User talk:Nikkimaria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arianda Sodi[edit]

I'm gonna be honest, I knew the source wasn't great when I cited it, so that's my bad. I'm more knowledgable with football, but wanted to try and edit some other stubs other than just football ones. Hope that clears that up. :) RossEvans18 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iran‎ +26,222‎ +8,552‎ +6,812‎ etc...[edit]

Not sure what can be done here.Article being overloded. Posted on their talk the other day about size but to no avail (reply) User talk:HereIAmNow1379. Moxy- 18:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - the post at article talk got a bit of traction but didn't last. Would be nice to get more eyes in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About Iran article again Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyrus-Gg1 Moxy🍁 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know - we'll see what the result is. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora McDonnell[edit]

Hello. I've noticed you removed the link to The Peerage on Flora McDonnell. I don't understand you reason given as "rm EL". Is there something wrong with the source? Thanks. Seaweed (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seaweed, yes - this website is deprecated per community discussion, which means that its reliability is considered to be highly questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: part of[edit]

Thanks for removing those. I never understood why people used them on those types of articles. It's not like it's some sort of military front... PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - definitely agree. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rechtman Surname list[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria - -you edited large portion of an entry on the Rechtman Surname. The issue, it appears is some formatting guidelines. Instead of editing out, can you tell me what the issue is or even better just fix it? Not sure what exactly is the issue here. your "rv" is not clear. So please fix or be explicit. Thank you. Rechtman (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rechtman, the issue is not formatting, but more fundamental: that section, and to a certain extent the article as a whole, represents interpretation of primary sources rather than a summary of secondary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. I have a question about the Elvis Presley article: for the cause of death section, I wonder if we should fix the potential {{blockquote}} format issue? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjones23, could you clarify what format issue you're referring to? The blockquote looks pretty standard on my display. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the paragraph regarding E. Eric Muirhead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still not sure what you're asking about. I see a blockquote attributed to Muirhead, but as I said it looks like a typical blockquote to me. Can you be more specific about what problem you're seeing or what you would want to see differently? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking if we should use the {{blockquote}} template or keep the HTML coding? Sorry for any confusion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thanks. I don't have any particular preference between the two, but if you'd like to change it I have no objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request for peer review[edit]

hi! i found you through the list of peer review volunteers, and i was wondering if you would have any broad suggestions for improving the book article (review request here). it's in a pretty bad state right now and i'm not personally deeply knowledgeable on books so i probably have large blind spots as to what's currently missing.

thanks, LarstonMarston (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of addition[edit]

Why did you remove my addition? SanDiegoCerberus (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SanDiegoCerberus, user-generated wikis like Fandom are not reliable sources. For additions like this you need secondary sourcing indicating the significance of the entry. Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any sources "confirming" its THE castle unfortunately, it just bears a resemblance. If its any better the twitter/X account for the castle tweeted about the resemblance. https://twitter.com/domainechambord/status/1177496895112929282 SanDiegoCerberus (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Rutherford - edits and options?[edit]

Thanks, I appreciated your detailed scrutiny of the additions to the entry for Frances Rutherford.

I understand that the information about her family history was removed because of an unreliable source (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rutherford-1050)  and too much detail about her relatives.  

Two important details are now missing:  that Rutherford was a descendant of early British settlers in New Zealand and the first cousin, once removed, of Ernest Rutherford, the nuclear physicist.  Her relationship with Ernest Rutherford was noted in the ‘early life’ section of the original entry which stated that she was a cousin.   I traced her family tree to verify and explain this relationship.

I would like to offer two options for adding this information and ask your advice about whether either would be acceptable.

Option 1:  adding information in a shortened form and different citations, under ‘early life and education’

Rutherford’s great grandparents were early British settlers in New Zealand.  Her great grandfather, George Rutherford emigrated from Scotland in 1843.  Her father,  William Rutherford was ‘the uncle of Lord Rutherford, the eminent scientist’ making Rutherford the first cousin, once removed of Ernest Rutherford, the nuclear physicist. https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/rutherford-sir-ernest and https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19350312.2.113

Option 2:  Putting the paragraph which explains her relationship with Ernest Rutherford in her Talk page. This was

Rutherford was a descendant of early British settlers in New Zealand and the first cousin, once removed, of Ernest Rutherford, the nuclear physicist.  Her great grandparents George Rutherford (1804-1876) and Mary Rutherford, nee Adie (1807-1877) arrived in Nelson in 1843, two years after New Zealand became a colony within the British Empire. They had three daughters and six sons including James Rutherford (abt. 1839-1928) and William James Rutherford (1848-1935).  James Rutherford was born in Dundee.  He married Martha Thompson (abt. 1842-1935) in 1866 and they had had twelve children, including Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937).  William James Rutherford was born in Nelson.  In 1874 he married Emma Louisa Kearns (1876-1963). They had four daughters and four sons, including Charles William Rutherford (1876-1963).  He was Frances Moran Rutherford’s father and Ernest Rutherford’s uncle. 

Thanks again for your help and I look forward to hearing your suggestions.

Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Occupational Therapy History Matters, Option 2 would be acceptable and would require no further discussion - if you'd like to do that go ahead. For option 1, I'd want to explore more why this detail requires inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. Option 2 is fine. When I promote Rutherford's entry, I will encourage people to refer to the Talk page. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin C FA review[edit]

I do not understand what "needs a US tag" means for the image of James Lind. Working on the other comments. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2024[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Source usage[edit]

Thanks for correcting me on my lacklustre source usage. I reopened the discussion of the section at Talk:Germany#total 17 million people were systematically murdered. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding excessive detail[edit]

In this exchange, the point I was trying to make is that the detail you removed was the only content preventing that section from sliding into full WP:UNDUE. You've removed the only critical analysis of LBJ's use of the Silver Star and left in a rather substantial character count of one POV. I agree that direct quotes aren't needed and that there are additional supporting secondary sources that can be added (e.g. this), but can you please explain how if reducing detail is the mission while still respecting the neuterality of the encyclopedia, you've left in extensive direct quotes from laudatory sources and removed any balancing content? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orange Suede Sofa, as I said, if you'd like to address reducing existing content, I have no objection; I just saw the excessively detailed addition appear on my watchlist. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not interested in mechanically reducing content, and I'm astonished how my thoughts above could possibly be interpreted that way. I'm more interested in ensuring that the existing content remains balanced, and this response indicates to me that no substantial thought has been given to the impact of this content on the article. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO its impact is not positive regardless of what else is there. If there is a balance problem with the existing content, then the existing content should be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So, when balancing content is added, then we should just mindlessly remove it without any awareness of the subject matter and let other editors clean up after ourselves, including reverting editors that actually are familiar with the content. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's very much not what I said. If the existing content is hagiographic as you suggest, simply throwing in some negative commentary doesn't fix that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mindlessly removing new content doesn't fix existing balance issues. If you have a thoughtful explanation of why that content needed to be removed in the pursuit of addressing excessive length and detail, I'd love to hear it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That particular addition would have been excessive if the article were half its current length or if the section were overwhelmingly negative. Neither adding new content nor removing those additions addresses the existing content and its flaws. I've taken a stab at doing the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look, and I want to make sure that my concern is heard. The existing content was not overwhelmingly negative, but overwhelmingly positive. This is the root of my concern; not only did you remove content without substantial analysis, but you reverted an editor who gave a meaningful justification for keeping the content. I've interacted with you before and I'm confident that you respect WP:N, and all I want to do is to ensure that our edits to the article are carefully made with regard to all pillars of our encyclopedia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the perspective you've put forward, but it sounds like we have the same goal, so hopefully the new version addresses that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Cecilia Strzyzowksi[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm always made a bit nervous about edits that are said to deal with Earwig numbers (in this case to shut Earwig up), and the more so when the edit that did so, as best I can see, didn't really make the sort of significant rewording that would deal with close paraphrasing. Can I ask you to please take a look at this approved nomination to see whether there are, in your opinion, close paraphrasing issues? Thank you for whatever you can do; I realize this is a long article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, that article's sources are almost entirely Spanish, which I unfortunately do not speak, so I'm going to be of very limited help there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look, Nikkimaria. Sorry I didn't notice that this was Spanish-language heavy. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of external link[edit]

Hello, I think your edit summary "rm EL" means remove external link? But I am not sure why because our Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources seems to allow the link for this purpose. I will not add the link again, but I am hoping to learn more about why the link is not allowed. Bruxton (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct - could you elaborate on why you think should be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually include that site if there is a headstone pictured in the link. Bruxton (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? And particularly, why for this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the photograph was the missing child. But if it is not allowed for that purpose I understand. I may have misunderstood Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Bruxton (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Turkish baths changes[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your interest and suggestion alterations, some of which I disagree with, and some I am grateful for.

1. Removal of totally: absolutely. It's tautological and unnecessary.

2. Thank you for your substitution, which I am happy with pro tem; the sourcing was clumsy and lazy. However I shall in due course replace "Although many British bathers prefer bathing in the Turkish bath without costumes, or just loosely covered with a towel" when I have sourced it better; I am replacing "[N]udity became rare after many local authorities outsourced the operation of their baths" as this is a simple observable statement. I will neverthe less add sources when I get back to my database.

3. Again I am happy with your removal of footnote 14. I tried to get it again this morning and it led only to their main page. It was, in any case a bad source mentioning 'financial' reasons which locals know (probably from the council minutes) referred to the extra staff requirements. But it is also widely known that they tried not to give this as a reason, instead citing "inappropriate behavior" among male bathers (indicative of poor staff training) and, the latest, "striving for inclusivity" (which is strongly contested). No mention was made of the gaoling of a masseur for inappropriate behaviour! I will, however, probably replace this when I have found my original list of possible sources.

Thank you for your help in improving this revised page. Ishpoloni (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I've further trimmed the item on nudity in the VTb after consulting some senior people in BN. Although there is a general belief that this is the case, they agree with you that there is no hard evidence. Thanks again for drawing this to my attention and for your interest. Ishpoloni (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issei Sagawa[edit]

Hi, why you remove Sagawa's height, nationality, cause of death and relative Alon Alush (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alon Alush, according to the template documentation, height should be included only "If person was notable for their height, or if height is relevant", cause of death only "when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability", and relatives only "if independently notable and particularly relevant"; none of those criteria are met. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Sagawa's height is very relevant in this context, he was a very short man, and cannibalized because he felt short and weak, to "absorb someone else's energy" according to his own words. I believe that his height is very relevant to the topic. Alon Alush (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it makes sense to include his relatives in the infobox, his father, Akira Sagawa, was the owner of "Kurita Water Industries", and was a very rich man. He played an important role in the release of Sagawa, paying a settlement to one of his previous victims to get Sagawa's charges dropped. Alon Alush (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being rich doesn't make someone notable - any sourcing to support that that's the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikEd[edit]

This diff suggests that you are using WikEd (zillions of buttons in the toolbar) and got bit by one of its bugs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, yep - would you happen to know a fix? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there's nothing you can do about it. The maintainer is largely inactive, and was told about this years ago, so I don't realistically expect it to get fixed. It seems to be a kind of WP:GENFIX thing ("It's not a bug; it's a feature!") that might be better handled as a namespace-sensitive action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Italy[edit]

Hi, do you have time in the next few days to finish fixing the article Cinema of Italy in order to remove the tags at the beginning of the article? Greetings. --LukeWiller (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Unlikely. You had mentioned asking another editor - any luck there? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't ask any other user. Why do you ask ? To finish fixing the article I ask him why you don't have time? --LukeWiller (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, sorry for the idiotic question I asked you, now I understand what you meant. I had a better idea: try reading here. Regards. --LukeWiller (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

FAC and images at Vegas Golden Knights[edit]

Howdy,

After promoting the Vegas Golden Knights article to GA, I'm hoping to eventually get it to FAC (though I'm not in a hurry to do so). As part of this, I nominated it for peer review, which @Matarisvan is currently working on. As part of the review's initial comments, they noted that the logo and jersey images in the infobox could possibly be an issue for FAC, and directed me to ask you for advice. Neither are CC-licensed, but both have credible non-free-use rationale. The Kip 04:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Kip, a couple of thoughts on that. First off, as a general rule, the more non-free content you want to include, the stronger the rationale is needed for each for them to be justified. For example, I see you have two non-free logos with essentially the same rationale - I'd want to see reasoning why both are needed / one is not sufficient. The other thing to consider is to make sure the rationale covers all of the criteria. For example, the uniform image just gives the uploader as the source, which falls short of the recommendations around 10a. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the uniform source with credit to the Golden Knights, and two references (respectively for the grey/white and gold uniforms) to back up the credit. As for the rationale - could you elaborate further? I'm not quite sure if I understand. The Kip 05:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good non-free rationale should clearly identify why the image is necessary. If you have two images with basically the same rationale, it naturally raises the question of why you need two images to do the same thing - to include both, there needs to be a clearly expressed reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how they have an identical rationale, though - the uniform states
To denote the uniform of the team. The uniform is described in detail in the article and is a visual identifier of the team equal to (and in some sports more important than) the logo. It is standard to display uniforms of a sports team in the infobox.
while the logo states
The image is used to identify the brand Vegas Golden Knights, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey.
The logo's rationale denotes that it represents the brand, while the uniforms' rationale denotes that it is as if not more important to the brand than the logo. The Kip 07:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the uniform, the two logos. First one:
The image is used to identify the brand Vegas Golden Knights, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey.
Second one:
The image is used to identify the brand Vegas Golden Knights, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey.
Those are word-for-word identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad - I'd forgotten the alternate logo was in there. I'll try to revise the descriptions. The Kip 09:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the descriptions to denote why both the primary and secondary are important to include - please review whenever you've got a moment. The Kip 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better. I do question whether we want the "assure the readers that they have reached the right article" verbiage in the secondary logo rationale given that this isn't the one positioned where readers will see it on arriving at the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove it, just had it included as the default non-free rationale language. The Kip 03:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

A.D.Hope (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red March 2024[edit]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301


Online events:

Announcements

Tip of the month:

  • When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
    and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is A number of small but frequent deletions take place.. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a formality; nothing serious. Sorry I pinged you earlier too. Somehow, mentioning without pinging seemed worse. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping them out, Usedtobecool :) . Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggles[edit]

Hi, Nikki

I noticed that you removed the reference from the wiggles in "Baa Baa Black Sheep". I was just doing what MichaelMaggs told me. I have to put a reliable resource there. Niveithika1999 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niveithika1999, user-generated sources like Fandom wikis are not reliable sources. If you want to include this mention, you'll need secondary sourcing that demonstrates its significance to the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Niveithika1999 (talk) 23:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February music[edit]

story · music · places

My story today celebrates a woman's birthday. She sat right in front of me when I took the picture at a lovely concert, celebrating her son's 60th. I thought she was 90 today, - no, 91 already. You can listen, starting at the piece he dedicated to her, Op. 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hey Nikki.

I have a question. Is it possible to move my things on my new account? Such as Files I uploaded on commons, my user pages, etc. Dr.Ayzkao! 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ayzkao, I'm not sure I understand your question - could you clarify, maybe with a specific example of what you're hoping to move? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is everything. Files I uploaded, and much more I can't explain to you, lel. Dr.Ayzkao! 03:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a process for moving files at Commons according to uploader request, outlined here. On this wiki, you can generally move things around within your userspace; however, if you're looking to change your username it would probably make your life easier to rename your account. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright query[edit]

Hi Nikki - hoping I can get your wisdom on a(nother) copyright question.

Concerning maps, archaeological diagrams and so on: I understand that simply copying a chart or plan made by another person would be a derivative work, and so not permitted unless that diagram was itself in the public domain. However, how does this sit versus the idea that bare facts -- such as, for example, the location of a wall -- cannot be copyrighted?

In this specific case, if I've got a published site plan like this guy, which itself is described at great length in the accompanying text, how much room is there for me to make a plan of the same site without falling foul of copyright, and is there any way I can help ensure that the resulting diagram ends up on the right side of all the necessary rules? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, the key would be to avoid incorporating any original element from the published diagram - if you can forget you saw it entirely and create your own based only on the text, that would be ideal. (Alternatively, is the chart old enough to be PD?). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki -- no, the charts aren't old enough, sadly (the site was excavated in 1939), but at the same time it seems ridiculous for there to be no way to map the site just because someone else has already made a map. Normally, you could just trace it from Google Maps, but there's a roof over the building. I assume the key word there is original: that is, if the two diagrams coincide simply because they describe the same physical thing, that's fine, but any reconstruction, symbology etc is considered a creative act which has copyright protection? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically any choice that could be considered original to the chart creator rather than inherent to the facts underlying it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting that another way: any choice that a chart creator could reasonably not make? Thanks, Nikki -- this is helpful. I'll give it a go: do you mind if I run what I come up with past you? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Beethoven with the Manuscript of the Missa Solemnis[edit]

On 4 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beethoven with the Manuscript of the Missa Solemnis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Stieler's portrait of Beethoven (pictured), the composer's arms "are not convincingly attached to his shoulders"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beethoven (Stieler). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beethoven with the Manuscript of the Missa Solemnis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great hook! Made me laugh out loud. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
story · music · places
I came to say the same, and that it is also featured on Portal:Germany. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), at least the first day, - and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing Canadian peacekeeping for GA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listen to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message to Nikkimaria[edit]

For some reason, I was particularly tickled by your DYK running today. Thanks for being one of many inspirations in my pursuing excellent work on here. Remsense诉 10:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 61[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

  • Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
  • 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Great job your doing at Iran. Keep up the great work. 😀 Moxy🍁 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - will get there eventually ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take immediate action on Iran's religion numbers on the infobox[edit]

Hello. Unfortunately, there are users who are trying to destroy some sensitive information on Iran. I know that this discussion already exists in the Iran's talk page, but I want you to personally take action on the situation since you are paying close attention to the page. Religion numbers on the infobox has been fully destroyed by some newly-created accounts in an intend to change the facts with unreliable sources (using an anti-Iranian/opposition website as their source...) and reject the country's official general census, which was on the infobox for literally years. Please remove the religious section from Infobox once and for all, *and do something that no one revert it this easily with false info*. Most country pages do not even have religion numbers on the infobox for this exact reason: to avoid such discussions in the talk page, and since the Iran's talk page is on fire with tons of people wanting this to change, please do something fast. This is a massive problem on Iran's page and it needs to get resolved immediately. Farnaj57 (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it per the talk page, but unfortunately I don't have the ability to guarantee no one will revert it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2024[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Free access/doc[edit]

Template:Free access/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

Wondering if your interested in small review Talk:Canadian peacekeeping Moxy🍁 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can take a look in a day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Richardson Bass[edit]

Hi Nikki. I made a few edits to my cousin's, Perry Bass, page to add the names of his parents and to add info regarding our family history and roots in Texas through Benjamin Roland Bass and Susan Green Bass. I added it in support to a quote from Perry's grandson in which he made reference to his family's multi-generational history in Texas. I therefore added the information regarding our common relatives (Ben and Susan Bass) who migrated from Tennessee to Texas in about 1855. As support, I included links to the 1850 census showing them in Tennessee, and also a link to the 1860 census showing them in Texas (which also noted that they had a child born about 5 years earlier who was born in Texas, thereby establishing the time frame of about 1855 . . . I have some property records as well since my grandmother inherited part of the land they originally acquired, but that would be a bit more tedious to run down). I also included information about the family's linkage back to early 17th century Virginia and the Nansemond Nation. With respect to this latter part, I can see why that would be removed for lack of reliability. I don't even know where I would start in adding all of the documentation around that, so probably not worth trying. I am confused, however, regarding what additional information you would be looking for to support the information regarding Ben and Susan Bass. I included links to their "Findagrave" locations, which if you click through their child Porter Bass, to his son, Dr. E. Perry Bass, it will take you to Perry Richardson Bass. I figured that would be sufficient, but I am knew to making edits in Wikipedia so I may be missing something. It is possible that I am looking at things with a less skeptical eye since I personally know, and am part of, that shared portion of family history. Thanks for any insights. Ksquared73 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ksquared73, an important thing to be aware of is that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. This means that unpublished sources, like family recollections, cannot be included at all, and user-generated sources like Findagrave are not considered reliable. It also means that there are significant limitations on how primary sources can be used - they have to be reputably published and they can't be combined or interpreted in any way. The practical effect of all of that is that (outside of people like royals whose genealogy is a subject of significant study) it can be very difficult to appropriately source extended family linkages. This is part of the reason why genealogical entries appear on the list of things that Wikipedia is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent summary. I very much appreciate it. There are actually some other references that exist on this (newspaper articles, and at least one book that I know of), so I will try to dig them up. Thanks again! 2600:1006:B1A1:3B7:5CB1:EC04:89B4:4A39 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Thank you for your edits to Ulysses S. Grant. Your approach to reducing the size of the article, trimming one sentence or paragraph at a time, and with only the most minor sacrifice of actual sourced material, is one that I had not had any confidence in, but your results have been impressive. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation removed[edit]

Hello there.

I noticed that you removed a citation that I added on the 'Parachute regiment in media' page. it was about cars 2. I felt that the citation from the cars wiki was reliable, but if you think it wasn't that alright, but I'd just like an explanation for future reference when I'm adding citations.

All the best,

Sgtnugg Sgtnugg (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sgtnugg, I'd suggest having a look at this page, which details the level of reliability of various commonly encountered sites. As you'll see there, the wiki you cited is generally considered unreliable since it is user-generated. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you Sgtnugg (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Gadaski[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I noticed that you deleted the death section of George Gadaski. Understand that you deleted the link because of an uncertain refernce. In the future use other links such as the artilce published from SlamWrestling instead of deleting everything.

Thank you,

Kingzwest Kingzwest (talk) 23:39 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greenback.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging pages for speedy deletion[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria,

When tagging pages for speedy deletion (or PROD or AFD), it really helps if you make use of Twinkle. It's an editing tool that makes so many different tasks so easy. It basically knows all of the useful templates so you don't have to memorize them or go look for the correct one. It allows you to tag articles for problems, welcome new editors, report vandals to noticeboards, set up AFD discussion, it even maintains logs for you. Best of all, if you set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", it will post a notice on a page creator's talk page, letting them know what is going on.

The reason I bring it up is that you tagged an article as a CSD G5 and when you tag that with Twinkle, it provides a field where you put the name of the sockmaster. That way, when a patrolling admin reviews the article, they can easily see who the sockmaster is and go look at the relevant SPI. Also, if an article is deleted, it will have the name of the sockmaster in the deletion summary at the top of the page. I encourage you to try out Twinkle if you haven't used it or tried it but didn't stick with it. I use it to do almost all of my administrator tasks and it's made the job much easier. Give it a shot! Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will look, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of source[edit]

What is "non-MS"? Braintic (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Braintic, "non-RS" is in reference to citations that are not to reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please suggest what I am to do about sources from this long ago. On the one hand, someone else is telling me that every entry needs a source. On the other, there are very few online obituary sources from back in the 80s, and any newspaper articles are typically hidden behind a paywall. And now I am being told that I can't use the only source I could find. All of these entries are connected to a Wikipedia page, and most of them also don't have sources for deaths. Please indicate what the "right" thing to do is when faced with this dilemma. Braintic (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Braintic, if you are not able to identify a source for a claim, you should omit it. Links to Wikipedia articles aren't substitutes for sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the 1990 deaths, which I am not responsible for compiling, and 42% of deaths there are unsourced. For 2000 it is 37%. Are you saying that I am within my rights to delete all those death entries?
Even in 2010, which is mostly sourced many of the links are to memorabilia pages or player profiles on sporting sites, many news articles state "died Friday" or "died over Christmas" and many are to blog sites.
And I am not sure why you regard the Find a Grave site to not be reliable. It is owned by Ancestry.com, which is just about the most reputable genealogy site and has been around for almost 30 years. It is certainly infinitely more reliable than all of those sources I mentioned from 2010. Braintic (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest having a look at this page, which outlines several commonly used sources and links to discussions regarding them. If there are sources that are not on this list that you think are questionable, I'd encourage you to open a discussion at WP:RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of inline external link?[edit]

I apologise if I'm not following the correct procedure for addressing my query regarding a recent edit (removal of external link). This is my first time using Wikipedia's 'User talk' feature.

The specific page in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydenham,_London

I contributed a whole paragraph and photograph to enhance the description of an area I have personal knowledge about. There's one notable residential street in the London suburbs with a particularly unique layout, which I recently extensively created as a One Place Study (OPS) on WikiTree. I chose this platform because it allows for direct linkage from property census information to new or existing family trees – essentially, it answers the question of 'who lived where and when.' Its focus and remit is different from Wikipedia's, as it primarily deals with ordinary people in the context of social history, rather than those who have achieved a certain degree of fame or notability that might be approached from a less obscure perspective.

In my opinion, someone reading about this area on Wikipedia might find the content of the WikiTree OPS intriguing, and I created what I believed was a responsible link to this resource.

I fully comprehend the importance of monitoring content on Wikipedia to maintain its ongoing significance as a repository of knowledge. I also acknowledge that external links should not be utilised to promote commercial enterprises or favour information vendors of a dubious nature. Earlier on the same Wikipedia page, there is a link to a major UK retailer, which, in my view, falls into a grey area.

If I have misconstrued the rules regarding the use of external links, I would greatly appreciate an explanation of my mistake. Conversely, if I've made a compelling case for the inclusion of the link, could it please be reinstated? Shoepepper (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shoepepper, our External Links guideline indicates that external links should not be included within the article body, regardless of the content of those links. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I learnt something very useful, clarifying a basic function that I totally misunderstood. Shoepepper (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted tag in Quantum mechanics[edit]

Hi. I reverted your claim that the article needs more references. Since there are 80 refs it's not a generic problem with the article.

Please add citation needed tags to sentences or better open a Talk page topic and explain. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Just a courtesy note to let you know you have been mentioned in this thread. It does not concern any actions you have made, but rather the insulting language used about you by another editor. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Thanks for dealing with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey FAR reopened.[edit]

Hello. I have reopened the FAR for Mariah Carey. Please take time to re-review the article if it still meets the FA criteria. Thanks. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 23:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Laurel[edit]

Hello.

My usual thought, in common with those many who think it but who don't speak it, is Oh dear ! The truth is to be found by third-parties, within the shared exchanges. It's eternal, and survives denial .

I suppose it could be added that it manifestly shows though Content creation and reviewing ..., though it may be thought to be an Editor's First love , isn't, in practice, their very ' First ' love . That particular Love may be deduced, (as it can be in all men), by observing what or whom they serve.

However, thank you, anyway. Heath St John (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider curation to be an essential part of content creation and reviewing. If you disagree with the particular change which prompted this post, I'd suggest you take it to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image question[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope you're keeping well. Can I check on an image that's just been put into an FA? The change can be seen here. The current version is a cropped copy of the previous version, but whereas the previous version is still under copyright in the UK, the new version is claimed to be free of copyright by virtue of being published in the US. It seems odd that it's still under copyright here, but isn't elsewhere, so I thought I'd best check.

The current version is poorer quality and doesn't show as much as the original version, so I'd prefer the older one back, but I'm not sure I'd be allowed if there is a free replacement. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, the new version is credited to the AP, which makes things a bit more complicated than that tagging would suggest - per Library of Congress "works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office". From what I've seen Commons has typically deleted such images under the precautionary principle citing that LOC guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria - much appreciated, as always. I'll tag it at Commons and see what they have to say on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red April 2024[edit]

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304


Online events:

Announcements

  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Reverting addition of country code for Canada[edit]

May I inquire the reason for reverting addition of country code for Canada in this change: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&oldid=1216200569


You have specified "Not needed" as a reason for change, however:

1) Almost all articles on counteies have this infobox field filled out.

2) The country codes are standardized under ISO 3166 standard and are acceped as "needed" worldwide.

3) The country infobox template has a field for the country code, so clearly the template creators were not thinking that it is "not needed".

4) There is no wiki policy which states that the countey code is "not needed", if you can point to such policy, I will gladly rest my case.

Please reconsider.



lea reconsider.se Nyq (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page jaguar)
  1. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—these things can vary between articles to a degree, depending on local consensus and the needs for each.
  2. Not really what was meant
  3. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, redux.
  4. WP:INFOBOX, provided consensus decides the code is not key to the particular article.
Seems like something for Talk:Canada, not this user talk page. Remsense诉 23:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rversions and clarity[edit]

Hey there, as a relatively new editor it is quite often hard to spot the reasoning behind reversions you make. Not that I fault you for trying to save time, but a reference to some kind of policy, or an essay in absence of official policy, would help not only the people you're correcting, but also those trying to understand what is being fought over. Like MOS:Images.

Writing because I saw 'causes layout issues' multiple times now (most recently at Germany) and have no idea at all what you meant in any of those cases. Especially because the relevant diffs seemed fine on PC. JackTheSecond (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - see the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 at Milena Harito[edit]

I WP:BOLDly removed this because I believe there has been edits by editors over 6 years. Maybe an AfD is the best route? TLAtlak 04:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2024[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Kristin Chenoweth[edit]

Various suggestions for changing the Lead and adding headings have been made on the Talk page (changes were initially made in the article, which I reverted pending discussion). There are some areas where I have suggested compromises, but the proponent and I disagree about most of the changes, and I think we have each set forth our arguments thoroughly. I would value your review and comment on the Talk page. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Rules To Improve Uniformity[edit]

Thanks for helping me to be a better Wikipedia editor. When you deleted the summary of Notable people for University of Pennsylvania from lede/lead ("Lede") even though the other 7 Ivy League schools and peer institutions such as Stanford, Duke, UChicago etc. (collectively, "Ivies + Peers)" were not deleted. I wrote to you to ask you to please identify which Wikipedia rules ("WikiRules") require such. I also wrote in my heading that if I was shown such WikiRules I would help you delete the Ledes for all Ivies + Peers. I did not (as you requested that I) ask the question in your Talk page and apologize for not following your request as you have a lot more experience (over 50 times more experience) than me. Per your 2nd request, I am now writing this in Talk section. Please reply with WikiRules requiring deletion of Summary of Notable people in Lede and, if I agree, I will help you delete Ledes in all similar Summaries of Notable people in Ledes for all Ivies + Peers. I will reference reason for deletion being you, Nikkimaria, and WikiRules you cite (which you educated me about). Thanks for helping me to be a better Wikipedia editor. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The specific "WikiRule" at issue is WP:LEAD: the lead section is meant to provide a neutral, balanced, high-level overview of an article's contents. What you're proposing is to take up a quarter of the lead with notable alumni (a balance issue), including calling out specific individuals (which isn't suited to a high-level overview). Also, be aware that just because other articles do something, that doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quite reply. I
read rule you cited and it is not black and white rule to delete what you deleted. It does say to limit to 3 or 4 paragraphs, which has been done.
That being said,
I will not revert Penn's lede if Ledes of all other peer schools have same rule applied. I understand that it violates Wikipedia rules to not apply rules uniformly. Please delete Lede language you deleted at Penn from the other Ivy and peer schools. If not so deleted in next month or so I am likely to revert and put back Penn info you deleted.
Leie of all other peer schools have same rule appli It violates other Wikipedia rules to not uniformity apply rules.ed. OneMoreByte (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence in my reply was a mistake and should have been deleted OneMoreByte (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what rule you think is being violated? While of course all articles should be written as well as they possibly can be, the reality is that many are in need of improvement, and there is no deadline to getting that done; the fact that other articles may need work is not a reason to undo work done here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for engaging in the dialogue. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i submitted a long reply that did not show up. I used visual rather than source . Is there a limit to length of my Talk reply? OneMoreByte (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of, but I don't use Visual Editor - you could try asking at the Help Desk where editors may be more familiar with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well visual edit to my reply showed up. I must have inadvertently deleted. I will rewrite next time I have time.
In short, you are honoring my request to delete all summary of accomplishments of notable people from rest of Ivy League and already deleted such summaries from Brown and Columbia. If no cogent arguments to persuade you and the Wiki to stop you deleting the remaining 5 Ivies, then you have proved your point and the Wiki has spoken! In such case
will
ll NOT revert. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
last sentence should read.
"In such case, I will not revert! OneMoreByte (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y
You cited SOM that you thought supported that all 8 Ivies should have portion of their Ledes that summarize Ivy alumni and faculty and trustees be deleted.
ummary of accomplishments of notable people from rest of Ivy League and already deleted such summaries from Brown and Columbia. If no cogent arguments to persuade you and the Wiki to stop you deleting the remaining 5 Ivies, then you have proved your point and the Wiki has spoken! In such case
revert. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
last sentence should read.
"In such case, I will not revert! OneMoreByte (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
i agree with Elkevbo's  reversion and welcome you and Elkevbo to figure out whether all 8 Ivies should be treated uniformly about issue they share and makes them successful
.
PreferencesShare feedback about this feature OneMoreByte (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the Mozart article[edit]

Hello, I see that you have reverted a great deal of the work that I did on the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article (work which was the result of a serious application of my time and effort). The instructions seemed to say that the material in the infobox was the material that required discussion before edits were to be applied. On the article's Talk page, I have provided a brief explanation of my reasoning, for some of the changes I made to the article, if that would serve any purpose relative to your intent. The edits I made to the article were all syntactical, I did not add or remove any facts, nor did I change the structure of the work that was already present. If you know the process by which I must have my edits considered for application to the Mozart article, then please share that information with me. If you do not know, then if you can instruct me regarding how I might accomplish that goal, then you would be doing me a great service. Thank you. —catsmoke talk 05:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catsmoke, I'll address the substance of your edits on the talk page so others can weigh in, but regarding process, there is a hidden comment in the article specifically regarding the lead: "Please do not edit this lead section without discussing first on talk page—it's the result of a consensus that involved some work to reach." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source correction[edit]

I appreciate the source correction of oriel high school. But given that the source is reliable as the local newspaper for the area i would appreciate if it were returned 2A02:C7C:7D8B:4900:1E3:9506:726D:23A9 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, that source has been deprecated by the community, so we're not able to use it for sourcing content like this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Manitoba[edit]

Hi, I think the pronunciation is not necessary. See MOS:PRON. WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WizardGamer775, I've read it, and I disagree - the average non-Canadian reader would benefit from having a pronunciation included. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that non-Canadian readers should know the pronunciation. For places like Saskatchewan, I think the pronunciation should be included. But for Manitoba, Alberta, etc. I think the pronunciation can be inferred. It’s not an unusual word. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alberta is derived from English; Manitoba is derived from an Indigenous language. And while it would be nice to think that the pronunciation should be obvious, I can say from listening to people butcher it that it is not. No harm in clarifying. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll go and restore it. I see your point of view and I agree now. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. In regards to this, there is a 20th-century male category as well. See Category:21st-century professional wrestlers also, which is basically empty beside the male and females cats. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiOriginal-9, the same rationale would apply for that category - gendered categories are generally non-diffusing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it doesn't really look like anything in Category:21st-century people by occupation is non-diffusing. They're not tagged as non-diffusing either. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some are - I just clicked a few at random and found that Category:21st-century businesswomen, Category:21st-century male musicians, and Category:21st-century women scientists are all tagged as non-diffusing. (Some of the others have no gendered subcats at all). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the non-gendered parent categories for those three are empty though. I don't mind either way. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for London, Ontario[edit]

London, Ontario has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  750h+ | Talk  08:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox country status[edit]

I see a parameter I've not seen used before being used now as seen here or here. I don't think it's a new parameter but have we talked about this before? This seems like a can of worms we should avoid in infoboxs. This seems like prep work not to call countries a country by way of recognition of one organization. Moxy🍁 00:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall a specific discussion about it but it's definitely not intended for identifying organizational recognition - it's more for flagging things like dependencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: and @Mzajac:..... Ping a few others.... What do yous think? Should we simply nip this in the butt..... Are you thinking requires a long conversation?Moxy🍁 00:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't any other edits along those lines - have you? If it's just one confused user I don't think it warrants going into detail, but I might be missing something. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen it used before.... this parameter have something to do with the RFC about microztates that recently took place? Moxy🍁 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it existed before that, and the outcome there doesn't use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it could be a pain, but maybe it's worth brainstorming another name for the parameter. "status" seems designed for ambiguity. Remsense诉 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable..... Wonder if it should be cuddled altogether. Would love to do a large review and remove a whole bunch of these parameters.... like driving side. Moxy🍁 00:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usage I've seen has been to identify status for non-sovereign entities, like Gibraltar. It doesn't make sense for states, and even for partially recognised states the |sovereignty_type field is used. How can we remove driving side when we still have | patron_saint and | patron_saints? CMD (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're looking at a broader cleanup I'd nominate |antipodes=. Looks like saints are in the parameter check but not actually part of the template display? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria&oldid=1219481672"