get updates through on time. We can certainly do it after the weekend in time for April Fool's. As I mentioned at WT:DYK before making the change, number of approved hooks is only one metric to consider when deciding on run rate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, this is embarrassing. I completely misread the change as having happened just now, rather than a couple of days ago. My apologies for the error. This is old news—I retract my request for a reversion given that this has been the status quo for over 48 hours. Still, a change announcement at WT:DYK should always be done even in an emergency: this is something that affects the whole community. (I'm not sure what you mean about the reduction to six hooks per set; we've been there for a while.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right about the six/seven hooks thing, my mistake. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Works templates

I saw your edits to Charles Dickens and Edgar Allan Poe. I don't know if you are familiar with Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive_16#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates, but there was no consensus to remove these templates when over 20 editors convened to discuss the topic. This month at WP:BARD, they have decided to add templates for all the plays to William Shakespeare. I have attempted a compromise solution that has been used on other author pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You've been reverted (not by me) at Charles Dickens, where there 'was consensus to exclude them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lee S Jablin appearing to be written as an advertisement

Hello Nikkimaria,

I'm Tordeforest, the writer of Lee S Jablin. On 17:04, 16 February 2014‎ you placed an advert box on the Lee S Jablin article. A day or two later Meatsgains made a huge number of edits to the article, and in his/her Talk page suggested that I give the article another look in order to remove the remaining peacock words. I want to be compliant and follow the rules of Wikipedia but after several careful reads I cannot find peacock or soap language. I think that maybe there are some misunderstandings remaining about the use of certain terms. For example, the terms 'building reimagination and best sustainable methods' are purely architectural terms and not puffery. 'Building reimagination' and 'Best sustainable methods' stand on their own as whole architectural terms with meanings all their own. 'Best' is not being used as a discreet adjective.

I'm writing to ask if the advert box can be removed. I have made a good faith effort to comply with the request to remove peacock words and and I am being sincere that I cannot find any remaining. I believe that Meatsgains has made many significant changes to the article and it no longer appears to be written as an advertisement.

Thank you, Tordeforest

Hi Tordeforest, it looks like Meatsgains has done some good work with that article. My only remaining concern is the "Interests" section - I would suggest combining the committees/councils into the Organizations section, and possibly removing the other material. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, I made the change you suggested. Is this satisfactory? Tordeforest (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tordeforest, I've removed the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. I've been confused by some of your recent edits, as I wasn't able to understand what your edit summaries meant. Per wp:edit summary, I find it helpful if you give reasons for a change, if there is a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why it was made. Such was the case here.

1. First, you deleted language from the infobox. Your edit summary stated: "(rm, fmt)". That did not explain to me the reason for your removal.

2. Next, you changed the format, here. With an edit summary stating "(fmt)". I did not understand from your edit summary the reason for your format change.

3. I restored the original state of the article, given the lack of explanation that I could understand, with my edit summary stating: ("Rev unexplained change from long-lasting format, and content del supported in text.)". You then again deleted the text and again made the formatting changes. You left an edit summary stating "(rm: parameters no longer supported)".

You didn't open tp discussion to explain further, so I'm coming here to understand your edits better.

Are you stating in your third edit summary that the long-standing format is no longer acceptable? And if so -- why is that?

And are you stating that the "influences" section of the infobox (with its text) that you deleted is not longer acceptable, and is required to be deleted? And if so -- where is that indicated?

BTW -- I see my difficulties with your edit summaries today mirror those raised by Obi-Wan Kenobi a few months back, when he wrote to you here:

== Use edit summaries, plz == Per here and here, especially given the controversial nature that you know these category additions to be, could you please use better edit summaries, and not hide them in a "formatting" edit. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And Thibbs raised similar points to you a few months ago here. Pointing to similar comments from still other editors.

Many thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche, the influences/influenced parameters were removed from the template after an RFC last year. The listing of Star Tribune as a publisher was not correct - that's actually the title of the publication being cited. The use of line breaks to create lists in that manner is contrary to MOS:ACCESS - because there were only two items I opted to list them inline, or if you prefer you can use a list template, but the previous format was not acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikki. That's quite helpful. The RFC is especially interesting -- it seems to be a film problem, as described at the RFC. But prompts deletion in non-film articles, such as this one.

Perhaps you can understand why your simply writing "rm, format" as your edit summary is insufficient, as there may be a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why you made the change.

I see that many editors have made similar complaints to you on your talk page over the months and further in the past, including the above as well as Gerda Arendt and User:Koavf. I think you did great work here. But I must add my voice to the chorus. If you would go that extra step to provide further clarification in edit summaries such as this one, it would be much appreciated.

I know you've told one of the others in the past who suggested that you be clearer in your edit summary that: "I suppose we can give it a shot". But this sentiment seems not to have led to a helpful edit summary here. Especially when editing contentious articles I think it would be quite helpful if you were to assist other readers by providing better edit summaries. I echo here the comment by Obi above. Best.Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Give it a shot" refers to using only summaries listed at WP:ESL or the glossary, as opposed to my own custom summaries. I felt then, and continue to feel, that that change represented a step backwards. I do not see any realistic way in which multi-part edits such as those I tend to make can be adequately represented by a comprehensive, explanatory and specific summary of the type you seem to be requesting, nor do I see such an effort as worthwhile. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(watching) What do you think of not making multi-part edits, but one thing at a time, - not for obvious errors but at least for changes that might be questioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes do that, but on the whole inefficiency is a poor solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that transparency is a good solution, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Taken to its extreme, Nikki's remark that "inefficiency is a poor solution" could support a view that we should not have edit summaries at all. Nikki -- I don't think you are evidencing a sensitivity to a half dozen editors who have independently approached you to say that your edit summaries left them confused or failed to explain why you made the edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Transparency can indeed be a good solution, but I've found that asking others to practice what you yourself or the majority do not rarely inspires a positive reaction. Epeefleche, as already mentioned, I did "evidence a sensitivity" by changing my means of edit-summary use. The further change you are requesting is neither feasible nor in practice typical. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are an excellent editor, on the whole. But I find your response very disappointing. Both because editors are encouraged to provide explanatory edit summaries (as wp:edit summary says, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it"), and because a number of editors have independently communicated to you with regard to a range of your edit summaries that they fell short. In addition, as you are an admin, I would expect you not only to heed the input from a number of members of the community concerned enough to raise the issue with you independently, but because wp:admin states that you "are expected to lead by example". I hope that you will take a moment to consider this, and re-consider your position.Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN requires that I justify my conduct as needed, and I have done so; I have also taken feedback into account in adopting ESL summaries. I do not expect, nor do I in practice typically see, the level of explanation in edit-sums that you seem to be requesting - instead, the typical edit summary "succinctly summarize[s] the nature of the edit", not the in-depth rationale. As I have explained, that is the most practical approach to the limitations of the medium. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not just me who has found your edit summaries lacking in explanation that would allow understanding of your edit summary. I already quoted this, but let me bold the key part: As wp:edit summary says, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it". Writing "fmt" in what I pointed to for example (and the complaints of others were similar) did nothing to explain to me ... beyond what I could already see with my eyes without the edit summary ... an explanation that would allow me to understand the change. You wrote "what" you did; not "why". Answering "why", when it comes to you changing format, is what we are asking for. Otherwise, frankly, its the same as no edit summary at all, because I can see you are changing format. As another editor has stressed as well, when you do this with contentious articles, it is especially likely to cause consternation.Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no reason to expect that the simple housekeeping edits at issue here would be contentious, no reason why anyone who actually looked at the change effected by this edit would need further explanation of why it was helpful, nor any reason why "no longer supported" is an inadequate explanation for the removal of something no longer supported. Your repetition leads me to suspect you have not spent much time reviewing edits by others, which typically use a summary-only edit summary ("succinctly summarize[s] the nature of the edit") rather than a full rationale, for the reasons I have already explained. We shall have to agree to disagree on this matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikki, on this issue of three-letter edit summaries, I have to say you do have a blind spot and it would be wise for you to realize that your personal view of what other people "need further explanation"- trust me, there is no one who knows the minutae of WP:THINGSINALLCAPS guidelines better than you; the rest of us are mere mortals. You make assumptions that everyone knows what you are doing,why you are doing it and what all the rules are you are applying. Unfortunately, you are often mistaken and you know your actions are often misinterpreted. Sure, these tiny abbreviations are "legal", but they are not always wise. Using two or three word summaries is better than two or three letter ones. I've gotten in two or three (short) SENTENCES sometimes. We even have pull-down menus you can add in your prefs that use whole words. "Succinct" is enforced by a limit on how many characters that fit into the edit summary box and so you can use the space. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to hit the high points of how to avoid aggravating folks, "fmt" really needs to be limited to things like when you screw up a bracket, omit a comma, or have a bad ref tag, things so minor, TOTALLY uncontroversial, and unrelated to content as to be wholly undisputable - & even then a lot of people still say, "added a comma" in their edit summaries. Something like "rv" or "rvv" with nothing more should be used with vandals and trolls, not content editors. In contrast, you use "rv, fmt" for very significant changes, and though technically they might be reversions and "formatting," they really need explanation - whether you think they are contentious or not (sometimes even changing the position of a comma CAN be contentious). Similarly, "re" is meaningless ... even summarizing with "more of the same," or "reply to previous" is clearer. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries are used, very much so, to direct and explain to other people. This is such a simple issue. If edit summaries have become too abbreviated to understand just make it easier for other people by extending the explanation. This isn't about the editor who creates the edit summary, its about those who read the summary and what they need to follow and understand, Nothing personal, just make it easy for others. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

Nikki -- Given all of the editors who have written to you in this string, and in prior discussions referred to above, might you in the spirit of wp consensus editing take a different position? When you, as you did in what brought me here, delete from an infobox of a highly controversial Al Qaeda member the "influenced" section and all of its entries, an edit summary of "rm, fmt" is less than the community should be able to expect from an admin in terms of transparency. Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

What is it you think "the community" should reasonably expect that you haven't already gotten? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What many editors have requested of you. As indicated above. That you leave edit summaries that better explain the reason for your edit. And that you be especially vigilant in this regard with controversial articles and edits that if unexplained can be expected to be controversial (your already-mentioned removal of the "influenced" section in the infobox of a particular notorious target-killed terrorist, with your edit summary reading: "rm fmt", comes to mind as an example). There are a number of individual examples above and in what is linked to above where editors asked the same thing of you. And you have above said you refuse to do what all of us have requested (you wrote: "We shall have to agree to disagree" -- I assume at that point it was clear to you what we are requesting, and what you were refusing to do), so I'm not sure where the confusion lies.Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It was clear what you were requesting, and it was equally clear that that is not a standard that the community requires. That is why I specifically asked: what should the community reasonably expect that you haven't already gotten, looking at my recent edit history? To me, it seems reasonable for the community to expect, for example, that when an experienced editor sees a change referencing template documentation, they might actually read that documentation before incorrectly claiming that there was "nothing wrong" with the original. This is where "we shall have to agree to disagree" comes from - your expectations are not mine, your expectations are not the community's, and your expectations as thus far expressed are not reasonable (and not even you meet them). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to the community giving you feedback above, and in the linked-to conversations above. You criticize others, saying that you think an "experienced editor" should divine what you fail to state in your edit summary. Well, you have a whole slew of experienced editors here who didn't divine your thoughts. Which, of course, is besides the point -- you should write the edit summary not for yourself, or for experienced editors, but for all editors, who include newbies. And your suggestion that "fmt" means "fmt deprecated by RFC", and that those who can't divine it are surprisingly deficient, is not one as you can see that all of us who have come here agree with.

Another example would be this -- I just now had an article I created go to DYK. You have repeatedly now -- and again, as we have all complained in the past, without sufficient explanation as to why -- edit warred to seek to impose your preferred format, even though there was a prior-existing format, that was perfectly acceptable. Even though my comments to you in my edit summaries pointed to this. Your sphinx-like edit summaries failed to explain why your format changes were necessary, and why your format was preferable to the already-exiting one (it's not, on my screen, and it is not mandated). I assume on good faith that it is just a coincidence. But edit warring is annoying, and that is compounded when your edit summaries fail to explain why, rather than what, you are doing.

Fail to state? No, what I said was that an experienced editor—such as yourself, in the example you are now edit-warring over—should look at what is actually stated. That applies both to edit summaries and to discussions like this one. Your comments in both venues are incorrect. If you are unable to read and respond to the question I actually asked, then there's little point in continuing this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• You continue to fail to explain the reason for your edit summaries when you should -- here today, for example, while engaging in your third revert in short order of two other editors, you simply wrote "change width". That reflected what you were doing. Which anyone could plainly see, without your edit summary. It failed to explain "why".

I'm still puzzled why after all the editors above, and linked to above, have requested that you explain "why" in your edit summaries, you continue to ignore flatly the consensus in this discussion that requests that you do so. Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's clear that you're puzzled - you present a link that doesn't support what you're saying and make claims that simply aren't true. My first two edits to the page in question explained why the change has been made, which was for the same reason that I've previously explained to you in depth - per the template documentation. The third summary responded to an edit-summary made by another editor, in attempting to address that concern. Now, will you continue to "ignore flatly" everything you've been told, or will you answer my question? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Nikki -- in edit summaries, you write (or should) to inform the community, especially in contentious edits (as here, where you reverted 2 editors 3 times in 7 hours), WHY you are making the edit. Your edits elsewhere across the project, to one or more editors, are not know to everyone on that article's talk page. Similarly, as is discussed above by other editors in this string, your edit summaries often fail to inform the community at large of WHY you are making the edit. Furthermore, your edit summaries -- as in your second revert, of Sven Manuguard, when you simply wrote "doc" -- at times like this do little to shed light on what you mean us to understand. The same with your first edit summary, on your first revert -- "(ce, doc, refs)". That's not -- as you assert -- an acceptable explanation as to why the change has been made. And certainly, on your third revert of 2 different editors in 7 hours, for you to simply write "change width" as your edit summary when you know 2 editors disagree with you and that your change is contentious, is completely unacceptable ... especially as you made your third revert without initiating talkpage discussion (which I had to initiate first). There are a number of instances listed above by other editors expressing similar concern with similar edit summaries of yours. Yet, you indicate that you will not change. I don't get it. Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't get it. There was no "third revert", and there was no reason that the initial edit should have been contentious, as it already has community consensus. Since I had already explained the issue to you at length, I was surprised to see your talk-page post and your revert, and consider both to be inappropriate. I was also disappointed to see your misuse of article talk to express a personal disagreement - it's off-topic there.

So here's what I don't get: since your initial post here, I have changed my edit summaries to almost always include an explanation for changes made. While I don't claim to meet the completely unreasonable expectations expressed in yours and Montana's earlier posts, I know from experience that my edit-summary usage is above average for both admins and the community as a whole; I also know that pretty much no one, including you yourself, meet the standards you proposed earlier in this conversation. So I will ask a final time, and hope to get an actual answer this time: what should the community reasonably expect that you haven't already gotten? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have a tremendous respect for you as an editor, and I think that, in most cases, using two or three letter codes in edit summaries is entirely fine. I use "ce" all the time. It becomes problematic, however, when you use those codes after the edit in question has become contested. The first edit summary, where you said "ce, doc, refs", was fine. I didn't know what "doc" meant (and I still don't), but it didn't matter because I got the gist that it was a copyedit and reformatting. The second edit summary, where you said "doc", is where the abbreviations become problematic. You're now no longer dealing with a routine copyedit, you're dealing with a formatting choice that has been contested by another editor. In such a case, you would need to explain your reasoning in the edit summary or on the article talk page (in which case the edit summary would need to point out that there was a thread on the article talk page about the edit). Likewise, the third edit summary, where you said "change width", is also unacceptable. Yes, it's more descriptive than "doc", but you still failed to provide a reasoning for your change, which by that point had been contested several times.
I should note that between 11:39, 26 April 2014‎ and 18:40, 26 April 2014‎, you made the same change three times. Yes, the width was different one of the times, and yes, it wasn't just a straight revert, but right now, you are edit warring. A rules pedant might take you to 3RR (although I doubt it would actually go anywhere). I am not a rules pedant, however. I don't see any point to you being blocked over this; it would do more harm than good. What I'd really like is an explanation. Why do you keep making this change? What, exactly, is wrong with {{reflist|2}}? When you get reverted, and you make the change again, you need to back up that change with an explanation. Keep your abbreviations for the bulk of your edits, just break out something more substantive if someone contests the changes. That's really what's being asked for. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The change is per the template documentation (doc), which deprecates the use of a fixed number of columns in favour of the more flexible width option. What I'm becoming unhappy with, aside from Epee's failure to read, is the application of different standards: when you reverted the change the first time you didn't provide any explanation, and you too were edit-warring. I certainly don't intend to pursue any kind of action against you either, and you're far from the only one doing that, but it does make it hard to see your (and Epee's) point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

• Comment: A foolish request

• Traffic report: Down to a simmer

• Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

• News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

• Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

• Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

• Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

• WikiProject report: From the peak

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rachel Mahon

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference problems

Hi Nikki, I am a campus volunteer at University of Utah. I have some questions regarding the course University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World by Gunseli Berik. Some students are facing problems with downloading references in the sandbox as a pdf file. Specifically, when the students download the sandbox page as pdf, none of the references show up on the pdf file and for some students, some references show up and others are not there.

I tried to verify this and I face the same problem. Could you please help us with this problem??

thnx Diksha41 (talk)

Hi Diksha41, there are a few things that can cause that type of problem - do you have an example page that I can look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikki

You can view sandbox of codyG123 or Eva.varnju on the course page University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World. thnx Diksha41 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria,

The problem is quite widespread and a source of frustration for students. In addition to Cody and Eva, take a look at "Missing women in China" (only 6 out of 23 references show, apparently) and "Women's education in Saudi Arabia." "Gender inequality in India" author claims she lost sections (not sure if they are in the textbox or not (she says: I am missing 3 sections of text (about 2 hours of work) - on Mortality rates, variation in education quality by the sexes, and my own text on sex selected abortion. i have no Idea why. I was sure it was saved.") I suspect there are others that I have not yet heard from. Once you diagnose the problem could you post the solution in a way for all students to see? Thanks. BerikG (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...that's odd, it's not caused by a problem I've seen before. I've added a post here to see whether anyone else knows what's going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ragnar Tørnquist may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Tørnquist studied art, history and Englis] at [[St Clare's International School|St Clare's]], [[Oxford]] from 1987 to 1989. From 1989 to 1990,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tess Broussard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Teens Wanna Know (2013)]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone else nominated this, but didn't alert you.

[1]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_origins_of_political_order

Thank you for your helpful comments! I have adjusted the Reception section in the article. I am more concerned with the improvement of the article than the need for it to be DYK, so your help is much appreciated. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again. I have now worked on the text before "reception", chasing copied texts, and improved refs. Do you think I should change quotes with fewer than 40 words to inline? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Since all were shorter than 40 characters, all blockquotes are now gone. A couple of quotes removed, and a few other things done.

Am I wrong to think this is trivia?

This diff. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not wrong, and it's already been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Slavery in Canada (New France) plagiarism?

Was reading these new additions to the article and found it odd that the use of native, indian and aboriginal were randomly used over just using one term. This leads me to believe there is some copyright concerns so i did a search and found that parts seem to come from globeandmail the source provided. Do you think the changes are enough or is it simply plagiarism with a few changes?

i.e

Now on Wiki = "Black slaves were known as bois d’ébène (ebony wood), or pièce d’Inde if they were of high quality. Black slaves being more difficult to attain were double the cost of indigenous slaves. Both native and black slaves were sold at auctions and advertised in newspapers."

vs

From the globeandmail = "Black slaves were known as bois d’ébène (ebony wood), or pièce d’Inde if they were in prime condition. Blacks, being harder to get, were about double the cost of indigenous merchandise. Slaves of all kinds were sold at auctions and advertised in newspapers, including the Montreal Gazette, which had slaves in its print shop."

-- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Moxy, most of those additions were way too close to the source - I've reverted and left a note for the newbie in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking too- just wanted to make sure. -- Moxy (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Shammi better?

Looks like Ethically yours worked on Shammi (actress), check to see if your close paraphrasing concerns were addressed. The creator of the article keeps popping by and adding stuff that is not formatted terribly well, but I hope we can educate him/her a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not even close - I checked seven paragraphs and six had problems to varying degrees, to the point that it would probably be more productive to rewrite the entire article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the editor who was helping the newbie is traveling, maybe they will be able to help out later, think there is any problem letting this sit for a week or so? I think this is one of those situations where we have someone of limited English language ability who needs some hand-holding. The story of this actress is really quite interesting. Maybe I'll @Rosiestep: to see if she is interested in looking at it with an eye to rehab. Seeing as how I was just doing the review, I don't want to get myself bogged down, and I suspect that BlueMoonset will want a new reviewer to do the final approval now? BTW, do you run that duplication detector that's linked at the DYK review page on every source listed, (which I seem to have to run each link individually AND it gives me shitloads of false positives so I find it rather useless) or do you have a different tool? I've been trying MadmanBot (though not on this article) and am just trying to figure out if there is a way to streamline this process that I'm not aware of. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's going to take a lot of work to fix, so we'll see whether someone is up for that. I almost always check stuff manually, because automated tools give false positives and negatives and because it's easier to catch close paraphrasing (rather than verbatim copying) that way. I don't know that there is really any quick-and-easy way that's still effective. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

True that, it's probably why I bailed on CCI after cleaning up ItsLassieTime's socks and reviewing the Rlevse situation. Very time-consuming to do that level of review. Seems that on wiki, one can create content or you can review content, but doing both is quite a time sink if you also have RL commitments. I pinged @Ethically Yours: about this issue. It's really up to @Sortlips:, though - perhaps we can gently lead that user through the rewrite, I'd like more editors from India who can also create good content; the language and usage issues we so often see in articles from there are an ongoing concern and I'd like to see more editor development from that part of the world - is there a mentoring corps or anything for folks from India? Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, other than the massive failure that was the IEP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm traveling, too, but I might have some time for it on Saturday at Sarah's edithathon. I agree that a re-write is probably the best way to go. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

consistent quality control
Thank you for consistently checking the quality of articles going to the Main page, for taking your time to preview critical ones for those who are afraid, and for your comments in a delete discussion "the principle that while Wikipedia is not a social network, it also isn't a soulless machine", "useful for community-building, which is an essential aspect of collaboration", and for mentioning "ideal" in the context! Ideal! - Repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (25 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 82nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rosalind Ellicott

Hi, thank you for editing this article. The unsourced part you took out was a bit left over from before I started working on it. I couldn't find a reference, and wasn't brave enough to remove it, being new to wiki. I appreciate your markup corrections and style changes. Diana Bassplayer (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diana, you're doing a great job so far, keep it up! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stadio della Roma may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | image = [File:Stadio della Roma design.jpg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phil Zimmermann may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * In 2001, Zimmermann was inducted into the CRN Industry Hall of Fame.<ref>[http://www.crn.com/sections/special/hof/hof01.asp?ArticleID=31279 CRN Industry Hall of Fame</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hissa Hilal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Hissa Hilal''' ({{lang-ar|حصة هلال}}) is a [audi Arabian [[poet]]. Previously published under the [[pseudonym]] '''Remia''' ({{lang-ar|ريميه}}),

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading section heading

Good morning Nikkimaria. Please do not describe your edits as "mos" (WP:MOS), as you did here, when the edit clearly contains potentially controversial changes that are entirely unrelated to WP:MOS. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Demiurge. Please do not restore inaccuracies and formatting problems because you misunderstand the application of a portion of that edit. See MOS:IDENTITY, not to mention the various content policies that mandate neutral and accurate information. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand anything about your edit. Please discuss it on the talk page of the article concerned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Believe

You say (not to me): "infoboxes improve ALL articles" - surely you don't believe that?" - I surely believe that, as much as I believe that ALL books profit from a title page. I would like topic, time and location pointed out for all articles at a glance. - I was pointed to an article which consists practically only of an infobox, and find it helpful, ready to be easily translated to whatever language. When I log in, I get an Africa-related question. One thing Wikipedia can do for Africa is have information structured in a way that makes it accessible for readers with limited English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

All (published) books have title, date, publisher, location; not all article topics have that type of structured information. What infobox would you put on toilet paper orientation, for example? Or pigs in popular culture and other IPC articles? Or most lists? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I am talking from a reader's point of view, not the general maker of such info. Looking at the toilet paper, I am oriented enough by the images as the only box content, the creators might think about something to add, and if won't be the first article in need to be translated to an African language. The Rite of Spring looks like an article about a painting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So in other words: no, you don't believe that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would reply if I hadn't exhausted my two comments per discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is also a morally proper way to orient toilet paper, the other direction is only promoted by people who don't have cats or small children in their homes! (LOL!) My more substantive comment at the article discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedia conferences—soul-searching about costs, attendance, and future

• WikiProject report: Deutschland in English

• Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference

• Featured content: April Fools

• Traffic report: Regressing to the mean

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Mary of Waltham

Hello. I've done a lot of work on this article. I would welcome your input if you have time. Is it good enough to remove the copy-editing banner? Thanks Diana Bassplayer (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diana, I've removed the tag, but there are two spots (marked with hidden comments) that need to be looked at yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the editing, it's very appreciated. Please can you tell me how to find the hidden comments so I can work on those bits? Thank you Diana Bassplayer (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diana, hidden comments are those enclosed in <!-- --> HTML markup - they show up in the editing window but not while reading the article itself. If you look at the sentences "It was a gift from the king..." and "However, within a few months..." in edit mode, you should see the comments; let me know if you have trouble. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria, thank you. I hope I've fixed those bits. Just one other thing if you have the time – the Brittany Portal was there before I started. Is it an appropriate link? Diana (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fine, Diana - thanks again for your work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

FAC spotchecks?

Nikki, not sure if you do all the spotchecks for all FACs but the Mucho Macho Man FAC is sort of sitting in limbo (Colonel Henry started a review but got sidetracked by real life) and given that you peeked at if for the peer review and have already checked the images, if there is any further magic you routinely do to sign off on these (or not), I'd be most appreciative. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Usually the delegates don't ask for spotchecks where the nominator's had them at a recent FAC - your work was spotchecked on Oxbow. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Also appreciate your nitpicks, though it helps my eyes if you can be as specific as possible so I can find stuff with a word search (as when you noted specific footnotes) and clarify the result you are seeking, not just pointing out a problem (Sometimes solution is obvious, but not always) Now if I can just get one or two more reviewers -- What does Ian need to see to promote? Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A couple more supports, most likely. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for the contributions. Relly Komaruzaman Talk 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Rushka Bergman

I am well aware of Rushka Bergman's history and works. Everything listed in her wikipedia page is true and accurate. It is extremely frustrating that you keep taking out valid elements in her page. Please refrain from editing the material. There is no need for you to continuously vandalize this page.

AMF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Artmusicfashion, no one is vandalizing the page, and you can't ask people to refrain from editing - this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and when you disagree with someone you should discuss the matter. If you look at what my changes were, I reorganized the page, but the only content removed was the long list of cover models - this is too much detail for that article. However, you were the one to remove her filmography - can you explain why you did that? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to remove that. It must have happened while we were going back and forth reposting and un-posting material. All of those cover stars are meant to be seen on the page and it would be much appreciated that you should leave it that way. Thank you. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmusicfashion (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, actually, they aren't "meant to be seen" - they might be appropriate for her webpage, but Wikipedia uses a summary style to maintain balance and avoid excessive detail (like a list of 50+ people). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria, I agree that some of the names are excessive, but I do think that the people she continues to work with should be mentioned on her wikipedia. These are the facts regarding her career at this time. She continues to work with film directors Steven Speilberg, David Cronenberg, David Lynch, Tim Burton, Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino. She continues to work with Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Shia Lebeouf, Robert Pattinson, and Michael Fassbender. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.136.12 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi IP, do you have any reliable secondary sources to support your proposed content? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do. I will move forward with editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.136.12 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

René Guénon

Hello,

Well, "backlog is 8 years" does not seem to be very serious: I could for instance add these tags on all wikipedia articles and wait for more than 8 years if someone change them… and putting them back as you do if anyone remove them. You've put those tags which do not seem to trigger much reaction, so I thought I was correct to remove them after 3 months. But OK, if you want to keep them, let's do it. I will change the article soon to make it shorter, if I find the time.

Best,

- TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You could, if you wanted to be pointy...but the idea is that the tags should be removed when someone fixes the problem, not just because they've been there for a few months - editing, not time, is the solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(tps)NM is correct, removing tags where there remains a problem helps nothing, better to just fix the problem. Montanabw^(talk) 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

please leave the G.V. Loewen page as is

Hello,

I am an editor of a Canadian literary review and a friend of the social philosopher Loewen. I spent a good deal of time assembling the texts used on this page and neither he nor I wish it to be altered. The idea that there are too many quotes or material from reviews is purely subjective and you have no right to impose your opinions - based on what? - on someone else's work in this way. Find something else to do with your time.Ypress20 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ypress20, I'm afraid that "neither he nor I wish it to be altered" isn't how this site works - this is not his personal webpage, and you and he "have no right" to dictate the content of the page. Wikipedia prefers a summary style that avoids excessive use of non-free content; these are site policies and guidelines rather than my opinions alone. I see someone has provided a welcome message on your talk page to help you learn about how Wikipedia works, so I suggest you read through the links there (and add the conflict of interest guideline as well). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2014

This Month in GLAM – Volume IV, Issue III, March 2014 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: Summer is over Germany report: GLAM ship; Open GLAM hackathon; Science 2.0 conference; GLAM meetup Mexico report: New GLAM projects in Mexico and Reynosa's City Hall donation of historical photos Netherlands report: Education; Libraries; Museums; Maps, Earth Norway report: GLAM edit-a-thon at Preus museum Sweden report: Many ways to meet Wikipedia UK report: Art, Women, the Police and the build up to Wikimania USA report: Women's History Month Open Access report: Open Access at Wikimania; Open Access Button; Topic Pages Calendar: April's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping MMM

Hi Nikki, picked up another support on MMM. Maybe take a peek at the stuff you were concerned about and see if I addressed it all, or at least narrowed down the problem to something you can perhaps tweak directly. I think (I think!) that the "press release" question is the only thing I still need your input on. With ColonelHenry and Tigerboy both having RL stuff to deal with, I'm hoping everyone else can offer support soon. I'm going to ping Ian that we are getting close, just in case he has something happening. My current project is California Chrome, and that's an article I am going to have to monitor closely in real time, as he is a current Kentucky Derby contender. Kind of fun to be ahead of the curve on one of these for a change. Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, me again. Have four supports on this FAC and if you can sign off, there will be five. Would love to get this one done. I think there were a couple little hiccups you spotted that I may or may not have addressed. I'd be glad to get on them if you can clarify what still may be a problem. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AN#User:Robsinden_actions

Since you are involved, you should be aware of Wikipedia:AN#User:Robsinden_actions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

• News and notes: Round 2 of FDC funding open to public comments

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Law

• Special report: Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz

• Traffic report: Conquest of the Couch Potatoes

• Featured content: Snow heater and Ash sweep

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Problems moving out of the sandbox

Hi Nikkimaria: my students are moving their articles to the main namespace this weekend. So far, I notice problems with two of them: Negev Bedouin Women and Commodification of the womb. Why are these articles not showing? Thanks. BerikG (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi BerikG, Negev Bedouin Women was moved twice - it's now at Negev Bedouin women. Commodification of the womb does appear under that title. What do you mean by "not showing"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant in the course page there is no live link (the article title does not show in blue). When I search Wikipedia by the article title, yes, the article is there. BerikG (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears there is a problem with the system not being able to follow page moves. I could get around this by removing and re-adding the article, so commodification of the womb is now correctly linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. Several course articles have this problem, BTW. Now I am writing about two students' articles: 1) Gender inequality in India: This article is currently called Sexism in India. My student expanded the article substantially in her sandbox and is changing the title to Gender inequality in India. But when it comes to moving the article to the main namespace, the system is not moving it. 2) Missing women of China. My student created this article and revised it. But when she moved it to the main namespace yesterday, it was immediately taken down. She has had trouble with a Wikipedia user who argued against the title (Missing women is an established term and there is already a Missing women of Asia article!) The latest reason given is that it is not ready to move (I think it is ready) and this person does not know anything about the Wikipedia Education Program. I hope you can help move these articles from the sandboxes. Thanks. BerikG (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The first one required that a redirect be deleted, so I have done that and moved the article. The second, though, is currently protected from being moved. The primary objection seems to be that the article reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria for taking care of a couple of my requests. I do, however, have a hard time understanding how the "wifeless men" section of Missing women of China article reads like an essay. (I agree with your point about combining the "marginalized men" section with this section and avoiding general conclusions). Please provide one example (sentence) in the Wifeless men section that has an essay-like tone. Secondly, the insistence on Gender imbalance in China does not make sense from the point of view of the scholarship. There is an established scholarship on "Missing women." (Just do a Google Scholar search.) People will not search Wikipedia for the more accurate-sounding "Gender imbalance" article, they will look up "Missing women."BerikG (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My objection was primarily to the phrasing of the marginalized men section, not the wifeless men section. There is a simple solution to the issue of searching, though: create a redirect from whichever title is used to the other, that way no matter which term a searcher uses they will find the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing and original research

At this discussion on AnI, I am asking about what I consider to be a misinterpretation by another editor of what constitutes original research and close paraphrasing. As an expert on copyright issues, it would be very helpful to have your input on the matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I agree with Cas: the thread would be better off closed than further argued. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The point has come up again at my editor review in the section from Faendalimas. It is quite critical to the criticisms being levied against me and I would very much appreciate your intervention in the discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikki, just a side comment as someone who has been lurking on this case and also as someone who has helped on a couple of big CCIs, I think that the folks who patrol copyvio tend to be "scarier" than the folks who argue for technical expertise - people get banned for major and repeated copyvio problems. So I think it appropriate for someone who regularly works in that area to help sort out the threads of that issue; close paraphrasing is something that is very easy to do and especially in an area where the technical language and necessary nuances are often rather subtle, and a paraphrase can change meaning entirely, as in science and law. Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing reviewers from a course page

I would like to delete two users TINGLED1 and Rsl89 as reviewers from my course page, to allow others to sign up. (I already deleted them as members of the course --they have dropped out!) Please tell me how. BerikG (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you would have been able to, so I've done this. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

About taken down article from namespace to draft

Hi Nikkimaria, I am a student of Professor Berik. I notice from the above message that she has already told you about my problem. The topic of my article is "Missing women of China". I moved it to namespace last night and it was taken down this morning.

I was told that, “you moved the article to mainspace when it clearly had problems you decided to disregard their advice." But the problem is the two comments I've got was on March 29th and 31th. I made a lot of changes after that. According to the viewers, the first problem of my article is that the article looks like original research. I think maybe because I'm an international student, so some of my English expressions make the article looks like an essay. While after several revisions, I think it looks much better now than before. The second problem they said is the title. The viewer thinks the title should be "Gender imbalance in China" instead of "Missing women of China". But they are totally two different concepts. There is a "Missing women of Asia" in the Wikipedia already, so actually I am not quite understand why the title is a problem. I explained to the viewer, but it seems that we still have different ideas on this problem.

My previous taken down article is here now: Draft:Missing women of China.(I'm also confused that I cannot find the draft in my sandbox or my page.) Could you help me to look at what are the problems that do not match Wikipedia requirements? (This is what the viewer pointed out, but he didn't told me what are the specific problems. He just told me there was sufficient cause for it to be declined.) Thank you so much!! I'm really appreciate! Yangtana Li (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yangtana Li. I see a difference between Gender inequality in China and Gender imbalance in China; I'm not so sure I see one between the latter and Missing women in China. Can you explain?

In terms of the article content, there are a couple of issues I see on a quick look. The "marginalized men" section seems quite essay-like as written; I would suggest rewriting it as part of the "Wifeless men" section. Second, in the final section, avoid broad generalizations like "China’s society is changing" - instead, frame the content as reactions to the problematic gender ratio rather than as a conclusion to an essay. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria: Missing women is a term to describe a distorted sex ratio that males population is far more than females population due to some discriminations against women. It is a more academic phrase than gender imbalance. There are many journal articles on google scholar talking about missing women. While gender imbalance includes two sides: males are far more than females, or males are much less than females. The former is what missing women described. In China, females are less than males due to traditional discriminations against women. I'm not sure if I explain it clearly. (I'm sorry for what I said, "they are totally two different concepts" above, because I'm ashamed that I was confused about gender imbalance and gender inequality at that time. In Chinese, imbalance and inequality sometimes have similar meaning.)

Thank you for your helpful advices and revisions! I'll keep revising the draft, especially the sections you mentioned above. Thank you so much!! Yangtana Li (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria: Could you help me to move the article "Missing women of China" to the namespace please? My article is protected now, so I cannot move it by myself. The article is still in the Draft:Missing women of China. Or if you think the article need to be revised on some points before the move, let me know please. Thank you so much! Best,Yangtana Li (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem with moving my sandbox to wiki article

Hi Nikkimaria, I seem to have made a mistake with my sandbox. I am a student in Dr. Berik's course. I have developed major edits to the Sexism in India article and have proposed a name change to Gender inequality in India. In doing so, I overwrote the title of my sandbox with Gender inequality in Utah. I am unable to move my sandbox to the Sexism in India article. I wonder if I should create a new account and start over. I can still access my article text/code. Any advice? Weetie2 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Weetie2, your sandbox is now at User:Weetie2sandbox, but the content is now in the newly moved Gender inequality in India article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Greed

Hi, I am attempting to get Greed (film) promoted to FA status again and thought that you may be interested in giving it another look.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I out of line...

With the discussion at Talk:Robert of Chichester? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

MOS - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images

The lead image is always bigger than the other imagers, and should be displayed such according to it, given the place and opportunity.

Size

See also: Image use policy on displayed image size

• "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than "upright=1.8" (defaults to 400 pixels) wide; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. e.g.

[[File:Example.png|thumb|upright=1.2|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

• Alternatively, a fixed size can be specified in the form |XXXpx, where XXX is replaced by a number of pixels, although this should be avoided where possible, since it overrides the user's default. For example:

  [[File:Example.png|thumb|120px|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

  • As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding.
  • Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px").
  • In addition to the width restrictions, with the default value, larger images should generally be a maximum of 500 pixels tall, so that they can comfortably be displayed on the smallest displays in common use. This can be done by proportionately reducing the width.

Hafspajen (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK

I have rectified the issue that you pointed out. Please have a look, and mention if there are other issues. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinging again. Please let me know if there any more issues. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rsrikanth05, have you checked for other issues yourself? That's often quite a helpful step before re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have. I have done as much as I can on that article. It's difficult to come up with totally unrelated phrases when you rely on few sources. I've done all that I can. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

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) 14:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shammi (actress)

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether this DYK nom should simply be closed? Looking at the extent of the edits subsequent to Montanabw's comments, it seems unlikely that the pervasive close paraphrasing has been dealt with, but I wanted to be sure before doing so. Also, given the circumstances, you may want to readd the close paraphrasing template in the article, which was removed when the specific infringement you mentioned in your DYK comment was simply dropped from the article (except for the final sentence). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem persists, so probably closing would be best. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've just closed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, one can only lead the horse to water... Montanabw^(talk) 06:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sanjhi roti (community meal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabzi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway

Hi NM, It is with a heavy heart that I have to inform you of this discussion which has just been started. You may or may not wish to comment, I'll leave that to you, but I felt you ought to know seeing as you kindly keep a watch on it from time to time. Cassianto^talk 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

• Special report: 2014 Wikimedia Conference—what is the impact?

• Op-ed: Five things a Wikipedian in residence can do

• News and notes: Wikimedian passes away

• WikiProject_report: To the altar—Catholicism

• Wikimania: Winning bid announced for 2015

• Traffic report: Reflecting in Gethsemane

• Featured content: There was I, waiting at the church

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

René Guénon

Please see talk page. Thanks, - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 14:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OK sorry. Then I'm going to apply the method of splitting to this article more systematically. Thanks. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 04:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rezan Zuğurlu

Nikkimaria, I noticed there was a call for a new review on this one, and you had been the one to point out close paraphrasing in a previous review. Can you please take another look—it's so much better when you do it, rather than have someone else who's less adept, just in case there are remaining instances. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Much appreciated! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fantasia for Strings (Henze)

Hi. Could you please tell me why you deleted the In popular culture section in Fantasia for Strings (Henze)? Please note that the information it contained got to DYK, so I don't see the point in deleting it. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It didn't meet the standards outlined at WP:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kidnapping in China

"It is common for hong kong men to be temporarily kidnapped and robbed by mainland gangsters."[2] OccultZone (Talk) 19:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what you're saying in the article. The article says "Due to such incidents, it has became common thing in Hong Kong to be kidnapped" - what this means is that it is common for everyone to be kidnapped because of the "incidents" previously mentioned, which refer only to the kidnapping of women and children - not the kidnapping of men. The source says it is common for men to be kidnapped; it does not connect this fact to any of the incidents discussed, nor does it generalize this to the entire population. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On DYK of "Kidnapping in China"

You cannot read Please do not modify this page? Don't edit for adding your own opinion about the article. You even know what is stub? Read WP:STUB, it is clearly far bigger to be a stub. OccultZone (Talk) 19:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can read, and yes, I know what a stub is. Specifically, I know that "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub...there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a couple of paragraphs long", per WP:STUB. Please see Template_talk:Did_you_know#How_to_remove_a_hook_from_the_prep_areas_or_queue, which requires that the review be re-opened; if it were left closed, the article would never be featured on the main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok sorry. I may expand it as quickly as possible. OccultZone (Talk) 19:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough

Ok Nikki. I just wanted you to know that you've now reverted four times. That's three different versions of an infobox by three different editors, which doesn't look like any attempt to seek consensus. I won't revert further and you know that I have no history of edit-warring, so pot/kettle is hardly appropriate is it?. But I will seek sanctions if you try to impose your preferred version of an article against multiple other editors after you have been served with a warning. You know that I'd much rather not have to do that, because I value your contributions in general. Please take it to talk and let's find a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Pot/kettle is correct: neither of us has broken 3RR, but both of us (and yes, that includes you, despite your protestations) have edit-warred. By all means, let's discuss the issue, but please do so honestly. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't correct. If you don't believe me here's the relevant history up to 21:50 on 24 April 2014:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCabe_(composer)&action=history&offset=201404242150&limit=22

The Vintage Feminist added an {{Infobox person}} (1144 bytes) then an {{Infobox musical artist}} (552 bytes) in response to Jerome's complaint. Jerome reverted both. MontanaBW reverted Jerome and you reverted her. MontanaBW reverted you and you reverted her again. MontanaBW tried the {{Infobox person}} (604 bytes) and you reverted that as well. In response to Jerome's argument about excess blank parameters (which I agreed with on talk), I tried a minimal {{Infobox person}} (356 bytes), but you reverted even that. Now I have reverted your revert, which is actually my first revert. You know I keep a strict 1RR so I'm finished. But you, Nikki, have reverted that article back to the same state four times since yesterday. I have been looking for a variation that meets objections and everyone could live with - the definition of consensus. Now if we're going to be honest, aren't you simply reverting to keep any infobox out of the article? - that's not seeking consensus; that's "no compromise". If you feel that no infobox could possibly be appropriate for the article under any circumstances, then let's debate that at talk, but please don't tell me I'm equal to you in edit-warring, because we both know I'm not. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We were debating that at talk before your first revert. It appears that what "we both know" is shrinking daily, which is a shame. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not wishing to stoke the fire, but as far as I can see, there was no discussion when a box was added. Why should we then have to discuss an infobox removal when we didn't discuss the implementation? This makes an infobox the default position when it's not. Why should the default position be with a box when it should be without as that's when the discussion should have taken place in the first instance as per BRD? Cassianto^talk 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh - you're not stoking fires - Nikki and I don't seem to quite manage to fall over our differences. I would say though that WP:BRD (an essay) actually encourages making the edit first - it's not DBR. It points us to WP:Be bold (a guideline which is absolutely fundamental to wiki-editing) and WP:Revert only when necessary (another useful essay). My view is that expecting an editor to go and seek consensus on a talk page first - and then using a failure to do so as a reason to revert - to be one of the practices that is killing Wikipedia. Wikipedia grew because editors could make edits and did. Of course some were reverted, but it was usually accompanied by an understandable reason. But now, I see completely fresh editors adding infoboxes and being reverted for all sorts of spurious reasons. What must The Vintage Feminist have thought of the reasoning that ("Person infobox") is inappropriate to composers of classical music? - as if composers were not people! Why wouldn't somebody suggest {{infobox classical composer}} in any case, instead of just reverting? I think articles have to move forward, not look back; stagnation is the nemesis of wiki-editing, so I don't find the concept of a 'default position' to be useful; rather, it stifles progress and possible improvement. Not every article benefits from an infobox, of course - we can agree on that - but I really don't believe that anyone can predict that a whole class of articles will or won't benefit; there are far too many variables for that. I just wish the process of finding out which ones do and which ones don't wasn't so difficult that uninvolved editors get treated badly just for raising the issue. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy of my post on John McCabe's talk page (for the benefit of anyone happening upon this discussion):

Just for information purposes ....The Daily Telegraph print a "Birthday's Today" feature. I was going through the list of birthdays (21st April 2011) and adding them to Births on 21 April, the list, from the newspaper, for the 21st April reads as follows:

Maj Gen Sir John Swinton, Lord–Lieutenant for Berwickshire, 1989–2000, is 86; Sir Robin Ibbs, Chairman, Lloyds TSB Group, 1995–97, 85; Mrs Angela Barrett, Wimbledon Ladies' Singles Champion, 1961, 79; Sir Michael Oswald, National Hunt Adviser to the Queen, 77; Lord Glentoran 76; Mr John McCabe, composer and concert pianist, 72; Mr Robin Gourlay, Chairman, AWG plc (formerly Anglian Water Group), 1994–2003, 72; Prof Sir Alan Fersht, organic chemist, 68; Viscount De L'Isle 66; Prof Ian Bruce, Vice–President, RNIB, 66; Mr Srinivas Venkataraghavan, former India cricketer, 66; Adml Lord West of Spithead, Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State, Home Office, 2007–10; First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, 2002–06, 63; Ms Cheryl Gillan, MP, Secretary of State for Wales, 59; and Mr Mike Clasper, Chairman, HM Revenue and Customs, 58.

I worked my way through the list and - where they already had an article on wikipedia - just added the wikilink to the list for the 21st. Some names had articles for the people involved but the date of birth was missing (which I then added), and in some cases I created new stub articles. My reason for adding infoboxes, if there is none, is so the age of the person can be shown.

To be honest I found the opening line of the section on biographical infoboxes for composers to less than decisive, The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article ...so if this is where the consensus is being determined then put me down as a pro-infoboxer on the grounds of DOB/age combination that is otherwise missing from the article - no matter where you cast your eyes. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidently, with regards to Cassianto comment (in this thread), ...."there was no discussion when a box was added. Why should we then have to discuss an infobox removal when we didn't discuss the implementation?" If every edit is to be regarded as an "implementation" for which a discussion is required then editing wikipedia will be like trying to run through treacle with with clown shoes on for everybody. I had no reason to suspect that infobox + composer = extremely touchy subject which requires discussion. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not every edit no, only major ones. I personally consider the addition of an infobox to be a major edit, not to mention contentious. Major edits should be discussed if those edits are likely to be controversial. Fair enough, you didn't know so I really wouldn't take it personally. My point was that if we are to require a discussion around the removal of an infobox, then we should equally expect to discuss the addition of an infobox. It's really not rocket science! Cassianto^talk 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the box that was added was non-informative and repetitive when compared to the lede section. Is that what you want to see in an encyclopaedia, repetitive information? That to me looks infantile. Cassianto^talk 17:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Flick

Nikkimaria, could you please stop by and comment on whether the fair use issue has been addressed? TonyTheTiger has made some edits that reduced his use of long quotes, but you'll be a much better judge than I whether this is sufficient. I've temporarily reversed the reapproval by the original reviewer. The last thing we want is for this to be promoted again and then have to be pulled back again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have a question that I can't seem to find an answer to. Is it ok to combine the lead sentence from 3 paragraphs of a 6 paragraph review in one blockquote? This is done a few times in Template:Did you know nominations/The Flick. Maybe it's ok but it doesn't feel that way to me. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Parabolooidal, which review(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

England is not allowed to be linked to?

I'm referring to my 'edit' of the Stephen_Merchant article. Every other country can be linked to, but not England. I've noticed this a lot on Wikipedia. It's a pity you can't 'nuke' England, eh?

/ -:

Whatever, you 'win'... 70.238.216.14 (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned my name

I appreciate your effort to expand edit summaries beyond a cryptic abbreviation, but request that you don't mention my name for something I don't stand for, as here. Without context, it seems that per me, you "restore" to a status quo by removing an infobox. Whoever knows me (which I thought includes yourself) will see that there's the danger of misunderstanding. The idea that a status quo remains frozen, without hope for improvement, is not what I stand for. The removal of content that is helpful, even if only for some readers, is not what I stand for. - If you tried to express that I had suggested on the talk page to better use infobox person, you didn't succeed to make that clear. The best solution would be to avoid my name in places where I have no chance to explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You said that "I add [infoboxes] to "my" articles, but agree that others are free not to do the same" - if that is not what you stand for, then why would you say it? I thought, knowing you and what you have previously agreed, that you supported the author choosing; I would be disappointed to hear that this is untrue. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

How is an editor who sees only one edit supposed to know that? Not even I made that connection, and how could I? - We know that diffs are looked at without context. (Remember that famous example when an arbitrator probably thought "Andy adding an infobox to a classical composer's article", - while all he did was uncollapse one and move it to the normal positionP) I am not concerned about that composer's article - as you may have noticed. I am concerned that some day someone will look at your edit and conclude: per gerda, an infobox is removed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and if your position is as described then that is an edit that you support. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

My position is as described. I don't support your edit summary, and that is the only reason I came here, hoping that you will not again present my name in an edit summary connected to the removal of an infobox or other content that might help some readers. I don't comment your edit itself: neutral, leaning toward oppose. You said it well above: "the author choosing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

See also-

You removed it from Rape in Germany, it was not really undue, and Under-reporting includes the data about unreported rapes. It is relevant with the subject. OccultZone (Talk) 04:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If under-reporting is a topic of relevance, it would be better to explain this in the article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, you have to go back to the DYK's of Kidnapping China, your concern had been accepted, and I had expanded the page. OccultZone (Talk) 12:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Google books links

Please don't remove the page number from google books links; typically this is very unhelpful for the reader. Removing the search term is of course fine, & I now do it myself when posting. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, I don't do that for citations, but in References lists it's the work as a whole that is of interest rather than a specific page - the page number is not part of the reference itself, so why include it in the URL? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I dug into this a bit on some past articles. If you use the book more than once, you probably need to do a format (sfn is one, but not the only one) so that you can use the reference multiple times. If the work is only used once in a footnote (and probably is likely to only be used once in subsequent editing, at least in the near future) then having the page number in the citation under the "page=" parameter is acceptable. Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but the article in question (St Cuthbert Gospel) already uses short citations for the various uses/pages - what's at issue here is the general entry, under References, which includes no specific page at all. Since the citation doesn't include a page, why should the URL? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that point. One reason may be the MOS, which for some (stupid) reason insists on page cites if Google Books is used. Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I haven't checked them individually just now, but several (most in fact) of the reference books only have a few relevant pages in a long book. The page references are in the individual citations, and the google link in the refs section takes you to one of those pages. It is not true to say "in References lists it's the work as a whole that is of interest rather than a specific page". It might be, but it usually isn't. For example (having now checked), there are several citations to "Farmer", but all to pages 52-60, which the link takes you to the middle of. Likewise "Skemer", where citations are only to pp. 50-58, with a nod to the wider subject he covers. Same again with Avrin, where all 3 citations are to a range of 3 pages. As it happens neither of the books I use the most in this article are on google books at all. The MOS is generally right to insist on page refs for Google books. It's a huge nuisance to scroll to page 310 in a google book, so why impose this on the reader against the MOS? The only point of a google books link is to make it easy for people who actually want to see the reference, so why make it difficult? Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not then include the direct page references in the short cites themselves, where they would be of most use? The MOS doesn't actually insist on page refs; it only insists that GBooks links should only be provided where a preview is actually available. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course I provide the page references, but not links every time. In the examples given above there is little need - to find the right page in a range of say 8 pages is trivial, to find page 310 from scratch is not. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

High Beam

I used to have an account for High Beam, but somehow I cannot enter. I always end up on the site, where I am asked to pay. What can I do? --Nicola54 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nicola54, check your email. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --Nicola54 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Speyer wine bottle

Please take a look. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Wordpress source appears unreliable, FWIW. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The content looks well researched and thought out. Doesn't look flimsy. Think about it. I value your opinion, and will let this cook overnight. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Same with some Wikipedia articles ;-). Have any other sources cited or reviewed that blog? What is the author's background in this area? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Good questions and lines of inquiry. I don't know, but I will try to find out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

HighBeam

Hi Nikkimaria,

This is my first time applying for journal access and I was just wondering when you start approving/declining users?

Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Dom497, I'll be taking a look at the list within the next day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I have the same question. From what I understand, applications take place in different rounds, with the latest one being "Round 8". Assuming that I'm part of "Round 9" (which is still open), when will approvals begin for us? Thanks in advance. OscarL 16:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about commenting on a FAR

Hi there,

I noticed on the Jenna Jameson talk page that the article was currently undergoing FAR, and the header there had a link to a page where I could leave a comment. However, after I saved my comments, I noticed that the link supplied on the Jameson talk page had sent me to an archive rather than the main FAR page. Do I need to move my comments from the archive to the main page for them to count toward the FAR? Sorry to bother you with this, but I've never commented on a FAR before.

Thanks, --chrisFjordson (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey chrisFjordson, you're in the right place - FARs (and some other reviews, like [[WP:FAC|FACs]) are held in an archive from the beginning. That discussion is still active and your post will be considered in the closing decision, when that is made. Thanks for participating! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

• News and notes: WMF's draft annual plan turns indigestible as an FDC proposal

• Traffic report: Going to the Doggs

• Breaking: The Foundation's new executive director

• WikiProject report: Genetics

• Interview: Wikipedia in the Peabody Essex Museum

• Featured content: Browsing behaviours

• Recent research: Wikipedia predicts flu more accurately than Google

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ain Shams University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Faculty of Computer and Information Science].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timewyrm: Genesys may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Mad Norwegian Press]] |location=Des Moines, Iowa |isbn=978-0-9759446-6-0}}</ref><ref>"Shelf Life"], Gary Russell, Doctor Who Monthly No. 177</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jerry Nelson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | children = 1)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Max Johnston may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a level I haven't before."<ref>http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A78666]</ref> By the time of his second recording with the band, ''[[Bolsa de Agua]]'', Johnston had found

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your Mortimer J. Adler edit

I am adding brief definitions of Adler’s three kinds of freedom. They are too important to merely file by title. If you delete what I add, OK. I am too old to fight. Vejlefjord (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

rm ib

You explained that you like short edit summaries, I recommend you start using "rm ib" for "remove infobox". That would be clearer than "see talk", "wrong ...", "rewrite", and other variations on the theme. Better even: think about stopping the removal of infoboxes from articles where you are no major contributor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No. "ib" is not a standard abbreviation, and things like "see talk" and the explanation you omitted are considered better practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry: "wrong: simplified double to single frame": I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, - what I see is removal of content that may be helpful to some users - even if not for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

When you don't understand something, it's usually helpful to look for context. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Context, I heard that before, see above, when you expected a reader of one edit summary to find the context on a different contributor's talk page. I politely disagree. Please do as much as you can to make a single edit understandable for a reader who does not know the context. If "ib" is no standard abbreviation, please spell out "remove infobox", - rewrite" is a euphemism, not to speak about "wrong" without context. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Where I expected one individual to recall what had already been explained to him, you mean? It seems that is asking too much, but it really shouldn't be. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. I meant that you used my name in the edit summary of the removal of an infobox, which made no sense without context, and not much sense with the context which was not in the article history, but a different editor's talk. - The easy approach to avoid such misunderstandings was mentioned above: you could simply stay away from the infoboxes of articles where you are no major contributor. as I have to ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't, nor do your associates. If everyone did, as already discussed, that would be a different matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by associates. Project members? People trying to improve accessibility, by simple things like presenting a date in granular form, ready to be interpreted in different cultures, used for calculations and comparisons? Which you reverted, edit summary "simplify". I give up trying to understand for now. I believe that an edit summary is meant to be understood by a random reader without context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Was Voltaire wrong about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians?

There is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. Could you please take a look at it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked, but I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an outstanding 25 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers AR. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Curious about your non-RS edit

Hi there. The link you removed was to the song itself. I'm curious to know why you thought it was unreliable. (I assure you that that's the version on the album.) JTBurman (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi JTBurman, do you mean the YouTube link, or the other? Assuming the YouTube: the interpretation of the lyrics should have a secondary source if included - don't really think it merits inclusion anyways, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand now: the interpretation was mine. Thanks for explaining. JTBurman (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OPENPARA

There is no consensus on the talk page, if you remove it again I will raise the matter at ANI. GiantSnowman 14:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You'd get hit by a boomerang if you did - five people for removal versus one (you) for retention is a pretty strong consensus, particularly given that you had no consensus for the addition in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

5 vs 1? Pull the other one. You and In ictu oculi, with minor support from Herostratus, against me with minor support from  SMcCandlish. So it's actually 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 2 - either way it's irrelevant, consensus comes from strength of argument not sheer numbers. Furthermore I didn't require consensus for my initial addition seeing as it was an addition which merely clarified the existing MOS. You really must try harder. GiantSnowman 14:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying you were "merely clarifying", and it keeps not being true. You seem to have missed Michael and Gerda in your calculations. Not to mention the fact that your arguments have been refuted, and you have not been able to provide any convincing evidence to support your assertion that it is "not good practice" to do what several well-respected encyclopedias do. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael's point was so throwaway it doesn't add anything, while Gerda does not really express an opinion either way, though they did 'thank' me when I reverted you so that implies they are more towards my side of thinking. I don't really care what other encyclopedias do - I care what Wikipedia does - although I did show you that the DNB does not include places of birth/death in the opening brackets. That, combined with current wording and current practice on Wikipedia re:FA/GAs means you are wrong. Just accept it. GiantSnowman 14:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To call anybody's comment "throwaway": better no comment. As to the interpretation of my opinion: yes, GS, I thanked you for reverting, but only because I felt that no change should be put there without a discussion. In the discussion, I hoped to have made clear that I would like to have both options (!) to have locations in the opening paragraph, the "German" (locations in the bracket) and the "French" (locations after the bracket). I don't like the current standard, having to find those locations somewhere in the article (unless a decent infobox supplies them), but it's to be tolerated as a third option. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

MOS doesn't really work if you give options. In what context would you use each style? GiantSnowman 15:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Really, options don't work? - I don't think about me alone. - Translating from German, It's just awkward, having to put the locations somewhere else than where you find them. I like them in the brackets when the whole thing is short, for example a place of birth is a well-known city that doesn't have to be explained as today's so-and-so in such different country. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As already mentioned, since FAs are required to follow MOS, the fact that they do doesn't mean MOS is right; many other articles do in fact include places in the brackets, even with the number of removals you've done. The previous wording did not disallow that practice, which is considered "good practice" elsewhere (not everywhere, but elsewhere), and you've yet to provide any good reason why it shouldn't be considered an acceptable practice here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So you finally admit that the MOS currently doesn't allow places of birth/death in brackets? I mean if FAs have to follow MOS (as you have just said), and FAs don't have places of birth/death in brackets (as you acknowledge), then that means the MOS doesn't allow places of birth/death in brackets (by your very own logic!) If you admit that the MOS doesn't allow it, why do you keep on removing a sentence which states that? Other than your own personal preference. GiantSnowman 14:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your addition to the MOS doesn't allow places of birth/death in brackets, given that you've edit-warred it back in; MOS without your addition did and would allow them. That's why your change was a change, not a simple clarification, and that's why it should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself... GiantSnowman 14:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

MOS currently includes an addition by you that disallows POB/POD in brackets (therefore MOS currently disallows that practice). Prior to your addition (and if your addition were removed), MOS did (and would) allow that practice. What contradiction do you see? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, FAs were excluding places from the brackets long before my clarification. Try again. GiantSnowman 15:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So no contradiction then, just an anecdotal assertion on your part. You've still yet to provide any good reason why it shouldn't be considered an acceptable practice here, and consensus is still against you. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to justify something that is current MOS; and no, the consensus is not against me. If you are so confident of that then why not start a RFC? GiantSnowman 15:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Since, as you pointed out, consensus is based on strength of argument, if you want to claim consensus is not against you you would need support for your view - if not numerical, then evidential. If you can't provide that, then we don't need an RFC to revert your unsupported addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

My edit merely clarified the existing MOS, namely that "birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" i.e. not in the opening brackets! You want change the MOS - that does require a RFC. GiantSnowman 15:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If your addition did not change the MOS, removing it wouldn't change the MOS either. Unless you'd like to admit that your addition did change the MOS? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing does nothing other than to make the MOS slightly more ambiguous and it therefore serves no benefit to anyone or the encyclopedia to do so. I am therefore unsure why you insist on it - other than the fact that you want to change the wider MOS. GiantSnowman 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your addition imposed an interpretation on the MOS that was not previously present, that does not appear to be supported, and that is inconsistent with examples of acceptable encyclopedic practice. That's why I want to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, basically my addition tidied up the MOS and you don't like the fact that it is now spelt out in black-and-white. You keep talking about "acceptable encyclopedic practice", and are ignoring "acceptable Wikipedia practice." I mean, where in the MOS does it say that places in the opening brackets are fine, and where does it tell you how to present such information (before or after dates, with our without commas etc.) GiantSnowman 15:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We've been over this already: just because the MOS doesn't describe in minute detail every eventuality does not mean that everything not so described is disallowed. If you want to talk about "acceptable Wikipedia practice", there are many articles that already include places in the brackets, as you know from your efforts to remove them. I don't suggest mandating the practice, but you've given no compelling reason to forbid it completely. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. So just because some articles are wrong, all articles should be wrong? Nonsense. As for no compelling reason, it's partly because it looks scruffy but mainly because there is no agreed standard. If you were to get a RFC going which stated how and when to present the information then that's a positive move to make. GiantSnowman 15:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a "current practice" argument: they're not wrong, they're just not in the style you prefer. But we do allow style variation, and don't require an "agreed standard" for everything. Compare for example WP:CITEVAR et al. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no common style, I see the following different styles all the time:

• (Paris, 1 January 1900 – Paris, 1 January 2000)
• (born Paris, 1 January 1900 – died Paris, 1 January 2000)
• (born Paris, 1 January 1900; died Paris, 1 January 2000)
• (1 January 1900, Paris – 1 January 2000, Paris)
• (born 1 January 1900, Paris – died 1 January 2000, Paris)
• (born 1 January 1900, Paris; died 1 January 2000, Paris)

As well as many other styles - with or without commas, with or without the province, with or without the country name. GiantSnowman 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Again: "we do allow style variation, and don't require an "agreed standard" for everything". Differing styles may be an argument for discussing means of standardizing, if desired, but it certainly isn't an argument for banning altogether. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, it is already stated in the MOS that places should be in the body (or lede if it's important) and not the brackets. If you want to change that then start a RFC. GiantSnowman 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is already consensus to remove your addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is not. GiantSnowman 16:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gardening, I had an idea: leave all these "technical data" to an infobox where readers will easily find them, don't repeat in the lead but tell the readers right away why they might be interested in the article, - likely not because of someone's data of birth and death, calendar at time of birth, country some place is now, and pronunciation of a name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not a bad suggestion, though it is worth noting that year of birth/death only are displayed when a FA appears on the main page, so that is obviously key. Personally I would go for full dates, but nothing more - no places, no pronunciations. GiantSnowman 16:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, your 'disputed tag' was a good one to place, summarises the situation very nicely. GiantSnowman 12:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Raashid Alvi Page

All the stuff written is true and i am adding refrences. why is the written stuff being deleted Shakeeluddin (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

1. When you are writing a biography of a living person, it's important to add appropriate reliable sources when you add the material, not later
2. Material added should be encyclopedic in both tone and content
3. Long lists of things like countries visited, etc, are not appropriate
4. Very long lists of links are not appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Why Raashid Alvi page stuff is being deleted. Shakeeluddin (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Wats wrong , Y Raashid Alvi article's text is deleted

Hamdirfan987 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the following policies and guidelines: biographies of living persons, reliable sources, neutrality, what Wikipedia is not, external links, and Manual of Style. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for fighting the vandalism on my user page. They get vicious at times.

rJaytalk 21:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, let me know if you want the semi-protection removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Hi, I noticed on the John C. Bowers page that you changed the layout of the footnotes to 30em rather than 2 column. I was under the impression that 2 columns is easier to read. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(watching) 30em makes it dependent on the user's screen width and font size, that is more helpful than fixed 2 columns, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. It depends on the user's screen -- on both my iphone and my PC, fixed 2 is more helpful -- as 30em leaves it at one column, but fixed 2 makes it the easier-to-read 2 columns. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I should have said "can be more helpful". On a large screen, fixed 2 is broad. See also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The fixed number of columns format is deprecated in favour of the fixed column width format - if you want you can adjust the width up or down a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks to both of you! Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Same topic: I don't understand this edit, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you start by following the link, as it helps to explain. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I followed the link before. May I improve the references in an article I wrote? I came to like them separate from the article, because I find it much easier to edit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And others don't, and so find it no improvement. If you want to change the established citation style of the article, you should propose same on the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If I "established" the style (simple, perhaps in a rush, perhaps a while ago before learning, 2011 in this case), and then want to improve it to my current quality standard (templated and in a separate section, if not harv citation), to whom would I talk about it? To myself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

To whomever chooses to comment on the matter, once you have posted about it to the talk page. You aren't the only one to ever add a reference to the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I failed to thank you for the major editing you did on the Mortimer Adler article, so thanks. Vejlefjord (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)