User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 21

On 23 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Das neugeborne Kindelein, BWV 122, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Das neugeborne Kindelein, BWV 122, has been described as providing a "moral hangover" for listeners after Christmas overindulgence? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Das neugeborne Kindelein, BWV 122. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

Freue dich, erlöste Schar translates to "Rejoice, redeemed throng". After rehearsing the Mass in B minor for more than two hours, I am in a good mood. Your reverts had to be expected, but please translate your abbreviations: "prv: no deadline, no need for templates, article created", "wrong. rm, ref, tr". I respected your choice of a picture which is from the wrong time (200 years too early) and which just shows the occasion of the cantata, not its content. By the way, the likely author is Picander, - that is his name as an artist, as shown on his gravestone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

prv = partial revert; rm = remove; ref = reference; tr = trim. Reminder. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, helpful. - What do you mean by "no deadline", by "article created" and "wrong", please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) No need to worry about not having time, you can wait until you have time to follow the established style (unless we've consensus to change it); 2) de link not needed because I created the en article; 3) this edit summary of yours is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, I would never have guessed. So you mean that "template no harm" is incorrect? I don't see how the template could cause harm, please explain. Thanks for filling the red link! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It presents a barrier to editing, oversimplifies details for the reader, and disrupts article formatting. The "similar articles should look similar" argument is not one that holds much weight either, as you might guess from the existence of things like WP:CITEVAR. Thanks for your other formatting improvements on that article, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must comment that infoboxes don't create a "barrier to editing," and by their nature, they present a streamlined, deliberately simplified group of details for the reader seeking a quick overview. By your reasoning, NO article anywhere on wiki needs an infobox. I hope that isn't your view. I also find that consistency between articles to be a valuable thing and similarity in that context is a good thing. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my view, no. There is a fine line between "deliberately simplified" and "oversimplified"; it is my opinion that many, but not all, of the composition infoboxes fall on the wrong side. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fari enough, the debate over nuances must needs proceed apace, then... Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We will probably disagree on infoboxes, but can we agree that an editor should be able to add them to his own articles, even if his name is Andy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, why are you advocating that when you cannot agree that someone should be able to not add them to articles she creates? And why would you ask me to agree to things when you don't respect your own agreements? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking "she". I am talking Andy and said so. - The arbs are very picky about "create", it means new, not an old one and/or expanded. - Our agreement: once I missed seeing that you expanded a Bach cantata more than I did. Sorry about that. - I asked if (!) you can agree that someone creating a new article is in no conflict with any other editor and should be able to create an infobox. If you can't, fine. We both know that it could be reverted anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you asked. As things stand, though, your versions of the conflict in various arenas (even here) have not been entirely fair, your positions not consistent, and so you've no standing to ask this question of anyone (not me, not the arbs). To be clear: my position is that it is fair for someone to add an infobox to a new article that they create, and for it not to be removed, if and only if it is also fair for someone to choose not to add an infobox to a new article that they create, and for one not to be added. There are positives and negatives that can be discussed in each case, but so far positive conversations of that nature are few and far between. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, the case is now closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in Die Wahl des Herkules, Hercules must choose between the good cop and the bad cop? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Company of Heaven, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that The Company of Heaven, Benjamin Britten's 1937 composition for speakers, soloists, choir and orchestra, contains "metrical spoken (shouted) male chorus"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Company of Heaven. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It was long enough; and now it is. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look, endorsed the earlier removal, and think the article needs a copyedit and further expansion before it qualifies for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain What is "tr" supposed to mean? Please respond on my talk or post {{tb}} there and respond here. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, there's been a post from Rosiestep saying that the article has been copyedited (something you thought was needed); what I don't know is whether the copyedit addressed the other issues you raised. Could you please stop by to give a status report? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've addressed all your concerns (or at least explained stuff) at the Oxbow FAC. Can you pop by? ;-) Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 17:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks done. Some of the more substantive questions I have replied to, welcome your thoughts. (And let's not even talk about the infobox! EEK!) Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think all done. Froggerlaura provided some history on the infobox issue, which, given the big picture and the parties involved, I'd really prefer not get dragged into this FAC if at all possible. Montanabw^(talk) 01:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how would you prefer to deal with addressed stuff? Strikes, collapses, move to talk...? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you are happy with, just strike your comments with a note saying "fixed" or "OK" or whatever, that's what I usually see at an FAC when the reviewer considers something fixed. You already voted support but you can note again if everything is done or not. If you have more inline comments, we can see them in the history. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) what we did for Wagner was moving the resolved questions on the review's talk (it was a lot), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, just another ping that we need you to sign off if all is well from your end on Oxbow (horse). (We now have a second reviewer there! yay!) I'm fine with just striking your concerns and adding a word like "FIXED" or "OK" or "DONE" or whatever at the end, noting that all your concerns are addressed... No need to move to talk, these articles that don't get the traffic of a core article are fine with the resolved issues just being tucked into the record of the FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 16:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is your review on this all wrapped up? Froggerlaura fixed the infobox and I think we addressed all the "nitpicks/" You did a "support with nitpicks," not sure if that's a final or if you need to go back and do a "it's really final now" note...? Montanabw^(talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Montana, looks like a few things from 4 July haven't been addressed, but as long as those get done I don't think I'd need to revisit, unless you want a "really final" note? Nikkimaria (talk)

The one dead link? Anything else? (Seriously, old eyes here... boldface it or something... if it doesn't pop up in diffs, I didn't see it...  :-P) Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed the bolded undone problem as far as consistency, but the template wants to do things a certain way, so have a question there to follow up. I think I got everything else, but bolded the spots where you hadn't struck stuff out for your benefit. Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Rosiestep posted that she'd addressed the issues you raised, and another reviewer has subsequently given the article a tick. Can you please check to make sure that your concerns have indeed all been addressed? Many thanks. (I'm holding off on promoting it until you give the all clear.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, if you have a sec, could you do me a favour and have a look at Talk:1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia/GA1? I have provided some advice about the licencing of images used in a collage (if that is what it's called...), and I think I'm on track, but need a second opinion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peacemaker, the collage licensing looks great as it is now - the approach you took wasn't absolutely necessary (given the details presented we could have gotten away with simply linking to the source images), but was courteous to the creators and does the job. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. Hope you have not removed it from queue. Tito☸Dutta 02:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I noticed that you made a comment a minute before Hawkeye passed this; since it has already been promoted, you may want to take a look.

If you do end up removing it from Prep 1 and reverting the promotion, can I ask you to be sure that Froggerlaura's post, and Hawkeye's after it, be moved into the template? (Both are currently below the "do not write below this line" instructional comment.) I've just moved them within the promoted template, but that obviously won't stick if you need to revert. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reverted it, but you've left it with an AGF tick as the final mark, so it will still show up as approved. This needs a new icon showing the degree of problem, or I expect will just be promoted all over again. I'll hold off restoring May 5 (the date it was under) until you've added something appropriate, so we can avoid the risk of premature repromotion. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria, i vaguely remember a tool to convert "refs" in harvard citation templates (sfn?). Do you happen to know its name or any other script to convert "normal" references to harvard citations? I am actually working on the Otto I article and such a tool would come in very handy. GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GermanJoe, I don't think I know what tool you're talking about, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me and it's just wishful thinking :). GermanJoe (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Nikkimaria. Is there anything I can read, like a case study, or anyone I can talk to that can help me prepare for FAR? I am the nominator of the recently promoted feature article Gospel of the Ebionites. Some concerns were expressed about the article the day after promotion on the talk page Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Question of POV, and I think a request for a review is likely. As I stated on the talk page here Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#WP:FAR, I welcome a thorough review, as long as it is being done for the right reasons. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ignocrates, there isn't a case study that I'm aware of, although you might take a look at archived reviews for some idea of how things go, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. However, I should point out that articles are usually not considered eligible for review until three months after promotion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at the archives. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers! Ignocrates (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I see what the thanked party sees, but now will you please tell me how to thank another person? That's kinda nifty... Tex (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you're viewing a diff by someone other than yourself, you see "Revision as of time, date (edit) (undo) (thank)" - you press the "thank" button to thank someone for the edit made in that diff. You can also do the same from a History page. See also Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Dr. Blofeld says he's taken care of the issues you raised after I pinged you last time. Can I ask you to please take another look? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, if there is anything else stopping it from being promoted please state exactly what needs to be done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point given the issues raised so far, someone actually needs to go through every single ref and make sure it's accurately represented, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hitchhiking 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:

• und-anhaltergefahren-unter-besonderer-berucksichtigung-des-kurztrampens/oclc/21676123 WorldCat])</ref> discusses a few of its findings, which include that traffic accidents are the leading cause

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nikkimaria - 'a licensing tag for the building' - I am afraid I don't have a clue what this might be. I couldn't find anything that might fit the bill on Wikimedia. Can you point me to an example, please? Many thanks, --Smerus (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Basically it's the same type of licensing tag you'd use for any other work - you just need to include more than one tag when dealing with a 3D work in areas without FoP (to account for copyright of both the original work and the photo). I think both of those buildings would be old enough for a life+100 years or a pre-1923 tag, is that correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, that's clear. Yes, both the buildings are well over 100 yrs old.--Smerus (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I've addressed your concerns at this FAC. [1] Would you mind going over and taking a look? Thanks, appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I had a question over there. Could you look again? Thanks, you're very awesome! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...at Talk:Operation Frequent Wind#Trivia section. Hope all's well! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I've started an RFC on proposed adjustments to the governance of the featured-article forums. Tony (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I have found a large number of historic photographs of covered bridges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey at a university website - see here. The website says these were taken by one of the university's biology professors in 1936-7 and first put online in 2009. The university's biography of the professor shows that he died in 1939 - see here.

My question is, this seems to me to meet the criteria to use {{PD-US-unpublished}} - photos by a known photographer who died before 1943, with first publication after 2003. Some of these are bridges I have written FAs on and I have never seen these photos in any other sources. The university claims copyright of the bridge photos on the webpage it has made for the bridge photos, but says here that it made the bridge photos website to make the photos publically available, which to me implies they were unpublished before 2009. I wanted to check with someone more knowledgeable than I on copyright issues before uploading these photos to Commons and using them on Wikipedia. I hope all is well with you and thank you in advance for any advice on these photos. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ruhrfisch. I'd be very careful about assuming that the university's comment about publicly available means that the images are unpublished: their collection description notes that some images in the collection were "commercially produced, or were commissioned by Bucknell University. Others were taken from textbook illustrations". Assuming that none of the images you want to use fall into those categories, they'd probably be okay with the unpublished tag, although the university might claim special restrictions (they should say so on the site, but not all do). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - looking on WorldCat, the university has more archival material from Davis than just the bridge photos, so I think the disclaimer on works commercially produced or university commissioned or taken from textbooks applies to some of those materials. I also note their Covered Bridge website says the photos are "reproduced from slides, negatives, and original photographs taken by Dr. Nelson F. Davis", but will check with them to see if there are any special restrictions or prior publications. I do note that they mention fair use on the bridges website, so at least a few of the photos can be used that way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, has Froggerlaura taken care of the close paraphrasing issues you pointed out, or are there still problems? Please put a note on this one when you get the chance. (I tried to interest Crisco 1492 or Orlady in this one, but neither bit.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BlueMoonset, the paraphrasing is fine, but I think her question needs to be answered (and I don't know the response - I don't have the offline source). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I'm glad to know the paraphrasing issue is settled. Andy's currently convalescing, so it might be a little while before he is able to respond to Froggerlaura's questions, but it sounds like once the McGregor/quote attribute issue is settled, this will finally be ready for approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...adding a quick ping: as you're our resident close paraphrasing expert, I was wondering whether you could weigh in on the WT:DYK#Editor closely paraphrases sources discussion. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your help on the issue as well. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can you help please, you left the comment "Foreign-language sources should be identified as such" on the FA review page. I am not sure how to do this?

Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Norfolkbigfish, you can either add "|language=French" (or whatever language) to the citation template, or you can add {{fr icon}} (or whatever language) to the beginning or end of the citation, or you can note it by hand. Any approach is fine as long as it's consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently translating the Chinese article into English for The Story of Perrine. I had tagged the section I'm working on as trivia for the time being because that is what it is at the moment. But I was thinking how it would be better if we let that stay temporarily until the translation is done, at which point editors can polish out the article. What do you think? Ngchen (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ngchen - I'm not seeing a good way in which that info can be made not trivia, so I don't think it would be worthwhile to polish it. How do you envision it being included? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously haven't finished the translation, so I'm not sure how all of it could be worked in. But I feel at least large parts of it could be. For instance, the part about Baron being an added character and the first part of the anime starting from Bosnia can easily form a section entitled "Differences from the novel" or something similar. Ngchen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the close paraphrasing concern. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I was hoping you could weigh in on this, as our close paraphrasing expert. There's a disagreement that has reached the DYK talk page at WT:DYK#Hook pull off about a hook that was pulled because a hook was deemed insufficiently interesting, but then examples of close paraphrasing were given, but there's a disagreement with the nominator as to whether it really is close paraphrasing. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Feudal organization.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your name was listed at WP:RFAR (here). I'm not sure who listed it, but just letting you know. — Ched :  ?  13:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:) So much turmoil that is still going on, the led to the demise of the FA process, and that could have been avoided if they had only dealt with one case years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say two cases, but hope springs eternal. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. My brain tries to eliminate the negative, so I often forget ... Pollyanna is a nice way to live! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reconsider your objection to Template:Did you know nominations/Brattata, Jet Pilot, and Okay Hot-Shot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the issue below, could you respond to this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've already requested another reviewer, right? So just be patient. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the person who objects is willing to say whether his/her objection has been overcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just added a bit more to one of the borderline articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what does "tr" stand for in this edit summary? I've not seen it before. - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Trim". Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'uh ;) - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were active on the talk page, but you missed Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#scheduling_request_error.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking for it? That's what the "new section" button is for. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our agreement ("As far as I'm concerned (now), you can have an infobox where you are the main editor, assuming no consensus against it, etc. But: it might not be exactly as you want it, and I'd like not to have one without discussion first where I am a main author. Can we work with that? 02:21, 26 June 2013"), - I hope you extend it to other editors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who did you have in mind? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particular person, but an instance of moving an infobox to references, which makes no sense, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then your first post makes no sense, I'm afraid. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My hope makes sense to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, Would you have some spare time to undertake a sources review on Terry-Thomas at all? We're at FAC now and any further help would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting from the Hans Morgenthau page

Thank you for your recent contribution to this page. As you may have noted the page has started its path to improvement from being a stub. Could you possibly glance at the page and indicate the TOP five (5) things which are needed on this wikipage to get the page its first promotion to a slightly higher page review status. This would help for me to try to set up a thirty day plan or a forty day plan to try to accomplish. Once again, thank you for your recent contribution to this page! 72.68.10.194 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. More references, in general. Get rid of that tag at the top, have a minimum of one citation per paragraph (usually more), make sure all quotes are cited, etc
2. Develop the later section further. The last dated contribution of his in that section is 1962, then we move to a "legacy"-type mention in the 1990s - these should be two different sections, find out what he did between 1962 and his death, etc. I don't know enough about his life to see whether anything else needs developing, but you should get a sense of the major points when reading over source material
3. Maybe add a reception/critics/reaction section of some kind?
4. Work on making some of those Further reading entries into citations - some good source material there
5. Once you've done all that, work on organization - see if there's a more logical way to sequence the information, make sure the phrasing etc is all done well.

Just some quick thoughts, hope that helps. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, the close paraphrasing you cited has been fixed, according to the nominator. Can you please take a look and see whether the article is ready, or if there is more to be done? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will check tomorrow, sorry, short on time today. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria, thanks for your review. What's the nexte step now? Should I wait for another review? Regards -Eli+ 05:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yeah. You could try placing a notification about the FAC at a relevant WikiProject page if you're eager for more input, but be sure to make it neutral to avoid potential accusations of canvassing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) -Eli+ 05:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please use {{subst:cn}} before removing information and at least give people a chance to source the information without having to also reconstruct the subject material at the same time. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material is readily available in the history if you need it, but as the article in question is a BLP, material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or original research is subject to removal without tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki. What would you suggest as the best way to attribute the authors of articles which reuse existing text? Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 06:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, with an edit summary at time of addition plus a talk-page template. It's a little trickier to do after the fact, but check out WP:RIA for instructions - you can use edit summaries so long as it's very clear what was added, from where, when, and also use a talk template. Also make sure that there weren't any other source articles beyond the ones I noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm off on holiday tomorrow so I'm leaving you the keys to the castle TFA while I'm away (they're at the back of the house, under the doormat). I've scheduled up to 13th August, which should be plenty since I'm back at work on 5th August, so you won't need to schedule anything (unless you want to, of course). If anything goes badly wrong with a TFA while I'm away, or if anyone complains about a scheduling date, you can either reshuffle the existing choices (none of the August schedules have date significance apart from Aug 3rd and 11th), use something from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency, use any suitable blurbs at WP:TFAR or choose something yourself. But I'm sure it won't come to that! The TFAR regulars are a friendly and helpful bunch so I'm sure they can help the place ticking over without me. Many thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 09:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bencherlite, enjoy your time off. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to save it until 2017? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit your source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1. Note that there have been substantial changes to the list of sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Man (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, could you please check to see whether the minimum length issue you had with this nomination has been fixed? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Crisco's picked it up, with more problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and the problems seem eventually to have been solved after some back and forth. Appreciate you taking a look. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, that's 2R already. Could you stop? I don't think edit warring is the best idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think violating talk-page guidelines and removing comments by other people on someone else's talk page is the best idea. But apparently that's just me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally agree with your position here, particularly as it's already the 21st UTC, but this is obviously controversial and not within the exceptions at WP:EW. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, if you do really desperately need to contact Jimbo Wales, please see item 11 on the list of ways to deal with his absence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a desperate need to contact Jimbo. However, you have no cause to remove messages to him, especially as his absence/"closure" is over. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:TPO, right? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Demiurge1000, did you even read what she was inserting? I don't recall seeing anything from her. It was essentially the actual commentary (as opposed to mindless vandalism) hidden in the page's history after Jimbo went on holiday and people began removing every comment posted. If not posted, would Jimbo check his page history? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I did. You can see Jimbo's edits here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you did, what's with the very condescending "if you do really desperately need to contact Jimbo Wales", and to an admin and editor with years on the encyclopedia? And I know exactly how to find Jimbo's edits. I didn't ask anything about his edits, I asked if he would check his page history (the only people I know who do it regularly are Wikipediocracy members). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you meant that at Nikki, may I suggest threading a bit better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "if you do really desperately need to contact Jimbo Wales" is on the talk page in question. If you don't have such a need, then why are you making a fuss? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section says "until July 21"; it is now July 21. Why are you removing comments by other people, contrary to talk-page guidelines? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're disruptive. And, it seems, deliberately so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimbo is a big boy, he can handle his own talk page when he comes back and decide whether they are disruptive or not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, just like he can handle vandalism on his pages himself. He doesn't always have to, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So now you are equating good faith questions with vandalism? Wow. Just... wow. Such an astounding lack of GF. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, so you're looking for an argument. Look elsewhere. I expected better of you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And again with a lack of GF. I have been trying to make the point that you are not Jimbo's keeper, that Jimbo can determine whether he wants to reply to the comments intended for him or not, one which you countered with a comment about the unrelated subject of vandalism, implicitly equating the two and leading me to give up on making you understand. Then you, again, talk down to me, say I'm looking for an argument (and implying that, thus, me and my opinions are a waste of time) and make the incorrect assumption that I care what you think of me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So you "give up" communicating, do you? How nice of you. Can I therefore assume that I won't have to endure similar childish claptrap in the future? That would be nice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Channeling Eric's spirit, I say "check your reading". Nowhere did I say give up on communication. Just giving up on making you understand the point that Nikki was (correctly) raising and the fundamental lack of policy behind your own position. Now that you've sunk to personal attacks ("childish claptrap" indeed), I believe this conversation should be finished. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Because you are coming here, making wild claims apparently related to Nikki's edits, and patently ignoring the fact that she had good intentions... "grave-dancing" without the grave. That I warned her for edit warring does not mean I agree with your position or even feel that her first edit was in the wrong: I think it is entirely our responsibility to ensure messages meant for Jimbo actually reach him, rather than disappearing into the void of his talk page history. The 21st is here, so there is no policy-based reason (if there ever was one) to blanket revert any changes to Jimbo's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, the creator says that a check of the article has been done against duplication detector; can you see whether the article is now free from close paraphrasing when you get the chance? No rush. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anorexia (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) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of filing an SPI, only it doesn't make sense -- is there something you see as an admin that I don't see?

• User Rockbaum is blocked as a vandal only account in 2008
  • Then his block is changed a few weeks ago [3] (so, what triggered that?)
• User Ricbaum is an account created shortly after Rockbaum is reblocked, [4] and it has added cut-and-paste plagiarism and text that is not supported by sources to Brain fag syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• And there is some connection mentioned recently here, even though Rockbaum was blocked five years ago?

SPI, or duck, or nothing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(warps in) What seems to have happened is that the Rockbaum (talk · contribs) logged into Wikipedia recently (i.e., last month) from a University-associated IP—maybe a computer lab. That triggered an autoblock on that IP. Cl171562 (talk · contribs) attempted to edit from the same IP address and was caught by the autoblock. Doczilla then changed the block settings to remove the autoblock from the university's IP so that other accounts could edit from it.

If I had to guess at a scenario, given the long time elapsed, it would go something like this:

1. Baum makes a Wikipedia account as "Rockbaum" in middle or high school, uses it for a brief burst of vandalism, never logs in again.
2. Baum becomes a student in Doczilla's class. He is asked to use Wikipedia as part of an assignment, and remembers his old account.
3. Baum logs in as "Rockbaum" and finds the account blocked, triggering an autoblock on the IP address he was using.
4. The autoblock catches another student in the class and is lifted by Doczilla.
5. In the meantime, Baum opens a new account as "Ricbaum" (since he can't edit with the old one) to do his class assignment.

That would make some sense of the sequence of events. Choess (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... so ... that is kind of along the lines I was thinking, but now that Ric is adding copyvio and text not supported by sources, what should I do next? Just the standard warnings, no relation to prior anything? It's all a very weird situation ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think it's likely that Cl = Ricbaum (although both are adding copyvio), but it's quite like that Rockbaum = Ricbaum. Doczilla should be aware of the latter: the reblock disabled the autoblock on the account, allowing the individual behind it to create a new account (likely to participate in the class). In my opinion, that was an inappropriate step to take: The user was not eligible for clean-start because of the indef-block, so technically the new account constitutes block evasion, and Doczilla as an admin should realize that. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Added: or it's possible Doczilla disabled the autoblock without realizing the cause for it was in the class, but prompted by Cl's request for unblock. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what to do with this, but since I get blocked for merely inquiring about possible socking, I guess I'll do nothing other than take care of the articles. Thanks both, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But now I'm confused: Ricbaum's most recent edit added material copied from User:Mlcdimes, who last edited in 2011. Unless they're both copying the same misspelling from another source...Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I seem to have stumbled upon a most strange can of worms. I can't explain it, maybe they all use the same course materials? It's everywhere I look, but I'm getting the impression the new "powers to be" don't like me rocking their idealistic boat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rockbaum edited for a grand total of 6 minutes in 2008 and was then indef-blocked without prior warning (or any communication). Making him revert to that account and fill out an unblock request admitting to being immature 5 years ago seems like process for the sake of process, so I think ignoring the technical block evasion and informing him about copyright was the most sensible thing to do.

I'm still puzzling over the second bit. Mlcdimes (talk · contribs), MissCitrus (talk · contribs), Tinkerbell411 (talk · contribs) Dixie3834 (talk · contribs) and a number of others appear to have done a bunch of editing (sometimes collaborative) in user space. From the way some of them started their user pages (short one-sentence factoid about themselves), I suspect they're from a 2011 iteration in this class. I've checked those 4, and none of them have significant 2011 article space contributions or any deleted contributions. In other words, they wrote articles on their user pages but never moved them to article space. They all show up in Google searches, so Ricbaum may have copy-and-pasted from there; it doesn't look like there's been any concerted effort to move the 2011 material into article space. Choess (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I developed a page that you cut a large paragraph from. Moreland and Arbuckle page. I cannot block your edits and appreciate help with grammar and language use, but please do not delete historical data. I have been working on this page and have tried updating it recently with more resources. Thanks, j_moreland 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) juliemoreland1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliemoreland1 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Julie, the problem with your edits is that they violate Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and sourcing. Statements like "European fans embraced the band's gritty American rock blues with enthusiasm" need to be attributed to a reliable source, while words like "legendary" should be avoided in this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikkimaria, can we come to some reasonable compromise on how long this Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites/archive1 is going to stay open? With the early filing, the review will be open for over two months. That requires me to be on-call all that time to answer questions and respond to criticisms. Normally, the review period lasts about two weeks. Do you have any suggestions for how we might proceed? Thanks a bunch. Ignocrates (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering if there is a procedure in place for handling frivolous filings and some kind of summary judgement to end the formal review process. Ignocrates (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to keep the review on track at the moment - collapsed a bunch and left a pointed question to all. If it stays on track, it will be open for the normal amount of time; if not, it will likely be closed early, and I suspect the whole thing might end up in dispute resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. As I said on the talk pages of the article and FAR, I welcome a review as long as the criticisms and questions are specific and actionable. WP:I DON'T LIKE IT just wastes everyone's time. Alternatively, give me a week with Sandy in an informal review and together we can make this one the best articles in the category. Ignocrates (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the last comment by JC. Imo, this is over the top in a formal review. Ignocrates (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, is there any policy or guideline that precludes me from nominating an article for GAN while this one is still in FAR? We are currently in our third week of FAR and I have been sitting on a nomination. Please respond here. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, go ahead and nominate whenever you'd like. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Ignocrates (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I'm going to be traveling for a few days and unable to respond to specific criticisms or questions in FAR. Btw, the FAR has been open for over 3 weeks (4 weeks on Sunday). Is that normal? Ignocrates (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Ignocrates. FARs have been trending longer lately, particularly ones with disagreements - I'll take a look at it and other open reviews when I get a chance, probably in a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine. The content part of this dispute is currently in NPOV/N, but it is just a straw-man anyway. The conduct part is going to be resolved in arbitration, hopefully sooner rather than later. Ignocrates (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in. Where do we stand? Arbitration case filing is next week. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ignocrates. Sorry for dragging on here, but I don't have the time atm to review the FAR, article, and talk pages with the depth required, particularly given the potential ArbCase brewing. I'll try to get to it later this week or early next if my co-delegate Dana doesn't beat me to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine. I wanted you to know what's coming, that's all. If it doesn't go well for me in arbitration, I probably won't be here to finish the review. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAR is now closed. Thanks for putting up with us! Ignocrates (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall & Oates in popular culture 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you tell me how adding a wikilink to 'English' violates WP:BURDEN? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the diff in question, you will note that it involves at least two actions: delinking English (the "fmt" in the edit summary) and removing an unrelated piece of information that is unsourced (the "rm unsourced"). It is the latter to which WP:BURDEN, which requires provision of a reliable citation before readdition, applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see what information you mean, maybe it's my eyesight. I'm going to revert your edit one step at a time till I can see what it is. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NM, I wonder if you would have time to do a source review for another FAC? No problems if you are stretched and don't have time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NM, if you do get a chance to look at the article, could you perhaps comment on the minor discussion on linking of publishers details in the bibliography? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at S&M in a bit. Your reference to the "minor discussion" relates to Terry-Thomas, right? If so: FA criteria requires consistency of citations, not any particular style. Linking all publishers, linking publisher on first time only, linking only obscure publishers, or linking no publishers would all be valid approaches, so long as they're done consistently. Another editor involved in that discussion has particular views about citations, reflected both in that discussion and in another at WT:FAC, among other locations. Those views do not match the FA criteria. If you'd like to accede to his request in order to simplify the review, that's fine, but you don't have to do so. (Disclaimer: he and I have clashed previously on issues related to citations, particularly CITEVAR). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NM, Many thanks for the S&M review - I'll crack on with that shortly. Yes, stupid me, it was the T-T review which holds the rather questionable comments. I'm happy leaving them in and have left it open for others to comment if they see fit, but I'm happy with the status quo of consistency. Many thanks again: I'm out of FACs for the moment, so I probably won't disturb for a while! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the talk page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the infobox of Mont Juic (suite). You will have excellent reasons but your edit summary didn't give them. You "restored what"? Absence of a picture of the place? Do I have to add it to the collection of infoboxes ArbCom needs to look into? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the previous version. You may have excellent reasons for wanting to impose such a template, but your edit summary didn't give them. You are welcome to discuss your proposed addition on talk, though, where I see you have already added the template, though still without any reasoning. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I add to an article I typically don't add reasons. You know Wikipedia:QAI/Infobox#Service, you asked for it on my talk, I thought you followed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I asked on your talk has never been answered. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried: Wikipedia:QAI/Infobox. - Is - related question - this the better answer? I formatted the template on Bruckner's symphony, dates to accessible dates, date + location as one template. The same is true for the suite. You removed the publishers of the symphony, - now they were there when I started, I kept them for respect for the work of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. That edit made the template more accessible, yes, but my question related to your assertion that the infobox itself is a tool of accessibility - the use of templates within templates is a different issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we have a language problem. I talk about accessibility in terms of templates (for dates etc.) and classes (of parameters) that I see working only in an infobox, at present. In the future, we may have it coded in article text, something like (hidden): "the following is the person's day of birth, giving year, month, day". We can prepare that future by using infoboxes now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we're working on totally different projects, but I thought I was working on writing an encyclopedia, not a database. All the extra metadata stuff should be secondary to the main goal of imparting information to the reader. Infoboxes are secondary to that goal, and whether they are put on an article or not is up to local consensus on articles. There is no site-wide consensus that infoboxes are required, and I've yet to see how an infobox improves accessibility for the actual reader of an article. In some ways, it makes it less accessible for those users using screen readers and other assistive devices. This isn't to say that I don't use infoboxes, but I don't think they are required, and this grand push to have them everywhere is disruptive at this point. You yourself may not be meaning to be disruptive, Gerda, but you're pushing the boundaries. Surely you can see that there are some places where an infobox is not good and that there are places where they are controversial. When you meet with controversy, wouldn't it be better to just accept that it's not the time to add an infobox and move on to other subjects? And using metadata as a reason for the forced inclusion of an infobox doesn't help your arguments - most folks who actually work on content aren't persuaded by that argument. I'd suggest working on making sure that infoboxes are restricted to the "key facts" of an article - as it is now, there are too many infoboxes with way too many parameters that are used badly. My advice to you, Gerda, is to concentrate on articles and quit pushing quite so hard on the infobox issue. I don't think you're in danger of being sanctioned by ArbCom right now, but if you keep pushing the issue while the ArbCom case is open, you might open yourself up to sanctions. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to echo what Ealdgyth says here in every way. I don't want to be pulled into this situation, though since Ched hasn't replied to my query about the infobox discussion of last year or so at Ezra Pound, I may be - against my wishes. In terms of writing an encyclopedia, the best thing I've read to address that question is on Riggr Mortis' page as his retirement statement. He's the perfect example of a productive editor without whose quiet dedication to quality a fair number of articles wouldn't have achieved FA status and graced the main page - and yet we've lost him. Furthermore, the almost daily posts to various user talk pages on my watchlist are becoming a distraction and frankly I see it as an invitation to for others to jump into discussions that are probably best left on the article talk pages only. Giano sets a good example by only joining discussions that crop up on pages he's written and behavior I've been following. But it is hard to ignore these many posts, hence the occasional and perhaps unnecessary butting in on my part. Victoria (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand a few things:

1) Where am I pushing? To my knowledge, I am on a voluntary 1RR rule. I add, someone removes, I ask why but don't revert, as here.

2) If I know of controversy (classical composers etc) I don't add an infobox (unless it's "my" article). Mont Juic is a composition. The author likes the infobox.

3) I don't remember to have ever said "required", nor "metadata".

4) What do you mean by "grand push to have them everywhere"?

5) I don't know what "the almost daily posts to various user talk pages" refers to. I like to talk to people.

6) Back to the article in question: I think the infobox makes it more attractive.

Enjoy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a push by a number of editors to have infoboxes everywhere. Why else would there be an ArbCom case? As for metadata as an argument - is it not listed as a reason for infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox? You're pushing because you continue to add them even though you know there is an ArbCom case that is about them being added on articles... a wise choice while that case is open would be to only add them to articles you are starting, rather than visiting other articles you haven't edited to add them. It's all well and good to be on 1RR for them voluntarily, but it would look better for the ArbCom case to not add them to anything at all that you didn't start. This is a piece of advice I'm giving you, having watched a LOT of ArbCom cases... when they are open, it's best to refrain from anything that looks like the controversial actions (even if you think it's not controversial) to avoid being hit by a topic or site ban. I don't see you has one of the major pushers of infoboxes, but you could get caught up in a backlash, and that would be a shame. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata is listed on QAI as something infoboxes can supply, yes, but I don't remember that I mentioned it as a key argument to have one. - Thanks for the advice, but I will not change my actions because of a case. Adding an infobox to a composition is not controversial. Did you know that there was a template infobox Bruckner symphony, since 2007? The case was initiated rather because of the opposition against infoboxes. I am not afraid. If I get banned, I am in good company and will find something better to do ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that anyone who might speak against the insertion of an infobox is the type of editor the case is about and hence good that some are already gone because we don't need that type of influence around here? Also, I won't follow up here - I think Nikkimaria has hosted enough such conversations. Victoria (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not speak about "anyone", how could I? I speak only about myself. - I had a good conversation here with Nikkimaria. Mentioning the old Bruckner infoboxes has to do with Mont Juic, to return to the topic. Repeating: the author likes the infobox. Why do we argue? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The case was initiated rather because of the opposition against infoboxes" - this might be why Ched started it, I don't know, but the opposition in itself is not the real problem. You can see that easily if you imagine, what if there were only people who oppose boxes? Then there would be peaceful unboxness. No, the problem is that some promote infoboxes and others oppose them, and because people can't agree and want to push their side (aggressively or gently, proactively or reactively), they naturally come into conflict, and it's not always nice when that happens because every position in between "full box" and "no box" is rejected and argued about endlessly (believe me, I've tried many).

So we argue because of statements like that one, because of the mindset it represents. We could have metadata coded in articles now, without infoboxes; in fact, to some extent, we already do. Where we don't, it's because of infoboxes, because where there is already a box to get bloated with every data point possible (because re-users need all the data they can get), the people who know how don't see a need to work on a better way, or a different system.

We argue because we see differently when an infobox might be useful, what might be useful to have in it, and who it helps (or hinders). You say the infobox is attractive; I say it misses the forest for the trees. You say having instruments in a box makes readers hear the music; I say only if they can understand the box and know enough to know how each instrument changes the texture, and still they wouldn't hear it because saying "trumpet" doesn't tell you what or when the trumpet plays. You say it's accessible; I say, to a limited audience only, in very specific circumstances/uses, and to others (like readers who don't understand and struggle to figure it out, or editors who need to source and maintain a template unfamiliar and perhaps unwanted, or now people using VisualEditor who can barely edit the things at all) it's unhelpful at best and actively harmful at worst.

We argue because some people see Wikidata as a separate project and others don't, because some see the two as feeding into each other (infobox data here becomes data there which then feeds back into infoboxes here) while others see that as a problem, see that as even more redundancy of what they feel should be two distinct features: data and prose.

We argue because we're human and we get hurt when people can't see the damage they do or can't or won't understand our point of view, because we get frustrated with others, because we have viewpoints that don't coincide and we think we're right and the other is wrong. We argue because we work from different base assumptions, and sometimes different fundamental values, and definitely different (and at times inconsistent) views of policy and the best way forward for Wikipedia and for the articles we work on.

So now that I've gotten that long explanation/rant, back to the original topic: there is an infobox in the article now, which is what I assumed the author was referring to when he said "I quite like the one we have now, but I can also live without it". I think we might have a language problem on the "accessibility" point, as your more recent explanation does not coincide with my understanding of WP:ACCESSIBILITY or the "normal English" meaning of the word, but is more in terms of metadata. Is that an accurate description of what you mean by "accessibility"?

Is there a reason why months later from the last argument related discussion involving wikipe-tan that you started removing images again? I feel like this wheel has been going around and around for too long now. What bothers me is that you give no reason for the removal of the images you chose to get rid of. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: because months after the last discussion, the page still includes multiple low-quality/inappropriate/excessive images. There is a more extensive image gallery on Commons, and that's where it belongs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And one image you removed was contested, which you fail to convince people back then that it's excessive. If you wish to change that, you need to start a new round of talkingL-Zwei (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, the nominator of this article has requested a new reviewer, and as the previous issues have mostly been about close paraphrasing, I'm hoping you can do it. As the nominator has stated that every sentence has been meticulously checked for plagiarism, I think someone good at looking for such issues should be the one to do the review, even if there turns out to be nothing to find. Thanks in advance. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issues you raised. I did a massive CE. See nomination page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria, are you going to continue with the DYK review? Thanks in advance. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on how to handle these, but I ran across The Quincy Jones Musiq Consortium, where the first line is copied from here. I suspect the rest of the article is also a problem. I'm dumping this in your lap, since you're more experienced with these things. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

Hello! Since you were very helpful a few months ago when I nominated "Triangle" for FA, I was wondering if you could drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/X-Cops (The X-Files)/archive1 and cast a vote/provide suggestions. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here. You are more familiar with the suspected sock master than I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I'll take a look at that, thanks for the pointer. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Must have posted too early (the CU was declined and "they're on different continents") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I appreciate all the assistance you've given me in my FACs, and for your general helpfulness and generosity to all editors who use FAC. Speaking of, would you mind looking at my FAC [5] at your soonest convenience? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, can I please ask you to take a look at this nomination and render an opinion regarding the extent of the close paraphrasing. The approving review alluded to "moderately close paraphrasing", but seemed to think this was not such as to make the article ineligible for DYK (or, presumably, to require any other action). I've since put the approval on hold due to hook issues. If you can post your analysis of the paraphrasing situation, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Quincy Jones Musiq Consortium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American music (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) 11:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Hans Morgenthau Page (from two weeks ago)

Thank you for your recent visit to the Morgenthau page!

With appreciation for your top 5 improvements list which was very well stated. It was #41 on your Talk page. There have been about three or four dozen dedicated edits since then, and a full restructuring of the section formats which looked useful. If you have a new top 5 list you can suggest to get the page its first upgrade then great. With appreciation. LittleIPEditor (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Still need a lot more citations, in general - quotes definitely need to be cited, facts that seem surprising or unique, opinions, etc.
2. Check out WP:NPOV and WP:W2W - things like "Nothing could possibly have foretold the immense impact" are a bit over the top, especially without a citation
3. Still work on getting a hold of the Further reading sources to see what can be incorporated into the article text
4. You're using a thematic-type organization at the moment - personal details first, then career (which right now includes some details of reception and impact), then legacy. You might consider using a mixed thematic-chronological outline - open with early life/education, then adult life (with subsections as needed), then later life, then possibly a works/ideas section, then reception/legacy.
5. Make sure the lead acts as a brief summary of the article, but does not contain details not discussed later - for example, the bit about "most-used textbook" appears only in the lead, as does his opposition to Vietnam.

To give you a better idea about organization and citation, find a few comparable biographies on this list or here that you can use as models. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rupert! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, could you please check the egg fossil and dinosaur egg articles to make sure they're free from close paraphrasing? (They both seem to be long enough.) Abyssal says that the sections by the other author (the ones that infringed) have been taken care of. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've actually wondered about copying between articles: while you're supposed to note it, is it as necessary if you're copying material that you wrote yourself? (That is, you were the only person who edited that particular sentence or paragraph.) The page that discusses such copying seems to give an "out" in that particular case, but I might be misreading it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as necessary, but it's still ideal (even if only to clue in reviewers!). In this particular case, all four of the articles from which material is drawn have been edited by others, and it'd be a judgement call as far as how much those need to be attributed (but as a courtesy, probably we'd do it even if not absolutely legally required). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider to remove your last diff of examples for "incivility", as the desperate outburst of someone who made almost no more edits after that (until yesterday), for respect of a "wiki-dead", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any errors in my evidence, I would be happy to correct them - but that isn't one. I already removed a diff from one who indicated a desire not to be involved, but given her most recent edit, removing this diff would seem inappropriate to me. However, since you're here, would you please correct the factual errors in your statement? I did not use "rollback function" to revert you (but I was reverted using rollback function elsewhere, you could put that instead), and I added an infobox to the suite before any comment by the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rollback": "revert without an edit summary" - is that better? - Suite: I said it in that order, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure to the first, no to the second but possibly an English issue? I added a box, then on talk he said "I quite like the one we have now"; the way you said it, it reads like he said about the first that I then removed. It's not a big deal, though, and yours certainly isn't the biggest misrepresentation on the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your comments at the FAC discussion for Trees (poem) located here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1. Could you please review whether your comments have been sufficiently resolved as I seek to improve the article and to obtain support for this article's promotion to FA status. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I appreciate your assistance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, could you please check to see whether the edits took care of your close paraphrasing issues? It appears that only the one example you gave was addressed, but I don't know if that was it or not. Thanks. And thanks again for taking care of all the others. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Giuseppe Verdi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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(Click show ⇨)

pdf/verdi_pdf/04%20-%20La%20Vita.pdf "Giuseppe Verdi: La Vita"] on magiadellopera.com (in Italian)] notes: "On 18 June 1840 Margherita Barezzi's life was cut short by violent encephalitis."</ref>< com/vienna/strasse/5320/verdi01_c.htm "Giuseppe Verdi: Sommario"] on reocities.com (in Italian):] "...on 20 {{sic}} June 1840 his young wife Margherita died, struck down by a severe form of acute Verdi (film)|Giuseppe Verdi]]'' starring [[Fosco Giachetti]], and the 1985 play ''[[After Aida]]'' )a play-with-music similar to ''[[Amadeus (play)|Amadeus]]''). He is a character in the opera, ''[[Risorgimento! (opera)|Risorgimento!]]'' (2011) by Italian

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware, I responded about a week ago on that page. Have a great day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A great deal of the evidence regarding movies, TV shows, and music videos filmed at Union Station (Los Angeles) is easily available. The Internet Movie Database is certainly not the most reliable source, but any source with an image should be, and I've added two tonight. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every source with an image is a reliable source. Take a look at WP:IPC: you should find secondary sources indicating not only that something was there, but why we should care. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contralto is - to my understanding - a purely operatic term. In cantatas it's alto, which is not gender-specific. "500th anniversary" was the term I saw in the article. Thanks for helping to bring Britten's work in shape for his birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of sources that use "contralto" - including the BTC - it would make sense to retain the option, wouldn't it? And quincentenary = 500th anniversary. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

500 both times or the other both times, that's all. Do you suggest to change to "alto or contralto" in Bach's cantatas? I think alto with a link would be clear enough, but up to you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, if they mean the same thing? And do sources for Bach's cantatas say contralto? From what I've seen, they use alto only. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused about the relationship of The Oxford Dictionary of Music, Oxford Music Online, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, please help me understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Dictionary and New Grove Dictionary were both originally print publications. The newest edition of the New Grove Dictionary is also in an online service, Grove Music Online (which also includes other Grove publications). Grove Music Online was first maintained by Macmillan but was later sold to Oxford, who added it to their Oxford Music Online service. Oxford Dictionary is also available online through Oxford Music Online, but is not the same publication as New Grove and is not in the now-subsection Grove Music Online. See also. Clear enough? ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I got it. (I really read tables and boxes better than prose with so many similar terms.)

Several publications are offered in Oxford Music Online, right? Then why is it a redirect to just one of them?

The Oxford Dictionary of Music is one of the publications in the above, right? Will it likely get its own article then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the first, I don't know to the second (I didn't make that redirect and don't agree with it), yes to the third, it should to the last. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an article on Oxford Music Online, however short, instead of a redirect would be less confusing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There can be multiple articles for a single subject on Oxford Music Online. For example, for a composer you'd likely have separate articles in The Oxford Dictionary of Music, The Oxford Companion to Music, and Grove Music Online—the Grove will be much more in depth than either of the Oxfords. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cantata academica, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Benjamin Britten wrote out the Latin text for Cantata academica in one of his old German exercise books? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cantata academica. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 08:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is Wikipedia:GLAM/Balboa Park/To-do/California Building (Balboa Park), if not an article ready to be moved to mainspace? Could you possibly move it?

I am not sure what "GLAM" is, by the way. I happen to have drafted an article in AFC process now, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/California Building, for a different "California Building" in Nevada, and I see that disambiguation will be needed. --doncram 15:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GLAM is an initiative to work with cultural institutions (mostly galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) to develop Wikipedia content. That article appears to be a draft created by the Balboa Park collaboration. I'm not sure if it's quite complete yet, based on the "sources to incorporate" at the bottom, but you might ask one of the editors listed here. (I'm not involved in that particular collaboration; I appear in the history only because I de-abbreviated most of the GLAM pages, including their subpages). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Simfan34 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, might I ask you to take a look at this nomination for close paraphrasing concerns, as well as the prose? Drmies, as well as the original author, have made a number of edits recently; before, there were issues, and you'll note I found an example I considered close paraphrasing from one of the Banglapedia articles. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for taking a look. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a request to take another look at it on the DYK nomination page, since it has been edited. Can you please do it when you get the chance? Many thanks. (I don't know whether you also want to comment on the hook issue—the objection on the Guinness hook. If not, I was thinking of asking Orlady to get an independent view.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Der Stein der Weisen, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mozart wrote a cat duet for The Philosopher's Stone? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Der Stein der Weisen. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any further comments on or concerns with the Frederick Russell Burnham article? I immediately went to work on your issues, but you FAC comments have not been updated. Thanks. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've updated the article based on the comments I've received. Any other issues? Thanks. Ctatkinson (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're needed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tiruchirappalli/archive2. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, Could you have a look at the image query from AustralianRupert here please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, can you please let me know whether you're planning to look at this one again? (You noted close paraphrasing and need for a copyedit; it has since been edited and the nominator says both issues have been taken care of.) If not, I'll try to find someone else to look at it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a question for you in the review of Template:Did you know nominations/White slave propaganda. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to shoot me now, but I just noticed that there was a question of close paraphrasing in Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Burundi, which has apparently been fixed. If you have time, can you please check to see whether the fixes have done the trick? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll have to beg off of Jacobsen, there's too many sources I can't access at the moment for me to feel good about passing it through (on a quick note, the "corpses" caption appears near identical, but is quite short - have to see if that's the only thing or not). Responded to white slave, can probably take a look at Burundi tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand about the Jacobsen. It looks to me like about half of the Gallery captions are identical or substantially so, or starting with the original caption on the genocide website and adding words before or after. Do you think you could address this, as well as say what you did here about not feeling you can pass it given the unavailability of accessible sources? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior (Talk) 22:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sounds fun. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is directing FAR now that Raul654 has gone on hiatus? The message on his talk page says, "Raul654 has not edited since February 2013." It seems like maybe FAR should have another director if the current director has been absent for six months. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcome to direct any questions or concerns regarding a particular FAR to Dana boomer or myself, and questions or comments about the process to us or WT:FAR. I believe there's a request to close the most recent discussion about leadership up at AN, though you'd probably have time to comment in it over at WT:FAC if you're interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki,

Thank you very much for your helpful reviews of the articles I have written in the past. I have submitted another article for featured status: the Kellie Loder article. Any comments you would be willing to provide at the FAC would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify that done things are indeed done? If so, are you ready to support? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, when you get the chance, I was hoping you could take a look at the following articles, all by the same author, which were submitted to DYK:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Manby
• Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Jowitt
• Template:Did you know nominations/International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

The first two were just rejected by me for close paraphrasing concerns, which had earlier been noted by DoctorKubla, and I took the unusual (for me) step of tagging the articles. The first has some interesting copyright issues because some of the sourcing is clearly public domain, but the Grace source appears to be based on those PD sources while not being PD itself (though it has a GNU license). The second is about a living person, so no PD material is involved.

The third article I haven't checked, but has similar concerns expressed by a different reviewer; though they seem less problematic, I'd like someone better versed in close paraphrasing to take a look, which would be you.

Thank you very much. I felt over my head on this one in terms of determining the level of severity: I didn't want to overstate the issue, but I didn't want to minimize it if it were truly serious. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just commented on a fourth: Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Venables. —BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Grace source is GFDL, but does not appear to be CC-BY-SA-compatible. However, the bulk of its content seems to be taken directly from here, which given the date is likely PD. If that source could be attributed directly - and assuming no issues with FN1, which I don't have access to - this is salvageable.
2. Good call on this, it's too close
3. Agree with the other reviewer: close paraphrasing but not copyvio. Additional closeness from here and here
4. Agree with your comments there, but probably not bad enough to tag.
5. Burundi (from above): not seeing any close paraphrasing of note. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Nikkimaria, and apologies for not posting those thanks sooner. This was a great help. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, since you helped out and reviewed the last Sesame Street article up at FAC, I wondered if you could review the most recent one up there now: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Format of Sesame Street/archive1. I need it done quickly, so that I can get into the finals of the Wikicup in ten days, something I'd really like to accomplish. I'd appreciate your assistance greatly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've addressed your comments; just letting you know. Could you please go back and see if you find my responses satisfactory? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to give the FAC nomination for Trees (poem) a second pass. So far, I've resolved a lot of comments over the last month, but the article does need a little support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ColonelHenry, I can't support on an image review alone, and unfortunately I haven't the time at the moment for a more complete review, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria, a lot has happened since your review; I was wondering if you can re-check the article before the nomination is closed -Eli+ 17:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

Nikkimaria, it looks like Abyssal has finally completed the necessary revisions to deal with the issues you found in two of the articles in his multi-article nomination. Can you please check when you get the chance and see whether all is in order now? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just caught your edit summary; like I said, "when you get the chance". If it gets to be September without things letting up, I may put out the "review again" icon, or we may be forestalled by someone else reviewing the recent changes. Hope things get less hectic for you soon, and thanks for letting me know how things currently stand. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I was going to leave a note since I just read over the entire set. I wouldn't have minded looking at it, but that's wasted time since I'd have to start from scratch. Hope you're doing alright Nikkimaria. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki,

My grandfather, who knows very little about computers and the internet, nonetheless understands that I spend a lot of time working with Wikipedia. On several occasions, he has misremembered the name "Wikipedia" and has instead called it "Winnipego", like the monster in Lake Manitoba. I thought you might find that amusing.

Neelix (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I think that the section of close paraphrasing has finally been dealt with, but I'd like you to check it if you get a chance. It's waited a while, so whenever you can get to it would be great. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for addressing this, and also for your work on all the other DYKs I've also loaded on your plate over the past little while. I'm very much hoping all the issues are soon successfully dealt with by the nominators. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria,

You were kind enough to help review Stanley Bruce's FA nomination last month. It's been through a fair few sweeps and revisions now, and all the issues seem to have been resolved, so I was hoping you'd be willing to give the nomination your support if you see fit now. Thanks! Unus Multorum (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey UM, I don't generally support on just a source review, but best of luck! I see you just got another support, so you're well on your way. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a source review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2 a week and a half ago. You reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 twice. Since you are familiar with the content it might be easy for you to drop by and give us a final review now that we are standing at 6 supports and 1 neutral.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony, what has changed wrt sources and citations since the previous nomination? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is new sourced content. One reviewer (Squeamish Ossifrage, I believe) also requested some format changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been editing all over the place. Did this not answer your question?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I just saw this, which I suppose is some sort of message that you won't be doing it until it is too late. Got it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant assumption of bad faith there, Tony. How about being more specific, when asked what has changed with regard to sources and citations, than the unhelpful reply "there is new sourced content"? Perhaps it would have been better to say that this source, that source and the other source are new, to save NM having to do the legwork herself? After all, you're the one asking her to help, so why not make it as easy as possible for her? Bencherlite^Talk 19:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes since the July 19 review have been extensive. Many have been made by other editors. You may note from the discussion that it gets to be a bit much to follow along. I have added several and revised several. Other editors have as well. You can see this is 508 edits worth of changes. Maybe a dozen sources have been added and a similar amount revised. Not sure. The current version has 92 citations and the version she reviewed had 64. Probably many of the original 64 have been replaced or revised. As many as half of the 92 current citations could be new.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: if you look at the reviews in Crisco's edit, you'll find that they were all done before you posted here and just not updated on FAC talk. I saw your reply above, and I do intend to do this review at some point, but it's been less than a day since your answer and I have other obligations - you're going to need to be a bit patient, and if that's not possible I suggest finding another reviewer more able to respond immediately. Since you've indicated that the sourcing has changed substantially since my previous review, I'll essentially need to do an all-new check, and that does take some time. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded and could use additional feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony, as much as it may pain you, my life and Wikipedia editing do not revolve around you and your increasingly pushy behaviour. Nikki did some source reviews, I saw that, and marked it at WT:FAC so that the delegates would be aware. That's it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what you are fussing about, but I always post a message like this when I finish responding to a source review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Now, I just saw this, which I suppose is some sort of message that you won't be doing it until it is too late." Since I made the edit in the diff, that implies that I am sending you "some sort of message". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And I assume that "I have responded and could use additional feedback" is TTT-speak for "Gosh, Nikkimaria, what a spiffing job you've done in reviewing all those sources so efficiently for me. Thanks ever so much - it must have been a lot of work for you to go through everything again for me. Do let me know if I can somehow return the favour in some way in the future. Incidentally, there are just a couple of minor matters arising and I would be very grateful if you could clarify them for me – as and when you have a spare moment, of course. Thanks once again!" Bencherlite^Talk 18:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your translation is far more polite than I think I have ever seen on WP. I certainly have never gotten a thanks like that. You might as well give her a barnstar now, which she may very well deserve anyways.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not my forte, but I have tried to respond to the remaining issues. Let me know if there is anything else that we need to do. Thanks for your attention.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress! Should be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be great news if you could note it at the the FAC discussion and WT:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your concerns at the dinosaur egg nomination and will have some free time tomorrow for more work on these articles. If you want to look for more issues in the mean time that would help speed things along. If you don't feel like it I'll try to do a general polish and solve them preemptively. ;) Thanks for your dedication to seeing these articles get to the main page despite all their flaws. You're a good Wikipedian and I'm glad I get to work with people like you practically every day here. :) Abyssal (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling your attention back to the nomination. Thanks! Abyssal (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Hans Morgenthau page!

Last month you had put your useful top 5 list for the Morgenthau Page on this Talk page (#73 above) and I have posted some progress. In my first thoughts on improving the page when I first wrote to you, I did not know that you had an FA page in mind for the improvement, which needs extra attention. This I tried to address by breaking up the needed edits into two phases which each need about one month each to do. Phase one is now mostly complete and addresses most of the items on your top 5 list. In phase two, I would need to type in the additional 40-45 references I have collected and edit them in. Also, there remains your significant item #4 which suggested a re-scoping and conversion of the entire outline from a "thematic-career oriented" narrative outline into a mixed thematic-chronological narrative and outline. If you have a chance to look at the result of the phase one version at this time, possibly you could tell me if for this Item #4 you would prefer for me to refine this present version of the outline and narrative as is, or if the other "mixed thematic-chronological" narrative outline and text redraft would be needed to still meet the FA standard you mentioned as desirable. If you have a new top 5 list then I can try to make a plan to incorporate all of it in the next month of the next phase as well! Maybe the page will make some progress towards its first upgrade at the end of this attempt. With much appreciation for your previous look at this page. LittleIPEditor (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LittleIP, you certainly don't need to head for FA status if you don't want to, but those pages are good as models because they're meant to meet fairly high standards and have had issues like organization and sourcing discussed by reviewers. I still think the organization of the article needs to be refined a bit, although it doesn't have to be done in the way that I suggested if you prefer the present outline. The largest issue other than that is sourcing, which you say you already plan to address - that sounds excellent. A few more minor points: you might see if there are one or more additional relevant images that might be added; the licensing of the current image should be reviewed (the "historic image" fair-use tag has more stringent standards than most of the others, and the description is lacking both details on initial publication and a working source link); and you should check that existing sources are consistently formatted and include page numbers when appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings User:Nikkimaria! Thanks again for the useful comments. It shall take about a month to try to address them all one by one. Adding 40-45 references is lots of typing. Regarding the organization of the outline, the one provided below is the version that would resemble one of the high class examples you pointed out in the lists which you provided. Its completely optional to me whether you would prefer the present one or this new one as better since the final re-write will probably take just as much time the one way or the other. You can choose the one you believe to be best for wiki community. If you have a big screen desktop you might be able to look at the old outline and the new outline side by side in separate windows to decide if one looks nicer to you. Once again thanks for the nice dashes you put in throughout the article!

I Biography

  1.1 Early life and family background in Coburg, Germany
  1.2 Education at the University of Frankfurt and the University of Geneva
  1.3 The rise of national socialism and Morgenthau's departure from Europe
  1.4 Interim years in Brooklyn and Saint Louis
  1.5 Academic years at the University of Chicago; 1943 to 1973
  1.6 The New York years

II Morgenthau's thought

  2.1 Inspiration
  2.2 Methodology
  2.3 Realism in law and realism in politics
  2.4 Politics Among Nations
     2.4.1 Geopolitics principle #1
     [...]
     2.4.6 Geopolitics principle #6
  2.6 The state of Israel and Hannah Arendt
  2.7 Ethel Person and the "love of his life"

III Legacy

IV Critical responses to Morgenthau

Good wishes. LittleIPEditor (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Masque of the Red Death 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:

• | country =[United States

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Hill (clergyman) 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:

• nla.news-article2204703 |title=Lines |newspaper=[[The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser)]] |location=NSW |date=7 June 1836 |accessdate=26 August 2013 |page=3 |publisher=National Library

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ātmaprajñānanda Saraswati may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• *Why do we pray]<ref>{{cite news|last= |first=|url=http://www.speakingtree.in/spiritual-articles/faith-and-rituals/
• *Significance of Sannyäsa]<ref>http://www.speakingtree.in/public/spiritual-blogs/masters/faith-and-rituals/significance-of-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anders Blok 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:

• '''Anders Blok''' (born May 28, 1978) is a [Danish [[sociologist]] who is currently a Lecturer at the Department of Sociology at the [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kalonji Jama Changa 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:

• People, Siafu Youth Corps, MOBB (Mothers of Black and Brown Babies) and the FTP Artists Collective], have matured and developed. Partially due to his uncompromising position, ability to move the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pia Ravenna 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:

• {{Use dmy dates|date=May 2011}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joe Raposo 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:

• |death_place =[[Bronxville, New York]] United States]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of songs in the Donkey Konga game series 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(Click show ⇨)
| align="center" | Based on the French Folk Song "[J'ai perdu le do de ma clarinette]]" | align="center" | "[[Pokémon]])" Extended Opening Theme #1 | align="center" | "[[Kirby: Right Back At Ya]])" Opening Theme

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Heirs of Hammerfell 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:

• | country =[United States

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Warriors Orochi 3 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:

• [http://www.gamecity.ne.jp/orochi2/ultimate/ Official Musou Orochi 2 Ultimate Website] {{Ja icon}}]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria,

Thanks for your edit on University of Cambridge.

Would you please share your views on Talk:University_of_Cambridge#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_Literature_and_popular_culture?

Thanks, cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 18:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of University of Cambridge in popular culture, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://allbestgraffiti.blogspot.com/2011/05/literature-and-popular-culture.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Warning to TPS: don't actually click that link, it's not pretty)

Silly bot, that huge list has been in the main article for years; the blog you cite copies from us. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Good Work Here! Mike 20:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	Good Work Here! Mike 20:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)