User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 9

Hi Nikki. I just wanted to say thanks and to let you know that I responded to your image review at the FAC for Draped Bust dollar. I've also asked a question about something I'm not sure about. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the above FAC! I believe I have addressed all of your listed concerns. Please let me know if there are any remaining problems. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I believe that I have addressed all of your listed concerns. Mind having another look? :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering y you removed all the book links in the article? This edit removed the link to pages and books - our readers can no longer quickly verify or read more on the subjects? Is there some sort of new rule? Because i have been adding this links to all our FA and GA articles.Moxy (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be doing that on multiple articles - you're supposed to respect the citation style already established, and some people have very strong views against GBooks links. They're already provided by the ISBN links (which also have additional functionality), and they add a huge amount of length and clutter with relatively little net benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit again (just the link removal part) I want to hear more about this before you eliminate all that work (you are aware they link to actual pages ). Not sure your aware of what GBooks links are. pls see Google Books Library Project to see that the research libraries are a part of this - there are no ads as Google Books does not sell books. Pls explain further what the problem is because we have been promoting there use. Also what do you mean format change --its just a link ?Moxy (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what GBooks links are, and you still shouldn't be adding them across multiple pages. If they link to actual pages (I assume you mean a specific page within a book? that's even more problematic, as those links tend to be more unstable and don't work for certain people or even for large swaths of geographic locations (Google alters what you're allowed to view based on your geographic location, local copyright laws, how much you use the site, etc). You are aware that the GBooks link (to the book as a whole, not the specific page) is already provided by the ISBN, which also provides additional functionality? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still at a loss. I dont understand...we are not censored not our fault that some cant see certain pages - that fact should not negate nor hold us back from giving proper info and links were need be to the rest of the world? Is there some rule out there or is this your opinion. As i have said we have been encouraging the use of the page links for some time now like . With a google book pages checking is one click away for our readers to verify and read more if they like (if they can see the book they may expand the articles with the refs and not just some website over proper books)- were the ISBN method may take upto 200 (yes 200) clicks before finding the pages in question. Again as i said this pages are all over now and this would be the first time anyone has ever said anything bad - As for unstable not sure there either as they are premalinks (they will not change over time - unlike all the websites people use) Moxy (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not censored, but that's an argument for content, and these links are by no means "proper info". There is no rule for or against GBooks links AFAIK, but it is far from my opinion - as I mentioned, many people are strongly against their inclusion, particularly the single-page ones that you're adding. I repeat, you should not be adding these across multiple pages without explicit consensus to do so. Assuming one has full access to the book on GBooks, the ISBN method will never take 200 clicks - it doesn't require clicking through the pages one by one. The links can change over time. They also add unnecessary clutter to the page without major benefits to the reader (as links are provided through the ISBN method), and increase page-load time for both readers and editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I just went back to check this. You added those GBooks links yourself, in contravention of WP:CITE ("If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it. Do not change it merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons.") - nearly 15 kB of links! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still not sure what your saying - the benefit to our readers is clearly evident - of course being able to see a refs in there context is best and an asset to Wikipedia. As for your claim its a format change i believe is wrong...its simply adding (filling in) a link to a parameter that is part of the template that is already there. Helping our readers in understanding topics is the whole point of Wikipedia (removing links that are clearly beneficial would be the opposite of this). I have never heard of any problems with them till now and dont really see your arguments as beatifically at all. Your argument is web sites are ok but scholarly book links are not -because they take time to load? You have shown me nothing to indicate there's a problem except load time that applies to all web links.

(edit conflict) I don't think I said anything about other web sites - what I'm saying is we should cite books, but we shouldn't include individual GBooks links because they're extraneous given the presence of ISBN links, they add clutter (more so then most websites - they tend to be longer), they only work under certain circumstances, and they add to page load time. There is no major benefit to readers because the functionality provided by these links is already provided by the ISBNs. Anyways, there's a discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Canada about this, so let's continue this there. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So lets review this as its a bit up setting to me - You have removed (3 times now in the middle of this talk) valid links in templats that support the paramater (no citation style changed just filled in paramater)

Your aggumant is that "some people" dont like them and that the books ..thus there pages can be found by ISBN links and we have no need to link them directly. (I respond with y would we not use the fromat that would be the easiet for our readers - and there is no MOS on there exclution)

You say not all can see the pages (I say thats not our problem - if some can... they should not be limited because otheres cant)

You say for load time...(this would apply to all links not just books)- What is more inportant - Wiki principle goal of spreading knowlage to our readers or load time in a page that falls within page size limits? - This books have been digitized for the benifit of spreading knolage and is a resource we should be utlizing -UBC - UOF - UoM all now add books to this now - (sorry for all the typos dont have my glasses toaday......PS the reason i am so intersted in your views is of my great respect i have for your oppions and general knolage of things here Moxy (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're upset, but this issue is something I feel fairly strongly about (and as a point of order, this talk didn't start until after the first removal). MoS does not advocate either inclusion or exclusion of these links (although I will note that the "suggested parameters" for books at WP:CITE does not include them). The issue that I see is that the links are beneficial to a relatively small subset of readers at the expense of a much larger group (those who can't see the links, those with slow internet connections or browsers, etc). GBooks links are longer than average website links, particularly when linking to a specific page, and unlike with citations to websites you don't need the URL for a complete citation. Wikipedia's goal, as you say, is to spread knowledge to all our readers - how do they benefit when for many this page takes a long time to load, given that ISBNs provide the same functionality and more besides? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Canada#urls for books : o well we will have to disagree here - {{cite book}} says "URL of an online location where text of the book can be found. If applicable, should point to the specific page(s) referenced" yes its says "The ISBN link is a much better alternative" but its clear that there is the paramater that can be filled. The aggument that since some cant see them - thuss all should not benifit from it is not at all what we are here to do. Limiting all because of "some" is not proper. Whats better is to offer may ways of verification to our readers - not just the one way "you" prefer because "you" dont like the other that is allowed as indicated by the description of fields. Moxy (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki. Sorry to be a pest, but I just wanted to once again ask whether you could check if I've addressed your comments at the Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) FAC and, if so, whether you could strike them. The nom is coming up on a month old and I'd like to make sure that the sourcing concerns are in order before it closes. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind revisiting your source comments at Talk:Anna of East Anglia? The primary editor has replied to all of them now. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, thank you very much for your assessment (I didn't expect one so quickly!). I had a quick question regarding one of your comments. When you wrote, 'For example, what is "blackened death metal"?', I was wondering: does this mean that the phrase should be removed entirely out of convenience for the reader? Or should I actually define it within the context of the article? (I had to look it up because, to be honest, I had no clue what it meant; I can't keep genres straight, there are too many of them!) Blackened death metal, then, is a combination of death and black metal. Do I simply state this, do I go into what both of these genres are? And is it okay to write "openly" with the definition, or should I find an actual source that defines it and cite that...?

Finally, I've read several FA articles and I've noticed that my style of writing seems almost "cramped" and rigid compared to the almost natural and relaxed writing of an FA article. Do I need to loosen up a little? I can find information and throw it into the pot, but should I become less strict on the every-sentence-must-be-cited-and-must-be-robotic type of writing? Well, maybe this last bit is asking too much of your time, but if you could get back at me regarding the genre bit, I'd appreciate it. : ) Thank you so much... – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that Blackened death metal is a bluelink, you might be able to get away with just linking it, or just adding something like "(a combination of death and black metal)". My concern is that people who don't know much about this type of music can understand the article (and if you yourself don't know without checking what a particular term means, then why would you expect the reader to get it?). As for the prose, you're right - it's a tricky balance between WP:V/WP:NPOV and the "professional, even brilliant" prose requirement of WP:WIAFA. What I would suggest (and maybe you're doing this already, I'm not sure) is reading the article out loud - that helps nail down passages that need loosening or other alterations. Just be aware of things like WP:W2W, and don't go too far in the other direction. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that clears everything up. I actually was not reading the article out loud, and am now doing that (to the chagrin of anyone within earshot). I've responded to your comments at the article's FAC archive2. I will let you know when I have completed work on all your notes; and in regards to the grammar issues and all that, I'm doing another major run-through of the entire article with your examples in mind, so it may take a little longer. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first image in Glass Joe has been enhanced to include copyright information. However, I want to verify whether showing another image - the box art image from the Wii game article - that contains that image of Glass Joe in particular. Is that sufficient demonstration of its origin? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow what you're asking - do you mean you want to upload an image of the box art you mention? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; I was able to find a source. The image is not directly from IGN, will that be a problem? If so, would it be acceptable to provide the original source in addition to IGN (since I am not sure that the source I got it from is necessarily verifiable)? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does your source indicate what the original source is? If so, it's likely acceptable to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I did opt to remove the "promotional material" note and merely indicated its source and verification of validity. Generally though, the images that IGN hosts in these sections are from promotional material packs. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I responded to some of the points that you made at the FAC. I haven't nominated an article for FAC in a long time, so you'll have to bear with me. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki! So, "Irresistible" has been copyedited and I've put it up for a PR here. Can you comment on the prose or other issues? Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it might not be for a day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Novice7 (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I will be less active coming days, but I suppose you can leave comments? I'll work on the issues whenever I get free time :) Novice7 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the rhabdomyolysis FAC. I hope that I have addressed them in a satisfactory fashion. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would be very grateful if you could review my responses and state whether you are happy with the current state of the article for FAC. JFW | T@lk 16:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JFW | T@lk 02:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed comments. They've all been responded to in one way or another. Please will you revisit the FAC - some of the comments have prompted questions back from us, or we've not responded in the way you intended, and I'm keen to get your opinion in response. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I don't know whether you need to pinged for all your reviews, but wanted you to know that the source issues have been taken care of at the The Magdalen Reading FAC. Thanks. TK(88) 18:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In for instance Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jefferson_nickel/archive1, you don't specifically say "support" ... you made one request, and Wehwalt answers it. Should I assume that your other image reviews follow the same mold, that is, if there are a few specific replies and you didn't say anything, that means you were okay with the replies? - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I don't support on just images or sources. Usually me not responding means things are okay (and I'm saying "usually" very carefully here, but in the case of JN that's the correct assumption). Hope that helps. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thanks. I hope what I'm doing in taking a second look at your and Dana's lists is helpful; I'm thinking that different reviewers will notice different things that might help Sandy decide what to look at. If it seems like overkill, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, don't know about Sandy. By the way, can you recheck the image issues on Northolt and sourcing on Walker? Northolt wasn't on my list because AR didn't touch the more significant NFCC issue; Walker because I could use a second look from someone who knows MilHist. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Nikki, not sure what your free time is like right now, but there are a few articles that are basically ready except for image checks, if you're interested (you've probably seen them already, since you're way more involved over there than I am, but w/e):

• WP:Featured article candidates/Richard Barre/archive1
• WP:Featured article candidates/Appaloosa/archive1 (have to admit a bit of a COI here :)
• WP:Featured article candidates/Thatgamecompany/archive1
• WP:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1
• WP:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1

Just thought I'd put that out there (or maybe one of your TPS's will be a little image gnome!)... Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI, Dana? You? Surely not ;-). I'll take a look. While we're on the subject of "basically ready except for", you wouldn't happen to know anyone who really loves doing WP:V/close paraphrasing spotchecks, would you? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I wouldn't ask you for anything Nikki, but since Sandy's going to be descending on us any time now ... Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kenneth Walker/archive1 could also use an image check. We've just started to have productive conversations at Milhist about doing more reviews at FAC; I'm hoping you'll see more reviewers at FAC soon. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. Do you have a link to that Milhist convo? I might drop in to badger people :). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting: today's talks aren't going anywhere, I'll cue you as soon as we build a little momentum. You asked me to look at the sourcing on Kenneth Walker ... just looking at Hawkeye's diffs and your questions, the diffs appear to answer the questions, and I've found Hawkeye to be careful about responding to questions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't think anyone "loves" them, unless that was supposed to be a sarcastic question :) I could probably get to a couple this afternoon/tonight - any you had in mind specifically? Dana boomer (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...all of them? <big innocent grin> Yeah, no one really enjoys them, including me, which is why pretty much every single source review that I've done within the past month or so is marked "spotchecks not done". Fifelfoo's picked up a few of them, but beyond that they've been neglected. Sandy suggested we focus on first-time/newer nominators, as more experienced ones will likely remember the plagiarism fiasco. (Don't feel obligated to do them, either. I've left you some image comments at the Appie review, you could always pretend those will take the rest of the day). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except I handled all the image problems at the Appie review (except the license plate, I'm not touching Montana's baby with a ten-foot pole.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plead innocence - it's not Montana's baby, it's obviously an Idaho plate! (and hope that nobody named "Idahobw" suddenly appears...). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WikiProject_Military_history#Help_with_.22spotchecks.22. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm please to say that revamping work on 12 Gauge (album) is completed. I've left you a response at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/12_Gauge_(album)/archive2 and if you find the time, I would love a second assessment as it stands. It would be greatly appreciated! Thank you : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria, so I take it you're probably too busy for a second review of the article, which is fine. Your first review was the catalyst for reworking the article. Before my FAC time is up, is it alright if I ping other users? My article has pretty much entered a no-man's land, and it's not like other album-related articles at the FAC are being ignored; some have quite the discussion going. I don't want to canvas, though, so I'm wondering what I can do to get one or two more eyes to look at it. If I can get one more "oppose" from someone, then I suppose I could easily hang up my hat on the matter : ) Thank you... – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try leaving a neutral message at a relevant WikiProject. Pinging individual users is trickier, since it runs into issues of canvassing, but as long as you're very carefully who and how you word your message it shouldn't be an issue. I did end up striking my oppose earlier, although I do think the article's prose still needs work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you! I pinged three wikiproject discussion pages (although the article appears in their alerts), and I used the FAC banner language, which is about as neutral and descriptive as it can be. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm writing because you commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21 (Adele album). I've worked hard to address the comments and concerns, and wondered what your stance was on the article. Thank you. Orane (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... for turning me red. And for deleting the edit counter page. And for the edits to Jack and the Beanstalk - that's another history that needs to be looked at. I do appreciate it. And of course always appreciate your keen eye at FAC. Personally I think you should be paid well for what you do - you're very good at it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If only! No problem , TK, let me know if there's anything else I can do. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're bored, I've just nommed 2 articles for GA, no urgency or anything, but if you'd like to conduct a review of one (Philip Primrose or William L. Walsh), I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll pick up one in the next day or two if no one snatches them up. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe I've addressed your comments. Will read over it again and fix anything I see, though. Connormah (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did some copyediting, how does it look now? Thanks again for the review. Connormah (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had Wehwalt do some copyediting today - how is it now? Connormah (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the existing discussion on this topic on the page.Protobaltoslav —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, you once did an image review of Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Logarithm/archive1. SandyGeorgia asked me to ping you: could you please check that your image review of Logarithm is still up to date? If possible, could you also strike out the points of your review that are OK? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been outspoken, so there's an issue that's been on my mind that I feel I need to address. You're a busy person, and that's fine. I appreciate the work that you do here- you are an amazing reviewer and have a great eye for detail that I admire. With that said, I find the way you conduct reviews a little unsettling. When you comment on an article's FAC, you assume the responsibility of working with the nominator/contributor to improve the article in question. Yet (and I mean no disrespect here), you seem more concerned with making sure you reviewing every single article placed on the project page, rather than working with the individual articles. There was a discussion on the FAC talk page about the delays in the promotion process, and to be honest, I think this trend is symptomatic of this delay. An article cannot pass and the delegates cannot promote it until the reviewers express their satisfaction with the article, especially if they have opposed it. It's been a few days since I've requested your presence at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21 (Adele album)/archive1, and so has User:Keraunoscopia for his own FAC here. You have not responded to either of us. I'm not here asking you for your support. I'm asking that you take responsibility for your oppose vote, follow up when nominators ask for your input, and reassess (to either maintain your oppose, or at the very least strike it), so nominators and delegated can gauge what their next move should be. Orane (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually hoping for another opinion on a couple of issues in both reviews, but if you insist I'll revisit today. If you believe I'm causing delays in the FAC process because of the way I conduct reviews, feel free to raise that issue in the discussion on WT:FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this discussion. I definitely would like to reply to Nikkimaria's comment about waiting for "another opinion on a couple of issues in both reviews". I've only done the FAC twice, but both times I've found that the word "oppose" immediately drives everyone away from an article (depending on its subject matter, of course; some articles naturally attract a greater amount of reviewers). So Nikkimaria, unfortunately, neither of us is going to see another opinion on my review, ever, which is why I pinged you again above, in the hopes of at least one more glance before it's returned to a 14-day purgatory lol. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I've been trying to be more firm with declarations lately because of a complaint about endless comments ("fence-sitting"), but unfortunately that does have a downside. Replied to your comment above, too. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1's talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 19:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a gem (and a workhorse!). Please ping me when images are clear at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Logarithm/archive1. Thanks for all you do! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check for sig contrib, otherwise, no need to move it to FAC. Thanks! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, didn't check the article closely until after I removed it. Not for FAC either. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, first thing I saw on my watchlist this am, so pinged you so you wouldn't go through the extra work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 13:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this Nikki! I saw it on my watchlist when I awoke this morning (is it a bad thing that one of the first things I do in the morning is check WP?), but didn't have a chance to get to it until just now, when I saw you had already taken care of it! Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try FAC process, I am the primary contributor, at least for all 'recent major' updates.

Thanks for prompt reply. Pleasancoder (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think I've addressed your MOS concerns; I'd appreciate it if you took another look at the article to make sure. I've also responded to your comments about primary sources on the article's FAC page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd be interested in helping to review an educational GA again, like you did a while back? See here. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not this time, sorry. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for them, by the way. I'm like suddenly swamped in RL... hopefully one of the possibles will go up at FAC this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to thank you for your comments on the article's FAC. It did not pass, but to be completely honest, I agreed with everything you said: it just was not ready. And not that you need to hear it, but you're actually such a great asset to the FAC process, and I'd suggest that you replace one the inactive delegates, but that would mean that you probably wouldn't be able to be as involved with the individual articles as much. Again, thanks, and when I return to the FAC with the article weeks or months from now, I'm going to request that you be as brutal as you can so the article can be the best it can be. Orane (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Journalist (do you prefer Journalist or Orane?). I'd be happy to take a look at it whenever you bring it back to FAC; good luck with it in the meantime. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either Orane or Journalist is fine :) . And thanks for the good luck. Orane (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stubs Alexander Mickelthwate Kongōbu-ji Manitoba Opera RP Broadcasting 1893 Brooklyn Grooms season Rawlco Communications United States Senate elections, 1908 CFRY 1908 Boston Doves season Quebec law CIZL-FM Canadians of Spanish descent Nonsuch (ship) 1908 Boston Red Sox season Chacha Cricket Old Kildonan Oakbank, Manitoba Peter Nygård London District Catholic School Board

Cleanup William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr. Weslaco High School Brazil Merge Central Saint Petersburg Scientific method Hungarian Canadians Add Sources France Dangerously in Love Tour Australia Wikify Vermont Maple Foundation Information Technology Agreement Amabile Choirs of London, Canada Expand North American fur trade Index of Canada-related articles Mississauga

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikkimaria. I never heard any feedback from you about Kurt Hummel's FAC. Do you still plan on spot checking it? HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria,

In your reference check during the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1 Rwanda FAC recently, you made the following notes:

• Check for WP:MOS issues in references: italicization, capitalization, etc
• Be consistent in how locations are formatted

With the first point, are you referring to the formatting of the reference, or to the text itself, to which the reference pertains? And with both points, I have used the Wikipedia citation templates throughout so would expect consistency in formatting to fall out in the wash. Do you have any specific examples of problems to give me a guideline for what to look for? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of the references specifically. For both cases, the templates take care of some issues, but they do rely on what you put into them (they're not as smart as real people, unfortunately). For example, what type of abbreviations for states will you follow: Conn/Mass or CT/MA? You've currently got Conn and MA. N.J or NY? New York NY or just New York? It's little inconsistencies like this that the template doesn't fix. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki. I still need further guidance in response to your source review at the Into Temptation (film) FAC. One of the FA delegates recently asked about where this stands, so if you could respond at your earliest convenience I'd very much appreciate it. Sorry to be a pest! — Hunter Kahn 18:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've responded to you at the review page. That being said, Sandy's comment there refers to spotchecks, which I explicitly was not doing. Spotchecks involve comparing material in the sources to the article to check verifiability and avoidance of close paraphrasing/plagiarism/copyvio; I did a source review, which checks formatting and reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki. I hope you still remember me. Are you fine? I wanted to ask if you could suggest me someone really nice and good at copy-editing? Jivesh • Talk2Me 05:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember you. Offhand I don't know anyone who specializes in pop culture copyediting (I'm guessing you're working on another pop music article?), but you might try asking over at the guild of copy-editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikki. Best of luck with whatever you are doing. You are a gem to Wikipedia. Take care. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you return to the FAC? We're not sure if your comments have been addressed to your satisfaction. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm looking for some help, or rather confirmation, that a list of sources I have would pass the grade at FA level.

They're all books, all related to the Antelope Valley region of California, especially the cities of Palmdale, Lancaster, CA, Rosamond, CA and Mojave, CA, mostly in regards to their history and the valley's gold mining. I've arranged the list by publisher and author, and left little footnotes about each author or publisher where I've managed to find information about them when I think they might be questionable. There's a section at the end of the page about one of the authors, it might help to ascertain whether he is notable enough for an article and/or whether he is a reliable source.

The list is at User:Matthewedwards/Library/AV, please let me know what you think because it's a rather small area of the United States and there isn't much written about the area compared to say, London, Los Angeles, New York. If these books are not suitable RSes, what is the usual course of action for writing about small cities and towns? I remember seeing somewhere that there is a bit of leeway with these types of articles and primary sources, but how much? I have a feeling I'm going to be at a bit of a loss for writing about the area. :( Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edit summary on the DRN page. I'll admit sometimes ideas I've got in my head and how I describe them on-wiki sometimes is not how I intended it to be understood. As for the notices themselves, if you want to look over it (as your edit summary said it wasn't worded the best) it's located here. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 17:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we must have cross-posted - I just made some changes to that. You'll need to edit the second paragraph of the notice yourself - I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, any better? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page to nominate this article Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2/archive1 and I wanted to place this page here but it is not appearing. Could you help me?--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I think I see the issue right now.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having editors go through my articles changing the source formatting - see here for example - after having been made consistent for FAC review. What are your feelings about adding the doi & JSTOR links? I retrieve papers from various places, in some cases even hard copy journals, and don't feel these links are necessary, but wanted to run it by you. Also the University Press information is formatted according to the latest edition of MLA, but has been changed. Again, do you have any thoughts on this, or don't care as long as it stays consistent? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we decide we don't care, he shouldn't be doing that without gaining talk consensus, per WP:CITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While both links have their uses, they're not required, and adding them without consensus constitutes a violation of CITE. Personally I like dois, but wouldn't include JSTOR links unless I actually accessed the source through JSTOR. The University Press formatting doesn't matter to me so long as it's consistent, but again if you've established one formatting it shouldn't be changed without consensus. Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the FAC for dengue fever, which I have now addressed. I was wondering if you could have another quick look and let us know if the results are adequate.

I was wondering what your feelings are about abbreviating journal titles. In some articles (including those that have passed FAC) the article consistently uses abbreviated journal titles (Curr Opin Neurol etc), while in others the titles are expanded. On rhabdomyolysis I changed them to the expanded form. I think PubMed and most medical publications use abbreviations for brevity, but this might not be suitable in an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 07:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviating journal titles is fine if a) it's done consistently and formatted consistently, and b) the abbreviation is recognizable (either because it's a standard abbreviation, or just logical - for example, "Rev." for "Review" is pretty common). I'm not a medical person myself, but I've read enough of those articles to know that using abbreviations is very common in that field. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there were such a thing you should be decorated with it and several bars. Your remarkable eye for detail at FAC is a godsend. Heaven knows how you keep your concentration wading through the prose and references of us motley FA-seekers, but I am most grateful that you do! Tim riley (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making progress I've made a number of changes according to your suggestions and I'm continuing to work on any issues related to the MOS (I don't immediately see any, but that can be tricky), copyediting (my perennial weakness), and citations (which should be pretty straightforward.) If you have any more particular feedback about styling or copyediting issues, please let me know at that discussion. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria. I see you've listed yourself as a Peer review volunteer, and I was wondering if you are interested in reviewing Moonrise (Warriors). Thanks, Brambleclawx 14:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per this, what would you suggest I do? This cannot go on. Parrot of Doom 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, protecting it again wouldn't fix the underlying dispute (and I can't protect it indefinitely anyways), and I'd be reluctant to block either of you. The most "correct" option here is an RfC or some other DR step. You could also take it to a noticeboard - not ANI or AN3, but one of the lower-traffic ones. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if you would care to look at the sourcing of the article, as there have been no comments on that aspect at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think all of the points that you raised have now been addressed. Thanks for comments, which were most helpful. Perhaps you could take another look to see if I missed something. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I guess you are pretty busy, but all of the referencing issues that you pointed out have been addressed. I wonder if you would care to take another look? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have fixed all of those points and a few others. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick, I'm making progress on this thing and will be ready to support pretty soon.

Was definitely irked that the citation format made a major change after you had looked at formatting so carefully. (What went down there? I missed it.) I'm wondering if you will be able to still take pity on the fellow and re-look at it in Vcite? At least a check to make sure that there was no huge mess-up? I can admonish the fellow NEVER TO DO THAT again. But, if we need to send a lesson to him or whoever changed it, let me know, so we get them humping to change it. (Or maybe we even take a fail...although I really would prefer not to for that reason...article is close.)

It's a pretty dull subject, but very well covered (I have worked a little in this industry as a supplier. Also, I read all 5 other aircraft FAs for comparison. It's actually an article that Wiki can be proud of.) I am trying to help the dullness a little bit as well, by "streamlining" the airframe. ;-)

TCO (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The change was made (not by the nominator) based on the discussion at User_talk:Fnlayson#Cite_book - I'm not sure I follow the argument there, but that was the rationale. I can take another look at the formatting so long as they can agree that it won't be changed again - given that the opposer was complaining about the change that's not guaranteed, so I was waiting for them to give a firm statement that they're either keeping it or not. Oh, and "Nikki" for short, not "Nick" please. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly, Nikki. Will be back in touch after I check stability.TCO (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, I've managed to revert the changes. Could you please have a look at it again? Cheers --Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going over the refs again (will leave that to others, I know one about nosed down is reffed further down, can be moved up.)

Went through the images. Cut one and put up for deletion. Other two are fine. Changed one caption that made an assertion we don't have covered in body text.TCO (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had listed an article for Peer Review. Kindly post your suggestions. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I have corrected a few mistakes that you pointed out. Please let me know anything that can be done further. Commander _{(Ping Me)} 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria! I was wondering, if you're not incredibly busy, would you mind looking over 2005 Qeshm earthquake for sourcing and prose issues? I'm in no rush whatsoever, so don't feel obliged to do it at all. ceranthor 02:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! ceranthor 14:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better? ceranthor 20:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but there's more to be done - some of the points remain unaddressed. If you need me to point out specifically which ones let me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be appreciated, if you can find the time. ceranthor 21:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Lead's still too long - I'd say 3 paras max. "local time" and "very much" still aren't making sense to me. You've now got two Bibliography entries that could be notated as Nissen et al, so you'll need to distinguish between the two in footnotes. Broadly, reference formatting, organization and readability still need some work, particularly if you intend to go for FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll spend a few more days tightening it up. Thanks for all your help! ceranthor 23:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions! I had one question about the formatting. ceranthor 19:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've fixed those reference concerns. ceranthor 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to all comments I do believe.--WillC 07:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again.--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have anymore comments regrading Turning Point (2008) would you please return to the review as it has come to a stand-still, thank you.--WillC 13:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for kind, calm remarks at FAC-T. And reviewing lots of articles.

TCO (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cute! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stubs Latter Days (comics) Jubilee Tower Fort Richmond 1889 Cleveland Spiders season Morphallaxis Mohinder Saran Aatsista-Mahkan 1929 Boston Red Sox season Hampshire (pig) Winnipeg Railway Museum Centennial Concert Hall 1913 Boston Red Sox season 1921 Boston Red Sox season Flip Grater Auramine phenol stain Foreign forced labor in the Soviet Union Hanover, Manitoba St. Jean Baptiste, Manitoba Richard de Luci

Cleanup Margaret Thatcher Syria Malawi Merge Blue pencil (editing) Inland port Phipps Institute for the Study, Treatment and Prevention of Tuberculosis Add Sources Calgary–Edmonton Corridor Beyoncé Knowles Canadian federal election, 2011 Wikify Midland (electoral district) Postcolonial literature Federal Finance Court of Germany Expand Conservative Party of Canada Fauna of Canada Kitchener, Ontario

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently listed Horrible Histories for a peer review. I saw that one of your specialities is children's literature, the genre into which I would most likely place the series. I was wondering if you would give the article the peer review that it is in such a dire need of. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to participate in a discussion concerning your changes at WT:Wikipe-tan#Nikkimaria_and_WP:OWN. We need consensus before doing something as drastic as renaming an article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As members of the WikiProject have pointed out multiple times, it's not an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not denying that. That's the reason it's in the Wikipedia namespace rather than the mainspace. There's even an eye-catching disclaimer at the top of the page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I wasn't sure that you did, given that your above comment refers to "renaming an article". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Misprint. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, Dcoetzee at Commons (a rights stickler and one of the most frequent commenter in rights discussions) says the MRTT pic is "super safe". If you have a specific concern, would ask you to push it so that it can be investigated. I doubt we get more comments unless you do, as others will also judge this as clear-cut. We could toss it into Deletions if you really think it's at all questionable, but I think it would be a waste of process. (I also think this pic is clean for multiple reasons.) -TCO

No, you don't need Deletions, just throw the location onto the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.TCO (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. I'm trying to help the nominator of May Revolution but I believe I'm not being able to express myself clear enough to him. Due to the behavior of some FAC usual contributors, other editors (mainly new ones) have become almost robots, so attached to rules that they forget that can have imagination of their own. Since there is an useless civil war going on in the FAC, I can hardly believe anyone else will help.

The May Revolution article as a great potential, but it needs more reviewers. I believe the best move would be to close the FAC nomination and request the nominator to request a peer review and perhaps, even invite someone good on proses to help. He is doing the work all by himself and I know how frustrating it is to see that no one is actually helping. I came here to talk to you because you were the only other editor who reviewed the article and I would appreciate if you could tell me what do you think of it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ready at this point, but I do agree it has potential. The only way to get it to PR now is to get the nominator to agree to withdraw it, or to get more reviewers to suggest PR. Obviously the latter would actually require reviewers to engage, but without engagement the FAC process won't really help. Another possibility would be to post a request at WP:GOCE for prose help, which is allowed during FAC, but I don't know how long that may take or how much it will help. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of Tony1 to take a look at it, but I believe he is "busy" with the ongoing fighting with SandyGeorgia. Do you have someone else in mind? --Lecen (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could try TCO - he's been helping out at FAC lately, he might help. Diannaa is also a very good copy-editor, although again I don't know whether she'd be interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Tony. I'm going to wait for his answer before inviting the other editors. Thanks a lot, Nikkimaria. I really appreciate it. --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have adressed the points you made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive2 a few days ago. Can you check things back? Cambalachero (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for telling me about the image in the signature, I've been here for a month only and it's pretty long to learn all the "rules" in place here. Btw, thanks also for the way you told me, very polite I appreciate. --Offiikart^Talk 13:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you already did a quick copyedit - but how are the references looking, formatting/etc wise? Anything I need to fix before FAC? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing bibliographic info for Crouch Reign of King Stephen. "Foundations of Medieval English Ecclessiastical History" vs "Foundations of English Ecclesiastical History", FN 66 vs 71. I'd say put the citations in columns, but that's not required. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got them all, except the citations are already in columns. Did you mean the notes? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - for some reason I still see the citations in one column. Odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I have it set with the supposedly newest way to do the columns... do you have the same issue with Stigand? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - one 124-citation column. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Theobald still in two columns for you now? Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two columns now - thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria: I'm a brand new Wikipedian hoping to connect with a mentor. I'm also Canadian so was interested to see the Canadian content section on your user page...have now added myself to the Wikipedians in Canada category. Please let me know if you're taking on new mentees and if you would be available from time to time to help me as I blunder along. Thanks! Oishiisou (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Is there anything in particular you're interested in editing or learning about? I'm not a member of the adopt-a-user program, but I'll try to help you out if I can. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer of help, Nikkimaria - and thanks for mentioning the Adopt a user program. I will check that out too. I think I'll be happy looking around on my own for the most part but might get in touch if I get really baffled. Oishiisou (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be so kind and tell me who created this redirect? Thanks in advance! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If I can step into this discussion. The user was User:Proud Serbian Chetnik who is not, as his name may appear, a sockpuppet of the bunch/individual with whom we are most familiar. This one seems genuine in his name to me although somewhat disruptive and stupid. I was online yesterday and noticed something but wasn't editing at the time. It was directed straight at Hashim Thaçi. Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the same time, he created Račak myth. It shocks me as this was only redirected and not deleted. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Thanks, Evlekis. As i supposed... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I accept you deleted my page. I'm sorry I did it and won't do it again.

Can you help me? I've got off to a shaky start here but I am being harrassed by some "longtime" users but they are not admins like your good self. This user User:Viriditas is clearly stalking me. He is constantly blanking my user page simply because he doesn't like my former country leader Slobodan Milosevic. At first, it looked he was being constructive by saying it is not a soapbox, but he editwarred against User:Evlekis with the same article, my user page!! :) Now come back and he has revealed it's got nothing to do with soapbox, he is accusing my former leader of being a Mass Murdered yet the picture of him was already uploaded and is on his article. If he doesn't like it, why can't he push for it's deletion? One more thing. He is blanking it completely (my user page), even where I give my name and where I am from. That is surely wrong. Why can't he suggest I immoderate or change bits? Why is he taking liberties in blanking it? Surely that is against Wikipedia rules? Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Under normal circumstances it's polite to not edit userpages other than your own without the user's consent. However, there are certain rules userpages need to follow, and pages that don't follow these rules can be changed without consent. In this case, Viriditas is citing the section on polemical statements as a justification for changing your page. Now, whether your page is polemical or not is a matter of opinion - I'm guessing based on your comments that you feel it is not, currently? However, your statement on his talk page is only going to make matters worse - insults and strong political statements, no matter how strongly you feel, should be avoided whenever possible. If you like you can take this dispute to the admin's noticeboard for broader input, but I should warn you that because of your comment on his page it's possible that there could also be consequences for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria for your welcome and direction as to places to seek information that will help me as a contributor. Within next few days, I plan to jump in and get to work ... would Wikipedia:Cleanup or Wikipedia: Maintenance be a good place to start? Any other suggestions? Also, beyond NOPV, NOR, V ... in your experience/view, could you briefly (few sentences) summarize distinguishing features between good & bad articles? Thank you again for your welcome ... much appreciated! P.S. Like your user boxes on your user page ... hopefully as I get more knowledgeable & comfortable, I will attempt to incorporate some boxes on my page and be more creative.--4tiggy (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 4tiggy! Depending on your interests, either of those could be good places to work. Are you a copy-editor, researcher, writer...the area that will work best for you depends on what you're good at and what you enjoy. You might also go to an article about something you know about and see what needs to be fixed or added. Once you get a bit more experienced, something like WP:DYK or WP:GAN could be a good fit, again depending on your interests. In terms of what makes a good article: it doesn't meet any of the deletion criteria and is notable, the prose is readable, the sources used are reliable, and it avoids obvious problems like copyright violations (whether cut-and-pasted text or problematic images) or hoaxes. For some more tips, check out WP:PERFECT. Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for going through that article and offering your feedback. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I think I addressed your concerns on the Joppenbergh Mountain FAC. I used Proquest to find page numbers for the NYT articles, but I don't think I can get page numbers for the others. Have a great weekend. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was worried that my section here might have gotten buried by subsequent posts. Just wanted to remind you that I left comments on the Joppenbergh FAC. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! --Gyrobo (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting Nikkimaria, if you remember you once failed a GAN for the article Malaysia, and offered to give it a look over at a later time. I wonder if you're not too busy if you could give it a look over now, though hopefully with much less trouble then you got into editing Canada! Appreciated at any time, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki - I wasn't sure if you'd noticed Voceditenore's recent comments on the Clarke FAR... It looks like it's getting close to the end, after 7 months :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive3. With SunCreator utilizing it as a forum no one will review it. Also, any tip with him? He is in the WP:IDHT point. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't close it unless you formally withdraw it, you'd need a delegate for that. I can, however, move the extended discussion to talk; doing that now. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish knew how to do that. Giacomo Returned 21:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work-in-progress comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 4 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article If Day, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the only known report of bloodshed during the simulated Nazi invasion of Winnipeg was from a woman who cut her thumb while preparing toast? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article will be discussed here until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Re: Dirty Work (1998 film):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Nikkimaria,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Miami/archive1

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

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

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