User talk:Nikkimaria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

US National Archives[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, finally managed to get into T & F via support. They were truly excellent. I managed to download about 10 superb documents, that are going in now. But I noticed that I couldn't get other docs that were in a different category, which I thought would in the category we were allocated. There was no way to determine exactly what category a document was in. Its kind of hit and miss. Don't know if that is good feedback or not. I was wanting to ask you. Do we have any arrangement with the [US Archives]? I need about 60-100 documents from it. I can find them anywhere on the web. Thanks for your sterling work. scope_creep (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You can use the title list to figure out which items you should or shouldn't have access to via T&F.
Fold3 has some of the NARA materials, but you really should check out WP:NARA - a lot of those docs are on Commons/WikiSource, and you can request others from their Wikipedian in Residence. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves[edit]

WikiChevronsOakLeaves.png The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
In recognition of your dedication to the Military History WikiProject during your four terms as coordinator, and for your continuing work as a Featured Article Review coordinator, creator of quality content, and prolific reviewer at A-Class and Featured level, please accept the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves as a token of the project's appreciation. Thank you! Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Congrats, Nikki. Well deserved. Thanks for all your help with image licensing! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:RPS[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, I noticed that you pointed the shortcut WP:RPS to the Wikilibrary project WP:Royal Pharmaceutical Society. I wanted to use this same shortcut to refer to readable prose size, a notion which is widely used to discuss {{very long}} articles. Seeing that the shortcut was taken, I settled on WP:RPSIZE, however I also noticed that WP:RPS used to be associated to WP:WikiProject Record Production and that today it is mostly unused. So, long story short, would you mind if I hijacked the shortcut to point to the guideline on readable prose size, so that our fellow editors can easily discuss it in Talk pages? Many thanks for your consideration. (And yes, we have met on Wikilibrary, as you accepted some of my account applications.)JFG talk 00:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi JFG, that's fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your prompt response! I'll change it now. — JFG talk 01:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Miramar access: renewal[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. I just realized that I don't know whether Miramar renewals are handled the same/differently than new requests. Do you know if I just follow the same procedure or not? Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Just create a new column in the spreadsheet for renewal date, and fill that in if/when someone requests - no need for them to fill out the form again. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Tks! Ummm... and then what do I do?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Send over two lists instead of one - newbies and renewals. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Miramar says, and I quote, "The Wikipedia account access is one of a number to be reviewed in the New Year."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hm, okay. I'll look into that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chamber pop/GA2[edit]

I wasn't sure whether you'd noticed the reply to your latest comment on the GAR you opened. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

There's been another response. Thanks for taking this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ariel Award for Best Actress[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could take a look and see whether the articles have indeed been expanded sufficiently based on your earlier calculations. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

Reviewer Barnstar Hires.png The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight image reviews and the one source review you did at FAC during November. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Reason for punitive editing?[edit]

I see that you are now punitively editing my contributions. Would you care to explain why? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Er, what? I reverted your change to an article I created because I saw the change on my watchlist and disagreed with it. That is not "punitive" or personal in any way - it's how things normally work around here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of predecessors and successors in officeholders' infoboxes[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to inform you that I've opened a new general Request for Comment concerning whether predecessors and successors should be included in the Infobox Officeholder template, further to my RfC concerning Michael Portillo specifically. The new RfC can be found here: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Should_predecessors_and_successors_be_included_in_officeholders.27_infoboxes.3F. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

SR[edit]

Hello, Nikki. Many thanks for your source review at Bradley Cooper's FAC. Would you be interested in doing the same at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Lawrence/archive1? Will appreciate the help. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2016[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 21:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek reversion[edit]

I have Antonie van Leeuwenhoek on my watchlist, and I see that you reverted a couple of recent edits. They're not my edits, but they look harmless and appropriate, and I was wondering why you did that. I see that they don't show up in the infobox, and "member" isn't an accepted parameter. But "image_size" is accepted, so why did you delete that? This isn't a challenge or anything like that; I just want to understand. --Thnidu (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu, take a look at WP:IMGSIZE - basically |image_size= overrides a user's preferences with regards to image scaling, so should be avoided unless there's a good reason to use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. Thank you. --Thnidu (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

image q[edit]

First, no offense, but it might be just about time to archive some threads on this page. :-) Second and far more important, can I use Fair Use to justify screen capturing a photo in a book (2007; recent) that I find on Amazon.com... the photo is originally from a <strikethrough>1945</strikethrough> 1943 newspaper ("The Statesman") article, but I cannot find those particular Statesman photos anywhere on the Internet... and I have really looked...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi, a few questions to answer yours. First, is the photo still under copyright, given its original publication? Second, under what circumstances do you propose using the photo - in what article, for what purpose? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
q1, I have no idea whether it is under copyright, but I kinda assume so.. it is (or seems to be/are purported to be, at least in the book, Hunger: A Modern History, Belknap Press) one of a FAMOUS, much-discussed in academic literature set of images that are absolutely nowhere on the Internet, which kinda shocks me. The word "iconic" well and truly applies in this case; I could very easily find at least a dozen WP:RS sources that discuss them prominently. I tend to assume they would be under copyright to the newspaper (The Statesman), since 1943 is not all that long ago. A fact that may or may not help: I think perhaps the newspaper shut down for many years. But alas, it is now alive and well... q2: In Bengal famine of 1943. I have looked online, and can find no images of human victims that do not seem, to my inexpert eye at least, to be under copyright. I almost thought I had some, but they were CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.. we discussed this once before. Most of the images online (including the ones currently in our article) are Time magazine stuff by a photographer whose name escapes me....OH oops "for what purpose"... well it could go anywhere in the latter half of the article; the very best place would be the User:Lingzhi/sandbox#A crisis in two waves section since that section is all about the details of the suffering, but if we hafta be super-sticklers I could very very very very reluctantly shove it down in News reports, literature, other media which actually discusses those photos.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Based on your description of the image {{non-free historic image}} would seem to fit best, but keep in mind that if you're using that for a press photo you have to actually be discussing the photo, not just what it shows (which should be possible given that academic lit you mention). Also happy to look into background to see if this or other photos might be out of copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • My sandbox rewrite has a full paragraph only about how important those particular photos are. Is it required that the photo be in the section that discusses them? Could we put the photo in a section about its subject (i.e. famine victims), but have the caption say these photos by The Statesman forever changed world opinion? And as for your offer of help, yes, I am desperate for viable photos. Thank you so much for all your help  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes you could, if you have a citation to back that up. With regards to other photo options, have you checked that copyright on the Life images was renewed? There might be a possibility of a {{PD-US-not renewed}} image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • yes plenty of citations. As for verifying copyright renewal, sorry, you may have told me once how to do that, but alas I have forgotten.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Will do, thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • File:PeoplesWar_Sept1944.jpeg: you should explicitly identify in the description who the copyright holder is. I'd also suggest expanding the purpose of use slightly, to explain why it is helpful for a reader to see media coverage.
  • File:Statesman_j.jpg should include the details of original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jadunath Singh/archive1[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jadunath Singh/archive1. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Nova Scotia, GLAM and WiR[edit]

To: The Interior, Neelix, Niikkimaria, Amqui

I have some familiarity with our GLAM and Wikipedians in Residence initiatives, but I have not been closely involved with either project.

I am an OTRS agent and field in an email from an individual associated with the government of Nova Scotia. They are interested in working closely with Wikipedia particularly regarding cultural history issues.

I have already shared links to our COI policy, to the GLAM initiative Wikipedia:GLAM, and to the WiR page (https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence)

They have responded with interest in pursuing this and I promise to help put them in touch with someone. As you may know, I cannot share the contents of OTRS emails without permission but they have given me permission. If you happen to be an OTRS agent see: ticket:2016121310018191

If not, let me know and I will copy the email.

I see this as a potential exciting new initiative. While we have many examples of Wikipedians in Residence, I do not see any that are representatives of a provincial government, so this may be breaking exciting new ground.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, see User_talk:Amqui#Nova_Scotia.2C_GLAM_and_WiR--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Source reviews[edit]

Hi Nikki, if you have a chance it would be great if you could have a look at the older three or four SR requests at the top of WT:FAC... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I Noticed You Deleted My Edit Twice Now, However, I Feel it is Unjustified[edit]

My edit on the Trump Tower page seems to have been deleted by you twice according to the history on the site. Now I understand your reasoning for this was sourcing issues, however, reading through it I fail to see how posting the actual cover of the video game in question isn't a "reliable source" as stated in said rule.

"The piece of work itself (the article, book)"

Now if it's additional sources you would like to see included I could understand but even then in said situation I fail to see why it must be deleted, twice. The second bit I can understand partially and I'll look into finding a better citation but I ask you to revert your decision on the first section of my edit. Thank you. Archer Rafferty —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Archer, per this discussion, your edit requires reliable secondary sourcing - the piece of work itself doesn't qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mangal Shobhajatra[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was hoping you could take a quick look at this nomination. I found some close paraphrasing earlier, and the nominator has since done some work, but you're a better judge than I am where the boundaries lie, so better you take a fresh look. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: It's passable in terms of paraphrasing, though IMO borderline in other ways as well - prose, sourcing, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll try to decide what to do next, given your borderline assessment of the remainder. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with access to OUP, Highbeam and JSTOR[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, would you be able to help reset my access details? Thanks! Peripatetic (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peripatetic, those accounts only last a year so have likely expired. You can request access again at WP:OUP and WP:Highbeam, but there aren't currently any JSTOR accounts available. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia![edit]

Lawrence Alma-Tadema 06.jpeg Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, Ealdgyth! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Indonesia[edit]

I want to make a "Featured article review " for Indonesia as this article does not even come close to an FA article anymore.....but when there is an old review page from 2008 at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1. In no way can this article be fixed fast....best we dont hold this out as our best of the best in this state. -- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, I expect you're right that it can't be fixed quickly, but I'd encourage you to go ahead with an FAR anyways - this could potentially motivate someone to take it on. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Holy that process is hard ....no wonder we have so many bad FA articles....noone will take the time to findout how to list them .Need to fix these processes.--Moxy (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I give up cant get it right ...yet another FA junk article that will sit there forever. Cant tell you how many times this comes up at the help desk....never see a nomination go right from the help desk.....this mean hundred of FA articles dont get listed because of the process.--Moxy (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Moxy, you got it mostly right, I've just fixed the talk-page template. Do you have any suggestions about how to make it easier? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for everything--dropped you a quick message.[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Richard Fraser[edit]

Please undo the changes you have made to the page about my Father — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraserg58 (talkcontribs) 13:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fraserg58. As I've mentioned to you before, Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability - that means we need reliable published sources to support facts in articles, not our personal knowledge of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Frankly speaking this is nonsense, I am Dad's only son and the guardian of his legacy. You have no right to delete my family history. As this page does not refer to a living person the criteria are different to the hatchet job you did to my Mother's page (about which she was not at all happy!) Please revert your revisions or escalate this matter to someone who can arbitrate. Gordon Hamilton Mackie Fraser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraserg58 (talkcontribs) 13:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand you are upset. Perhaps if you want to record your family's history, you might start a personal website for that purpose? Because this is an encyclopedia project, we do want it to be based on reliable secondary sources, whether for articles on living people or for other types of articles. Your own website would of course not need to adhere to that standard, and you could control what it says in a way that simply isn't possible here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

Elsevier account activation[edit]

Hi, thanks for approving my request for an Elsevier health and life sciences account. I received the email, filled out the form, and I'm waiting to hear back from Elsevier. The holidays are here, so things may be a little slow, but do you know the average time frame for these things? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Icebob99, it usually takes 2–3 weeks but may be longer because of the holidays, as you note. JustBerry will be coordinating that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good. Thanks!! Icebob99 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Source review of Cliff Clinkscales[edit]

Hello, you recently source reviewed the featured article nomination of Cliff Clinkscales, pointing out a few concerns. I have made the necessary changes, so I would appreciate it if you could check it out again. TempleM (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - I have responded to your latest reply on the nomination page. TempleM (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - FYI, I have responded to your latest reply once again. TempleM (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - I saw your latest reply, but I wasn't sure about something. Please check the nomination page again. TempleM (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - Please check out the nomination again.

Holiday card[edit]

Russell Xmas 1926.jpg
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
Nikkimaria!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Cheers MBW. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a wonderful time of the year![edit]

Merry Christmas tree worm.jpg

Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me,
So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you. Face-grin.svg
Atsme📞📧 15:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Atmse. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JustBerry (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Christmas Lisbon 2005 b.JPG

The 12 Days of Wikipedia
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me
12 BLPs
11 RFAs
10 New Users
9 Barn Stars
8 Admins Blocking
7 Socks Socking
6 Clerks Clerking
5. Check Users Checking
4 Over Sighters Hiding
3 GAs
2. Did You Knows
and an ARB in a pear tree.

-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

Happy Holidays![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

US-O11 insignia.svg 6 Star.svg
Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Cholmondley and Montagu images[edit]

Thank you so much for your assistance with the Cholmondley and Montagu images on the Operation Mincemeat article. Following some silliness in Commons (I was inappropriately blocked by an involved admin, but that has since been lifted), I have now re-nominated the two images for deletion (at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cholmondeley.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:EwenMontagu.jpg), and I shall see what happens this time (I just hope not to be blocked for challenging that particular admin again! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC) P.s. A very happy new year for you too! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Just to let you know that as no-one provided any proof of origin, these two images have now been deleted from Commons. Thanks once again for your help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with copyvio[edit]

Hi, User:BlueMoonset mentioned to me a bit ago that you were knowledgeable in the area of copyright violations. I'm editing the article Hilary Hahn, and I brought up an almost-certain copyvio on its talk page. Could you have a look and give some advice? A rewrite is certainly in order, but I'm not sure how much of the article is originally written and how much I should rewrite. Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Icebob99: I actually think they might have copied from us. The site you're concerned about was created in July 2010, at which point the article looked like this. Now, it's possible that another version of the site existed previously at a different URL, or that both copied from a third source, but I'm not seeing any red flags in the article's history that would suggest that to be likely. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a neat tool to have! Thanks for the insight. Icebob99 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your Hollerith non-RS edits ... just curious[edit]

I'm still trying to learn how Wikipedia works, apologies if my question here is a nuisance.

The article had this text:

Hollerith is buried at [[Oak Hill Cemetery (Washington, D.C.)|Oak Hill Cemetery]] in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=14503488|title=Herman Hollerith (1860 - 1929) - Find A Grave Memorial|publisher=}}</ref> as is his son, Herman Hollerith Jr.

Which your non-RS edit reduced to

Hollerith is buried at [[Oak Hill Cemetery (Washington, D.C.)|Oak Hill Cemetery]] in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

Your non-RS edit, deleting an apparently exact source, leaves only the now unsourced text. I'd expected non-RS text to be deleted, not an apparently reliable source reference. (I've assumed non-RS is shorthand for "not reliable source"). I' appreciate a clue as to the purpose of this edit.

Thanks, 73.71.159.231 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP. You're correct on what the shorthand means. Technically the now-unsourced material could be removed as well, but I opted to leave it be per WP:PRESERVE, as it's not particularly controversial and of course the article is not a biography of a living person. If you feel it should be removed or tagged, by all means go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

Reviewer Barnstar Hires.png The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the ten FAC image reviews and two source reviews you did during December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Michel Vlap - Full Name[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I disagree with your approach to the removal of full names where a person doesn't have any middle names. A full name really isn't something to get start an edit war over so I've come to share my thoughts here. I appreciate that an infobox is a summary (which I assume is the section of MOS/Infobox you were referring to as I could find nothing on redundancy) but, and I refer specifically to the football infobox, if you keep removing the full name section in instances where there are no middle names you have a case where half of football infoboxes have 'full name' and the other half do not. There is no consistency in that. If you have a look you will find that the large majority of football pages are done the way I have done it on Michel Vlap's page. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Liam, most of our biographies don't include a "full" name where it is the same as the person's usual name; I dont see a strong reason to do otherwise for football biographies specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 28 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to ensure images are appropriately licenced within Milhist articles is greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Of archangels and question[edit]

Hello. Thanks for all your awesome help on images. You are, in fact, the archangel of images. Maybe if I get some free time I'll make a snazzy barnstar along those lines... but alas, I have two questions:

  • Does this link, which includes an author's name and says "All Rights Reserved except for Fair Dealing exceptions otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended and revised.", mean that File:Police use tear gas during a communal riot in Calcutta in 1948.jpg is unusable? The creator was a soldier but I see no indication that his work was done in an official capacity.
  • I have to email you about the second question, sorry.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: Not that simple, see discussion here, here, and here. I'd suggest you see if there's any evidence that the image might be PD, and only if there's not assume it's non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You know, WM rakes in shootloads of cash. Don't try to deny it. Then they hire shootloads of techie people to make shootloads of techie five-year plans that always and everywhere amount to precisely zero-point-zero nothing, and genuinely and beyond a doubt were never ever needed anyhow, but were always just plans that had been made in order to spend the money dedicated to making plans. . I say, fire whoever is making those hiring and money-spending decisions, and hire someone who has the commonsense to hire a fulltime copyrights lawyer. End transmission.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
They have copyright lawyers, but there are also a lot of copyright cases (like this one) for them to spend time on. Copyright is not straightforward and people love to argue it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
They don't have the kind of lawyer or consultant who would/could help a grunt like me. What would happen to WP if you were forced to retire, or simply became burned out & wanted to spend time on the beach? yes I know we had others who were designated img people before, and probably others would also try to fill the role after, but this shouldn't be the case. Volunteers should write (like me) or do admin work, or make graphics... but not pore through legal stuff. That's paid-employee work. Sorry if my rant bothers you. I have a tendency to rant.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It's –30C here today, not much chance of a beach run. But I do take your point. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Last word then: For whatever reason, and several uncomplimentary reasons can be entertained, WM spends all their time with their heads in the clouds, and produces... I haven't seen anything worthwhile. They do not spend time thinking about what the little people actually need; only about how they can hire more people and spend more money on things that no one needs or ever will need. Just for the sake of. You know. Spending money. Keeping their jobs... I assume that you probably think my mini-rant is not only impolite but also came out of nowhere. From my perspective: I have about 200 sources for User:Lingzhi/sandbox. I have over 3,000 edits on that page, and if you add edits to User:Lingzhi/misc and to the actual mainspace article, I wouldn't be surprised if the total goes up to 4,000. I've been working on it off and on for a year almost. I wrote a little Python (programming language) script that searches through text versions of most of those 200 sources and generates text files filled with quotes in {{quote}} format. God knows how many hours I have spent reading and re-reading and re-re-reading those 200 sources. God knows how many hours I have spent writing and copy editing. I have a wife and child, and a job that requires research. I'm a little tired. And now I have to become a copyrights expert? I recall that you gave me a link to various lists of copyright renewal requests. I searched for some photo creators, and did not find them. I spent a couple hours doing so. But, did I do it correctly? How do I know I did? What if I missed something? And even if I did it correctly, does that verify that copyright status is acceptable? Just look at he links you posted today (above). How... do I track down all the relvant issues? More importantly, why should I? WM should 1) fire a handful of techie people at random (and I used to be a computer programmer, so I am not ant-geek), and 2) hire a staff of at least 3 people to do this. I hope you can appreciate my position. Sorry. I'm tired. I have to finish this famine article, then I have a thing about AppliedLinguistics, then what. I don't enjoy this anymore. Meaningless head-in-the-clouds projects get massive support, but real gruntwork does not.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A-Class Review - Siege of Arrah[edit]

Greetings - if you have time over the next few days, is it possible you could re-visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Arrah? I have answered your concerns (and removed a template that automatically transcluded an image) and I'd appreciate your feedback. If you spot anything that would be an immediate fail at FAC (which is where I'll be heading next with this article) then please let me know. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Joseph Nawahi.jpg[edit]

Hello, I was wondering can this image File:Joseph Nawahi.jpg be used in a FA article. It is essentially an unpublished image with no known photographer. I also have some private family photos with the same problem (they are unpublished and they don't have known authors) of other individual figures that I like to use in future FA articles. Will they be allowed? If so, what tags should be appropriate used? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: PD-US-unpublished, assuming the criteria listed there are met. Again, though, you'd want to do due diligence that a photo held by an archive was never published. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2016[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 11:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Attacked by user[edit]

I'm Having a issue with a user on here

I came to add a reference article but apparently the page was already updated after I read thru it

I then went to update the links because sometimes other editors forget to do it...

This is a newer page but I was told by other editors that its perfectly fine to provide links to other reference pages for words or terms especially if the reader does not understand what they are reading so they can click on the link for further explanation...

I am now being attacked by a user on the page after I did my links and I only ever do them if it relates to the sentence... Except that this user is calling it overthinking and undoing the few words I linked Wifey93 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wifey93, wikilinking is a bit of a balancing act - we don't want to link every possible word, but we do want to include valuable links. Have you seen the linking guideline? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and yes

I told him basically that this must be his page as I noticed that he seems to have undone previous edits so it's not just mine

I told him that he doesn't have to reply back to me because I said to him obv my edits aren't appreciated and it's like he has to have the last word

Then he's on me for not signing with ---- and I told him that I'm doing this on a phone so the website is acting differently so the ---- couldn't be posted and that I'm aware of it all since I been on here for years

He's then trying to give me instructions on it and I'm like I already told you that I'm not replying cause obv this is your page and I saw how he's attacked others...

I told him I don't need his help but he's right in my face

If I knew how to block him I would as I have never had someone jump on me...I only found his page cause I was reading a newspaper article and then found the Wikipedia page thru that and I thought I would be a good person and add a reference article... I think this is what set him off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talkcontribs) 05:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Person[edit]

[1] - in which article please? Did you try adding "| suppressfields=religion" to the call? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: In every article using the template where a value exists on Wikidata. There are over 400 articles using that template, and your change would significantly expand the number of parameters appearing in them. This includes cases where we explicitly don't want to do that, such as religion, ethnicity, and more. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If religion etc. shouldn't be in the infobox, then why is it a parameter? I hadn't spotted that you'd removed the wikidata call for that parameter since my last edit to the infobox. If it's removed from this new version of the code, will you refrain from reverting me again? Note that I'm trying to enable opt-outs from the Wikidata call, merging in RexxS's version from Template:Infobox person/WD. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You'll want to look over this archive for why religion shouldn't be in most infoboxes. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: If you look at the main {{Infobox person}} you'll see |religion= isn't included there any longer. And no, I will not. If you'd like to enable opt-outs for the current parameters there, great, go ahead. But there are other parameters that shouldn't be included at all (eg. ethnicity) and others that should only be included in certain cases (eg. children's names). In addition, your change would add a significant amount of data to over 400 articles, including 172 BLPs - that shouldn't be done without verifying that there is appropriate sourcing present. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
How about with these changes made? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: I appreciate that you're trying to address the issues, but that just doesn't go far enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. The new version, just posted, does not enable any new parameters for the existing articles unless they set "fetchwikidata=ALL" in the infobox call. They can opt out of individual parameters as they want too, either by name or by the availability of references for those pieces of information. Note that these are all articles that have been opted in to using Wikidata - if there are any that specifically have problems with certain parameters, please point them out and we can adapt the template to handle them, rather than doing a blanket revert. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just another reason why certain infobxes are so problematic. CassiantoTalk 19:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

Books and Bytes - Issue 20[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 January[edit]

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

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) 00:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

alas, I am back again[edit]

Just saw on my watchlist an industrious editor is importuning me to reduce the size of two images I uploaded as "historic fair use" and "fair use" (newspaper front page). I have a long history of ranting, which may be unfortunate, but nowadays my only feeling is one of exhaustion at searching for support yet finding only thin winds, frail rails and empty pockets. To wit: I went to Wikimedia to ask for someone to put up some money for image researchers. Alas, I missed the wishlist by only a few weeks. I was told "Go to page so-and-so", but page so-and-so is just a question and answer page. I already knew there are question and answer pages. Question and answer pages are places where two thing happen: 1) People can ask, "Where is such-and-such information?" or 2) People can ask, "I have this information, does it fit our needs?" As such, although I appreciate those who offer their insights, these forums are not at all what I think Wikipedia (Wikimedia) needs. Wiki(ped)(med)ia needs actual researchers who are actually paid to do actual research to actually determine whether or not historic images are actually in the public domain.

So, knowing full well that whoever you mention in reply may not thank you for doing so, I ask,"Who is the one person whom I can ask for Wikimedia to spend money on image researchers (just fresh-faced, eager-beaver young recent grads I assume), plus one temporary-hire domain expert to train them?"

As always, I remain in your debt.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure who that one person would be - I'm aware of grant programs like this one meant to support the community doing stuff like this, but other than the wishlist, not WMF. Astinson, any ideas? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me Nikki.
Unfortunately, the WMF would not be in a position to support that kind of work, directly: you are proposing direct monies used for content development on the projects, and copyright clearance both of which I believe (and I am not the legal expert here) would violate longstanding policies at the foundation (the second would undermine our "user-generate copyright patrolling" protections in US law). I think the best tactic, would be to find another community that has these kinds of researchers, but can donate or be grant-funded to spend time supporting a workflow that is appropriate for our community (think something along the lines of the Translators without Borders project by WikiProject Medicine: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force). The other option, would be improving the tools that patrollers have to compare the images with existing images via Google or whatever other search tools are available (think machine learning). Both of these kinds of tactics, could be the kind of projects our grants program would be interested in. The next Inspire campaign focuses on "How do we engage external knowledge communities?" Folks that work on copyright clearance, would be a good community for that: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire . There you could develop your ideas, and see if you have something that will work within the broader strategies used by our communities already, and see if you can find support from across Wikimedia Projects. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Bad ping @Lingzhi: Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): Thank you for your somewhat discouraging reply. "New tools" and "new training" would both be second-best then. As for tools forex, there is a website which records renewed copyrights. Searching it is troublesome. A way to make it easier and more effective would be good. But what we really need is expertise.............. but anyhow. Thanks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Lingzhi: I am not sure what you mean by "new training": the Translation task force that partners with Translators without borders created an off-wiki workflow, for bringing content on-wiki in dozens of languages. I would suggest that you can use the Inspire Campaign to test and refine your ideas to make them better recieved by other parts of the community and/or find some more contributors who can help you realize a solution to the problem you are identifying. During the Harrassment campaign, several editors were able to move some ideas about how to change community policy from underformed idea, into practical engagement on enwiki and in other communities. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This was the example I was thinking about: from the Harrasment Campaign, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Astinson (WMF): Thanks again for taking the time to reply & offer options. I will look into these options when I return from vacation. Cheers.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edits removing Template:Infobox person/Wikidata[edit]

I see that you've been systematically removing Template:Infobox person/Wikidata from articles that have opted in to use it, including engaging in edit wars when your edits were undone. All of your edits were made covertly, without notifying the editor that added the infobox, or raising any concerns on the infobox talk page. If you were a new editor, then I'd be posting {{Uw-disruptive3}} to your talk page. As it is, please stop doing this, and instead please post your concerns and your edits to the infobox talk page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: That is absolutely false. You have been systematically converting all of those templates to opt-in without due care and attention to the output (not to mention notifying anyone or discussing on the infobox talk page), and as a result have caused problems across multiple articles. I have been cleaning up after you, and in select cases have converted to a different template type or, where the template was blank, removing it. If you think discussion is needed, let's revert your changes to the template and bring those for wider discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No. All of the articles had opted in to using Wikidata already. The changes I was making to the template were to add opt-in functionality, and all of the edits I made to these articles (all ~500 of them) were to ensure that they *continued* to have the same information from Wikidata that they already had. I spent a full day making sure that they did so appropriately - what this this about a lack of due care and attention, or cleaning up after me? Where did you report any problems that needed fixing? Mike Peel (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Insofar as "opting in" matters - and adding the template gives no special privilege and requires no notification of the adding editor before changing or removing - all of the articles "opted in" to the limited set of parameters provided by the previous version of the template, not to the additional parameters and functions your changes added. I fixed the problems that I saw, which is what I meant by "cleaning up" - that included removing displayed nonsense, unsourced content, and empty displayed templates. If you feel there are specific edits that were not appropriate, I'm happy to discuss those, but at this point I'm of the mind that your changes to the template were inappropriate and ought to be discussed more broadly before being reimplemented, for these reasons and those explained above. Pinging David Eppstein, who has elsewhere expressed concern at this template being used to import unsourced or poorly sourced information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I might add that one of the infoboxes I saw and removed today was still bad despite the new code to check that all imported data is marked with a source on Wikidata. It was a birthday, adding a day of the month and month to the information already in the article, but with a Wikidata-source that gave only the birth year. And of course the source was also not imported to Wikipedia from Wikidata. The new code does not prevent the need for human checking of the data quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I am also (independently) removing this infobox/wikidata from articles, as it had unwanted results (e.g. duplicating an image which was already in an article) and added unnecessary clutter, and since I usually could present more info in the local infobox. My edits were also "covertly", just as "covertly" as the one originally adding it, or the one converting it to the new version which showed more unsourced Wikidata entries. The disruptive editor here is not Nikkimaria. Fram (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics[edit]

Nikki, I know this is a big ask, but I'm looking for someone to perform image/source reviews for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics/archive3. If you have the time, I would be most grateful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Age calculator[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I saw you reverted the "age" calculator I added. With the Helen Mackay article, this is the behaviour I would expect. If no death date is specified then the correct thing to is assume the person is still alive. There isn't really any way around this. If you add the death date to Wikidata (as I've now done) the age is corrected. Also, if the death date is unsourced, the age is just not shown at all. Laurdecl talk 05:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. Anyone looking at that article would see that a birth and death date are both clearly identified, but then the template claims that she is alive and setting age records - that's not a reasonable outcome. Also, how does your "calculator" handle year-level dates? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It works fine. If there is a death date on Wikidata, the infobox won't show the incorrect age. Even if the death date in unsourced (there is simply no date shown). Can you revert yourself and take a look at the article again? I think this is a corner case, I looked at ~20 other articles that worked fine... Laurdecl talk 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't work fine if that's the result. How does the calculator handle imprecise dates? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant that imprecise dates work fine. If one article doesn't have a death date in the infobox, you should add the death date in, rather than removing functionality that is essential and works fine 90% of the time. I've fixed the article above and if you see any more that do that you can tell me and I'll fix them (or just add the date on Wikidata). This is an easily corrected mistake by the article author – they forgot to add the death date. Laurdecl talk 06:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by "work fine" in that context, then? What would be the output? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, what context? The calculator works if a valid date is entered. Laurdecl talk 06:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
If the calculator were to be provided with an input of |birth_date=2000 and |death_date=2001, what will be the output? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Age 1. You can try it out. Laurdecl talk 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It just subtracts the dates so 2001-2000=1. Laurdecl talk 06:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
So then it fails. A person who was born in 2000 and died in 2001 may have been age 1, but they also may have been only a few days old - if, say, they were born in late December 2000 and died early January 2001. A singular output is not reasonable in that case. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You know that's what the normal template does ({age}). Laurdecl talk 06:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Which is why we don't use that template in that context. See the documentation for Template:Infobox person for recommendations. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
How about you let me keep a useful addition to this template, and I'll overlook your mass removal of it from pages that have opted-in–which you have been warned about before? Laurdecl talk 06:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
How about you work on actually making the addition useful - in the sandbox rather than the live template - and stop trying to blackmail people into letting you retain a faulty change? If you've seen the "warning", you should have also seen the associated discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not blackmailing you, I'm saying that you should stop randomly removing this template from pages that are using it. Do you have a constructive suggestion for the template? Do you want me to code it to not work on dates that are bare years? Laurdecl talk 06:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've coded a version that doesn't place an "(age x)" after the birth/death date if the input is a bare year. Any objections to me adding this? Laurdecl talk 07:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a sandbox version to look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I see it's live, and still not working correctly. For example, if imprecise dates are entered locally, it still returns a precise age. See for example Antonie Strassmann. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And also Mark Ashton, which now displays duplicate ages. There needs to be a way to at least suppress the display where warranted. Reverting pending that development. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I'll make it disable itself if there's a local age entered, since it only works with Wikidata values. No hard feelings about the blackmail hey? ;) Laurdecl talk 20:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh my, another "Wikidata knows better" proponent who makes a lot of articles worse and doesn't accept criticism or removal of the infobox (I accused User:Mike Peel incorrectly of these changes, my apologies to him). Laurdecl, please don't introduce untested or buggy software / infoboxes into the mainspace, and under no circumstances assume that Wikidata knows better than enwiki articles, as that isn't true in most cases. And certainly don't blackmail editors here, it will only backfire. Fram (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram, please don't lump me in with the evil "Wikidata proponents" who are systematically ruining this encyclopaedia (no doubt apart of the New World Order). I saw your AfD, in which you criticised the lack of "(age)" in the template. I attempted to fix this and while it worked in most cases, it was buggy in others. I understand your distaste for this infobox's lack of features, and I merely tried to correct it. Please don't make ad hominem attacks about me not accepting criticism and blackmailing people which aren't true. I'm just trying to improve the template and it was in the spirit of BRD. Please try and assume good faith. Laurdecl talk 05:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
"How about you let me keep a useful addition to this template, and I'll overlook your mass removal of it from pages that have opted-in–which you have been warned about before?" That's you not accepting criticism, and you trying to blackmail people. No AGF or ABF needed. Fram (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Fram, I've fixed the age code and added it (example: Georges Duhamel). It wasn't blackmail, I was telling Nikkimaria that they shouldn't be mass removing this template from pages that have opted in. I'm not some Wikidata crusader sent by the UN (or whatever it is today) to ruin Wikipedia. My "age" addition has improved over 300 articles now. Thanks Nikkimaria for the tips and examples of pages that I broke. I'll admit that I did overreact when I saw their edit history, a long list of removing this template. Laurdecl talk 08:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The age code may be corrected, the result is still unwanted
Nikkimaria is perfectly in his rights to remove an infobox from pages (these pages have not "opted in", an editor has added them and another editor removes them, that's all. Check an article like Chris Perrins, where Nikkimaria was changing the generic and buggy person/wikidata version to the specific infobox scientist, and still got reverted multiple times by the usual suspects. Nikkimaria isn't the one that should stop... How your "age" addition improved "over 300 pages" is not clear, many instances of the infobox have no age as they have no dates. Fram (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Look Fram, I don't want to get involved in edits wars or conflict about adding infoboxes (especially seeing as there's an AN/I thread). I'm just trying to make the template better–which, ironically, I did because of your AfD comment about there not being an "age" parameter. I feel like I'm being attacked as some sort of Antichrist/Wikidata crusader. Take a look at Margaret Blackwood, I've fixed the infobox. It took me all of ten seconds to add a source to the death date on Wikidata. P.S. {{gender|Nikkimaria}} returns "she". Laurdecl talk 09:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, once someone else checks your changes and finds the many errors in your edits, it's always easy to fix them. Even so, that article didn't need an infobox repeating the very first line of the article... Anyway, I have since seen your true colours and raised your actions at ANI. Bye. Fram (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 January[edit]

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

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) 00:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Reviewer's Barnstar Hires.png The Reviewer's Barnstar
For your source and image reviews for the Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics. This is the first Paralympic article to ever make it to Featured status. Couldn't have done it without your help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrey Laukhin for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. XXN, 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Image reviews[edit]

Both my A-class review nominations – INS Vikrant (R11) and List of frigates of India – are about to gain three supports, but image review is still pending. Perhaps, you could take a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

How can it be avoided?[edit]

Thanks for your edit. How can I get to know which part of the link to google books should be removed? --Mhhossein talk 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Think about the URL as having "parameters", highlighted in green: books.google.com/books?id=ntarP5hrza0C&pg=PA95&dq=Oudh+Bequest&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyu9v2w7XQAhUIfywKHZ8WArk4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=Oudh%20Bequest&f=false
The most important is "id", which identifies the specific title we want to look at. Most will have "pg" for page number. If there are no page numbers, we use "dq" or direct quote as a backup - it's basically the search term. Everything after the values of those can be deleted. So in most cases:
books.google.com/books?id=ntarP5hrza0C&pg=PA95&dq=Oudh+Bequest&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyu9v2w7XQAhUIfywKHZ8WArk4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=Oudh%20Bequest&f=false
or if there aren't page numbers:
books.google.com/books?id=ntarP5hrza0C&dq=Oudh+Bequest&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyu9v2w7XQAhUIfywKHZ8WArk4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=Oudh%20Bequest&f=false
Does that make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Nikkimaria. It was great. Thanks for putting time on this. --Mhhossein talk 12:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it right? --Mhhossein talk 18:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Looks good to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Advice[edit]

I might need help with Fair use rationale on Gothic boxwood miniatures. The thing is I could photograph some examples, but they are so small and intricate that an amateur pic would not capture this detail and be of relative low value. Is that rational? Tks as ever. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking yes, but the more examples you have the harder it's going to be to justify them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Is it ok to plain talk like that in rational, or do I need to speak in prescribed legalese, if you know what I mean ;) Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As long as your rationale covers all of the criteria you should be good. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok. This my attempt [2]. Thank you again. FU tends to put the fear of god in me. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay. In this case it's not the sculptural work that's copyrighted, it's the photograph - so we need the copyright details for the photo, not just details about the work. The depiction (photo) is not from 1500 ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I dont suppose I could convince that they were using a camera obscura in 1500? Yeah, thats problamatic. I need to rethink. Tarnations. Ceoil (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. See [3]. Happy days. Ceoil (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Great! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Jstor[edit]

Thanks for approving me. I filled out the form, but i couldn't find any info in the email or on Wikipedia:JSTOR as to what i need to do next. I tried going to jstor.org, but was unable to sign in. --Espoo (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Espoo: JSTOR needs to set up your account, it could take a week or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Please add that info to the email in future. --Espoo (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
No hurry on my 'account', NM, but I did get messages that I too would now have access, and that an email had been sent, of which no sign. I too am quite busy, so I don't expect any speedy conclusion to this request. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
My bad. The Jstor thing had arrived, only it was in a social message folder of my email, which I never open, or hadn't until now. Thanks and best regards Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

Reviewer Barnstar Hires.png The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the thirteen FAC image reviews and three source reviews you did during January. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2017[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Hi.

I saw you remove the external links from the Malazan-related articles, citing WP:ELNO. I reinstated the links, because of this, since WP:ELNO states Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Verifying this by visiting the site and going through the userlist/contributors and the content is simple enough.

Furthermore, since the Malazan Book of the Fallen article already linked to this, and since all the content from that site is now moved to Malazan Wiki, I see this as a case of updating a deadlink.

Hope this clarifies my actions.

Regards,

 LoMS talk 19:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi LOMS, that exemption is intended for wikis like Wookieepedia with thousands of editors - this one is comparatively small. You're welcome to raise the issue for discussion at WP:ELN if you like, but per WP:ELBURDEN disputed links should be kept out pending such a discussion. Note also that BLPs have more stringent standards for ELs, and even wikis that meet ELNO should not be included in such articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
For being civil, and for making a case by pointing toward relevant guidelines.  LoMS talk 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edit in List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles[edit]

Hi, Nikkamaria. You removed my reference in the above named article for the substance "Verterium cortenide" with the comment "rm non-RS". Unfortunately I was unable to retrieve the meaning of this abbreviation, so I don't understand the purpose of your edit. Could you please explain the purpose so I can improve in my edits on Wikipedia? Thanks! -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 20:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Immernoch, RS refers to the reliable sources page - the source that you added was not one we consider to be reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, I guess I missed that page in my prep. -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 21:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
(BTW, I would prefer being referred to as EkelAlfred, "Immernoch" simply means "still" in German :P)

Hi :)[edit]

Hi Nikki :) Per this message of yours, I didn't receive any email. I've checked the spam, promo, social folders too. Thanks. Lourdes 04:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Re-sent, please check. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Registered. Thanks. Lourdes 04:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Layover (novel)[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just noticed this DYK nomination and review, where there's a disagreement over the proportion of quoting being done. Since a second opinion has been requested by the article's author/nominator, I was wondering if you might be willing to supply one. Many thanks either way. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nara Help[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I wonder if you can help me. I requested some documents from NARA as you suggested way about 2-3 months ago. I went to WP:NARA, and spoke to the Wikipedia in Residence at Nara, User:Dominic. I requested about 25 documents from NARA, and Dominic confirmed he would get them, via WP email. But so far I've not heard anything back. It was all TICOM documents that I was looking for to help build the following articles: General der Nachrichtenaufklärung and Signal Intelligence Regiment (KONA). I have emailed him several times, via WP and his gmail account, but not heard anything back. I would be great if I could get a confirmation that the request is being worked on. I know it was a large number of docs, so it would take time. scope_creep (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi scope_creep, unfortunately I can't speak to what's going on at NARA - I do see that Dominic has been less active lately, but I don't have any suggestions to getting the docs. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Chapters and Audio Dramas from Shiritsu Horitsuba Gakuen[edit]

Hi there! I'm working on the Shiritsu Horitsuba Gakuen article and I notice you removed most of the article. In your notes you put condensed. I don't agree that removing the content of those chapters and audio dramas to be "condensing" and I was hoping to ask why this was done before I revert it. The page is being corrected as I spot errors and try to stream line it (it's my first article). Any tips would be appreciated. Sincerely ButterflyNebula (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi ButterflyNebula, take a read through WP:PLOT/MOS:PLOT - that content went into way too much detail, used unreliable sources and was not written in an encyclopedic fashion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Amaryllis Garnett[edit]

Please see WP:NEWSORG: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

In this case, the writer is writing from personal knowledge and can be treated as a reliable source. Moonraker (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

NB - the article is in a DYK queue, removal of one of the main sources has caused a hold-up. Moonraker (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That particular news outlet is not considered to be reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I now understand your point better. This strikes me as an amazingly foolish determination, as it takes no account of who the writer is and also seems to leave much less reliable newspapers unblitzed (unless there is a fuller list of banned newspapers somewhere else). However, it's helpful to have your objection to the source clarified. Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail[edit]

Please do not remove the Daily Mail as a reference from articles, such as your recent edit to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. I am well aware if the result of the recent discussion at RSN, but that does not mean that the Daily Mail needs to be instantly purged as a source. By all means tag any references for the Daily Mail with {{Better source}}, and feel free to replace with other sources that are reliable, but don't leave text incorrectly attributed or unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the Times source in full so can't tell what is and is not supported by it, but it looks like C of E has decided to show the sentence with only the Times source, so if that's incorrect you'll need to take it up with him. As to your general point, {{citation needed}} provides a better flag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer to have both in there because they do compliment each other. But I do think that @Mjroots: does have a point, we should not be just willy nilly tearing out DM sources in an act of WikiPuritanism just because of an discussion RSN which has not yet been fully resolved or clarified. Otherwise GAs like Plastic Brit would be, for all intents and purposes, vandalised beyond recognition. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Issue raised at WT:RSN, @The C of E: - please join in there. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Daily Mail often does good reporting. Not always. A general purge and censorship is neither right nor helpful. 7&6=thirteen () 13:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Not always? Not often. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Mjroots. Your campaign is misguided and very unhelpful. As with all newspapers, the quality of the information depends far more on the contributor than the publisher, but in general terms the Daily Mail is more reliable than most of the world's newspapers. This article from today's Mail makes some valid points about the way the paper has been singled out for undermining while leaving the official organs of totalitarian regimes unaffected. Moonraker (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the link to the article - please do not re-post that here. As I've mentioned to you before, if you believe there are other sources that ought not to be cited, you should raise those at WP:RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't surprise me, especially when it comes to your not wanting the reply of the Daily Mail on this matter to be seen. My point isn't that I want us to start banning a lot of other newspapers, it's that the reliability of media sources is variable, per WP:NEWSORG, which strikes me as a good policy. You also haven't really replied to Mjroots or 7&6=thirteen. Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Moonraker: If you don't understand why posting that link is inappropriate, we really have nothing to discuss. Suggest you start by reading the AN thread on the topic before you get yourself into trouble. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: You have not replied to any of the points I made. It seems likely that Wikipedia will need to consider this matter again, more rationally, and with the involvement of more editors, so perhaps you would be kind enough to notify me when that happens. Moonraker (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
You have the option of starting a new discussion yourself, if you think a different outcome is likely. Unless/until you or others do so, community consensus as it currently stands is first, that DM is not "more reliable than most of the world's newspapers" but rather generally unreliable, second, that other potentially unreliable sources can and should be brought up for discussion, third that the link you posted shouldn't be posted. That's your points covered. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Newspaperarchive-not yet renewed[edit]

Can anything be done about getting renewals completed? I reapplied 9 January but have heard nothing further other than this. Can you try getting in touch with Newspaperarchive? Thanks! We hope (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Will see what I can find out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffers High School[edit]

This is the strangest thing I've ever seen. Why exactly do you think the state should not be linked? It is linked in virtually every US school article. Removing the link to the state is highly US-CENTRIC and simply should not be done. The documentation for infobox school support this. School article guidelines support it. Why is it a problem to link Michigan in an article on a dinky little school in very rural MICHIGAN? John from Idegon (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: What makes you say the documentation supports it? I don't see any mention of linking or not linking for that parameter, and the example shows it unlinked. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines says include state in the lead but doesn't say link or don't. Also, see WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:SPECIFICLINK. There's nothing "US-centric" about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Horse crap. Concensus is sometimes shown by practice as you should know. Again, virtually every US school article is done that way. And assuming a US state is a common enough term to not need linking is certainly US-CENTRIC. Do you know all the states in India? Or the political divisions in China? Probably not. So a Wikilink would be helpful for you on a school in those countries. To assume that because it's a US state, people won't need more info is blatantly US-CENTRIC. Just stop. It's a silly battle you are waging. John from Idegon (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a silly argument you're making. Any reader who is interested in "a dinky little school in very rural Michigan" and does not happen to know what Michigan is - which seems unlikely - can see that it's in the US without a link, just as anyone looking at an Indian school article can understand what "India" means whether the state is linked or not. I'm not American, Indian, or Chinese, and I wouldn't find a misleading link helpful on school articles from any of those countries - first because the more specific link to the city/town/village is more helpful, and second because when you format links in that way it's very difficult to see whether there is one link or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A source question[edit]

I was just wondering about your opinion of this as a reliable source at FAC. I'm working with someone on an obscure cricket article, but it is heavily reliant on this source in places. I'm on the fence about it. How would you feel if this source was used? Cheers, Sarastro1 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I'd ask for more info on the author - the publisher seems reasonable but some historical societies are more discriminating than others in what they publish. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to find more on the author. The stuff I've found is that her book was launched by the Malvern Historical Society,[4] is listed at the city of Stonnington's government website under the public history assets category,[5] and has been reviewed by the Melbourne Cricket Club.[6] Thanks. Lourdes 03:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Then I'd say use it, but carefully. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged, thanks! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

Reviewer Barnstar Hires.png The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the twenty FAC image and source reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2017[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 07:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you very much for all your help with the images on the Operation Mincemeat article, and I am sorry to have been so high maintenance with them. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Just FYI, that "historic images" tag is primarily intended for instances where the image itself is historic, a la Tank Man. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, good to know. I'll keep it for those instances the newspapers describe as "iconic". All the best, The Bounder (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(While I am here, could I be cheeky and ask you to cast your eye over the images on Operation Bernhard, which I have going through a very, very slow MilHist review? Thanks again, The Bounder (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC))

Taylor & Francis[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, you sent me a link to Taylor & Francis around mid-November. I didn't get to it immediately, and then, because of stuff that happened, months went by. When I finally clicked the link it took me to a log in screen (expecting a password, but I never got one). I've tried many many times to either set the password or to log in, and after about 20 tries that should result in an email being sent to me, I've given up. I thought I should let you know (and even that's taken overly long) so you can strike me off the list. If and when I'm able to gear up fully again, I might try reapplying, but in the meantime Jstor is the account that benefits me the most in terms of having to tend to existing FAs and having to respond to queries. Thanks, Victoriaearle (tk) 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Image at Kona Lanes[edit]

Hi Nikki. This FAC is pretty much ready for promotion, but Cas spotted a problem with one of the images but hasn't popped back yet. The nominator has replaced it with a FU image; I'm useless with images, but I'm not entirely convinced that this would be justified under FU. If you get a chance, could you pop in? Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Meantime, if you wish, send me an email and I'll forward the image owner's most recent response for your review. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of King Sejong (Gwanghwamun)[edit]

Nikkimaria, since I recall you don't always receive pings, I posted a request at this nomination, which you removed from prep yesterday, for the number of characters needed for the Sejong article to meet the minimum required for DYK. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, the article has been expanded by more than the required number of characters you mentioned. If it meets the criteria now, can you please finish the review? Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Shruti Haasan filmography[edit]

This FLC of mine currently has three supports and no outstanding/unaddressed comments. If interested, can you please perform an Image and source review? Pavanjandhyala 14:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(Another) image review favour[edit]

This FAC has had an image review, but I'm not entirely convinced. I've raised a couple of points on the page, but I'd be grateful if you could take a look. I could be way off. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Line graphs, academic maps, upper limit on Fair Use[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. Please forgive the intrusion. If I may, I have a few general questions:

  1. Does a screen capture of a line graph from an academic paper (I think it may even be a dissertation, IIRC) fall under the same rules as a photograph? I ask because you see things like that reproduced in other scholars' papers all the time (properly credited, of course).
  2. Same question, map showing regional mortality rates, definitely a scholarly paper but not a dissertation.
  3. Is there some sort of upper limit on the number of fair Use images that can go in one article? If so, is it "hard and fast" or "rule of thumb"?
Hi @Lingzhi: on the first two points the general rule is that facts are not copyrightable but their representations are. If a graph shows absolutely no creativity in how it is represented - if anyone given the same data would necessarily present it in the same way - it does need to be cited but there is no copyvio issue in duplicating it. Maps are a bit more "creative" (in this sense) because different projections can be used, etc, and so there are different ways in which the data can be represented.
On the third point: not a number. The rule is, no more than is absolutely necessary for the reader to understand - and the more you have, the more difficult it becomes to justify each one.
BTW, looks like there are a couple folks awaiting your attention... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Tks! As for Miramar, I resolved Peacemaker's case a very long time ago and forgot to mark it resolved. I similarly resolved the other case just yesterday. BTW, FYI, Miramar told me that all current Miramar accounts were extended until 31 March 2018.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Current discussion of Quality assessment at Village Pump[edit]

There is a discussion at Village Pump (policy) that assessment of WP:Quality assessment for A-Class, B-Class, C-Class and Start-Stub articles is long antiquated and of limited valued for future purposes of Wikipedia. As you are involved in the day-to-day listing and delisting of articles from these classes to peer review status possible you could take a glance at the discussion of comments here [7]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Image sizes[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, hope all is well. Are images in infoboxes usually left in their original size? [8] What do we do in situations where the photo may be "too big" for the infobox? Thanks, ComputerJA () 01:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi ComputerJA. If no sizing is set, the image should appear at the default size you have set in your preferences. If you'd like to set a different size, note |image_upright= in the template code (or |upright= in regular image syntax). This allows you to change the size of the image relative to the user's preferences, and so is preferred - see WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)