User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 10

Hi, Nikki. I'm sorry, but what does it exactly means "Check grammar of EN A". Whats the "EN A"? --Lecen (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've answered your remarks in the FAC page. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria

My seminar sections are meeting today for the first time and I shall be introducing them to some of the basics of Wikipedia and our assignments, etc. I look forward to providing them with your information as well. I am new to this, so it is a learning curve for me as well. Thank you so much for volunteering to help us and be our online ambassador.

SiobhanStevenson (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Siobhan Stevenson[reply]

No problem! Feel free to ask me any questions you may have, and invite your students to do the same. I look forward to working with your class! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive3.
Message added 14:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the style is consistent throughout an article, is wiki-linking necessary for author, location, publisher, or work parameters in a reference?

It's not required. Some say it should be done, particularly for important authors and works in certain fields, but so long as you're consistent you've met the reqs for something like FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm thinking about nominating

« ₣M₣ » 23:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding color, hows this? [1] I'm using the official color names. Since matte is part of the name, I never linked it until the article talks about hardware. What do you think?

« ₣M₣ » 04:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure...it's definitely clearer where the words are coming from, but reads a bit awkwardly. I would definitely say to emphasize the "color called..." on first appearance only. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI hi, I am Trish Fancher, and you are assigned as the online ambassador for a Freshman Composition course I teach. I'm very happy to meet you! I'm certain that I'll need your assistance at different points this semester. I have copy edited WP occasionally, but have never spent much time adding content. The students have never edited wikipedia, and many are not super comfortable learning new technologies. I'm sure we'll all get the hang of it before to long. But while we get our 'wikipedia legs' I'm going to encourage the students to call on you frequently.

Just so you have an idea of the game plan. In total, the class includes 38 Freshman students. They are allowed to choose any topic, but I have to approve of the topic first. I will be introducing the project tomorrow morning. My goal is to have all the students create a user page, talk page, sandbox, and make 5 edits before the end of class. I am also going to have them add their user names to the course page. I would also like each of them to send you a short message to say 'hi' in this section.

Please let me know if you have any questions at all. You may also email me if you like at [email protected]. Thanks again for helping us out!

Here is my course page Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Accelerated_Composition_(Patricia_Fancher)

Pfancher (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It's nice to meet you, and I'm looking forward to working with your class. Please feel free to ask if you run into any difficulties or have questions, and I'm sure your students will do the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI nice to meet you. Lionel555 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis a pleasure to to meet your acquaintance. Krondorx (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Nice to meet you and I will thank you in advance for helping us! Galatians (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Hi, Nikkimaria Just saying Hi and thanks for helping us Plannan (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC) hey 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.255.224 (talk) Cippy12 (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikkimaria! Nice to meet you :) S.brad.18 (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what lovely weather we are having Mab546 (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It is very nice to meet you! Tigerears27 (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for offering your help with kicking off our Wikipedia project.Ggisawesome (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody, and welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hi, I'm from Trish's 9:30 class. Surrey3601 (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is nice to meet you! Lflemin (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC) ````Hi Nikkimaria thanks for agreeing to help us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipity23411 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm going to need your help!Clemsonwikier (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Serendipity23411 (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Hi its nice to meet you, thanks for agreeing to help us![reply]

Hello! Thanks for agreeing to help us. DD-ENGL103-41 (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for helping our class out!!!WGENGLISH (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI! Thanks for helping us, i know I'll definitely need some! Riffraff520 (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. OneThousandTwentyFour (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for helping us with the project! Pdyoung (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pbjellytime17 (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Looking forward to telling Mom that I edit Wikipedia pages. :)[reply]

yo. thanks for helping us! Zizou12 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind revisiting WP:Featured article candidates/Ecology/archive1? Ucucha (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have done everything currently on the review page, can you give me an update please? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I'd like to add a separate sources section to Hugo Award, and I was hoping you could give me some feedback on best practices, since I know you look at a lot of sources sections. I have a draft here, and one thing that bothers me is that there are a lot of different citations to what is essentially the same site -- hugoawards.com. What would be a sensible way to condense this to a single line in the sources, while still saving space in the footnotes themselves?

I haven't seen webcitation.org before, and it looks useful; but if I condense those lines to a single one in sources, I assume the webcitation pieces would go into the footnotes, and the sources list would not need them -- correct?

Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there, though for some reason my reply is not appearing in read mode? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a ref tag left in; I've fixed it and cleaned up the resulting mess. Two more quick questions: is the Publishers' Weekly source listing OK the way I have it there? And have you checked the sources for reliability? If not I'll ask Ealdgyth to look, as she knows something about sf; I wonder about timill.co.uk, for example -- Tim Illingworth is an old acquaintance of mine, and personally I suspect his transcriptions are very accurate, but I don't know that that meets the definition of a reliable source. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the first question, no to the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
[email protected]

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure. Will these questions be posed on- or off-wiki? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks. I will ask post the questions at the bottom of this page. You can answer on your user talk page, or on mine, or you can send your answers to my personal email -- whatever is most suitable for you. Thank-you again : )

Yes, I have been contacted. I still contend that their are multiple questionable sources in the article which have never been directly addressed. They have been pushed aside (those that remain) as notable = reliable and that most are used in reception, so what does it matter? This is in spite being brought up by not only myself, but others who came by. I've posted a list at the bottom of the section of which ones I feel still need addressing.陣内_Jinnai 22:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I would recommend copying that list to the FARC section, right under my query. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You gave some feedback a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Wong Kim Ark/archive1, and I was wondering if you would be willing to take another look now at the article (and the still-open FAC discussion) and let people know if you have any additional thoughts, or if you are prepared to say that the article is (or is not) ready for promotion. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two points. However, I don't usually support based only on a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...at

"an" is more correct, but both are in common usage around here so it shouldn't matter too much Looking at the lead: in terms of strict number-of-paragraphs you're on the right track, but the first two paragraphs are quite long. If all of the information you've included is such that you feel should remain in the lead, you might consider reformulating it to be 4 paragraphs long. I would also recommend finding a copy-editor to give it a quick going-over. You also might consider removing some of the citations, given that you have a number of consecutive citations to the same source - so instead of "Sentence A.[1] Sentence B.[1] Sentence C.[1]" you would have "A. B. C.[1]". For referencing: I don't usually review at FLC, so you won't be having one of my source reviews there, but on a quick look there are some formatting problems (ex. FN 28) and some inconsistencies in how citations are presented, which I can elaborate on if you need. In terms of reliability, though, mostly okay, although I'd avoid using Braxton's own site as a source where possible - it's reliable, but it's not independent. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thank you so much for your comments Nikki. Yes, please. Can you point out the inconsistencies? I've fixed ref #28.

talk) 05:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Consecutive footnotes should appear in numerical order - ex. [2][3][4] instead of [3][4][2]
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines, and if so how these are notated
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• Be consistent in whether newspaper publishers appear in parentheses or not
• FN 26, 31: formatting
• FN 74: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks Nikki! I'll start fixing the issues soon.

talk) 04:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I've fixed them. I've also moved the draft to

talk) 06:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Better. However, a) wikilinking is still inconsistent. For example, you wikilink Australian Recording Industry Association in both FNs 20, and 25, but only link The Official Charts Company on first occurrence b) you have Billboard's publisher in parentheses in FNs 86-87, whereas it had previously appear without c) you include a language for FNs 92 and 98 even though neither is a foreign-language source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. As for the BB links, 86-87 are formatted using cite journal (as the magazine is available online through GBooks). Will take a closer look at the refs soon. Thanks Nikki.

talk) 06:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Nikkimaria, just made my first edits ever. I enjoyed making them to better the content and knowledge of Nikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mab546 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Selin Lee, a student for the course SMC315H1F (The Newspaper in Canadian Society) at the University of Toronto. You're our online ambassador for the course, and I'm apparently the first one to leave a message! Hopefully I did everything right! Nice to meet you! -- Selin Lee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for helping our class out as we enter the unfamiliar environment of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srhanle18 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm a student at Clemson University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkymonkey021993 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm a student in Trish Fancher's class at Clemson University. Thanks for helping us out with our projects this semester! Amn1417 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KT FA Review

Hello Nikkimaria- I have read and responded to your points in the Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Kingston_Trio/archive1. I've been directed by Karanacs to check with you and see if the changes meet with your approval - would appreciate your taking a second look. Sensei48 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ps - also read your user page and would not be asking you to revisit the article were not multiple changes made. User:Airproofing and I have made nearly a hundred edits to the article since FA nomination and response on 9/14.Sensei48 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study, entitled “Online Self-presentation among Wikipedians.” I appreciate it.

As I indicated before, here are five questions that I would like you to answer. Please be as brief or as thorough as you like.

5 QUESTIONS

1. Are you a member of social networks such Facebook or MySpace?

2. In addition to maintaining a user page in Wikipedia, have you also written or edited articles? If so, about how many times?

3. What are the key messages about yourself that you hope to convey with your user page?

4. Have your Wikipedia contributions ever received feedback, such as being edited by others or commented on? Have you received a message from another Wikipedia user? If so, do you think your user page positively or negatively affected what other people said and how they said it?

5. Do you see your “online self” as being different from your “offline self?” Can you elaborate?

Please indicate your answers to these questions on your talk page, or on mine. If you like, you can email your answers to me instead ([email protected]).

Thank you again : )

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info sheet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
INDICATING CONSENT By answering these questions, you indicate your agreement with the following statements: • That you understand that you have been asked to be in a research study. • That you have read and received a copy of the Information Sheet, attached below (“Additional Information”). • That you understand the benefits and risks involved in taking part in this research study. • That you have had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study. • That you understand that you are free to refuse to participate, or to withdraw from the study at any time, without consequence, and that your information will be withdrawn at your request. • That the issue of confidentiality been explained to you and that you understand who will have access to your information (see “Additional Information”). • That you agree to participate. ADDITONAL INFORMATION Background • I am asking you to participate in a research project that is part of my MA degree. • I am asking you because you have created a user page in Wikipedia that other people can use to learn about you. Purpose • My research is about how people present themselves online. • I will look at how people present themselves when presenting themselves to the Wikipedia community. Study Procedures • With your consent, I will analyze the language of your user page and gather basic statistics such as the count of words, the frequency of words, the number of sections, and so on. • I will also read the text of your user page, looking for elements in common with ads posted by other people. I will note whether you include a picture, or links to other content on the internet, • I ask you to answer my five questions, above. This will take about ten to fifteen minutes to complete. I will ask you to answer the questions within a week, and send your answers to me. • Throughout my research, I will adhere to the University of Alberta Standards for the Protection of Human Research Participants, which you can view at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/gfcpolicymanual/policymanualsection66.cfm Benefits • There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this research. You may, however, find it interesting to read my perspective on how you present yourself online. • I hope that the information I get from doing this study will help understand how technology affects the way people come together into a society. • There is no reward or compensation for participating in this research. Risk • There is no direct risk for participating in this research. Voluntary Participation • You are under no obligation to participate in this study. Participation is completely voluntary. • You can opt out of this study at any time before October 10, 2011, with no penalty. You can ask to have me withdraw any data that I have collected about you. Even if you agree to be in the study, you can change your mind and withdraw. • If you decline to continue or you wish to withdraw from the study, your information will be removed from the study at your request. Confidentiality • This research will be used to support a project that is part of my MA degree. • A summary of my research will be available on the University of Alberta website. • Your personally identifiable information will be deleted and digitally shredded as soon as I have finished gathering data about you. • Data will be kept confidential. Only I will have access to the computer file containing the data. It will be password protected. I will not be sent by email or stored online. • I will always handle my data in compliance with University of Alberta standards. • If you would like to receive a copy of my final report, please ask. Further Information • If you have any further questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Stanley Varnhagen, my research advisor for this project. If you have concerns about this study, you may contact the University of Alberta Research Ethics Committee at 780-492-2615. This office has no affiliation with the study investigators. Thank-you again!

1. Are you a member of social networks such Facebook or MySpace? No, despite the occasional pressure to join from friends and the increasing number of events that seem to be planned only via private Facebook pages. I have a profile on LinkedIn and a personal blog, neither of which are in any way connected to my Wikipedia account and neither of which I would consider "social networking", though YMMV.
2. In addition to maintaining a user page in Wikipedia, have you also written or edited articles? If so, about how many times? Yes, both. I have approximately 10,000 edits (including deleted edits) to articles, out of about 18,000 total edits. My contributions can be viewed here, and more detailed statistical information is available here, if you're interested. I have created 77 articles, which are listed here.
3. What are the key messages about yourself that you hope to convey with your user page? Some very basic information about who I am and why I'm here, but most of the prose currently on my user page is addressed to people whose articles I have reviewed at one or more of the fora dedicated to such purposes. The page provides very general biographical info like nationality, but omits identifying information like real name and birth date, mostly because it's not really relevant to what I do here.
4. Have your Wikipedia contributions ever received feedback, such as being edited by others or commented on? Have you received a message from another Wikipedia user? If so, do you think your user page positively or negatively affected what other people said and how they said it? Most if not all of my article contributions have been subsequently edited by others; that's kind of the point of the collaborative encyclopedia. Some of my edits, both to articles and elsewhere, have also inspired comments from other editors. I have received numerous messages from other Wikipedians - my talk page currently has 10(?) archives, dozens of kilobytes each, and I have also received some off-wiki communication (email), though this is far outweighed by the on-wiki. (As a side note, some users also communicate with other Wikipedians via synchronous communication methods like
   Internet Relay Chat, instant messaging or Skype
   ; I rarely if ever engage in such activities). I don't truly know how my user page has influenced others' commentary (I've only ever had a few messages explicitly comment on its contents); I would think that in most cases the effect would be neither positive nor negative. (In some cases, it has affected how messages are delivered, either positively by establishing a kinship based on a partially shared background, or negatively because the background I provide to some has suggested I am unqualified to comment on certain topics. Those cases have been few and far between.)
5. Do you see your “online self” as being different from your “offline self?” Can you elaborate? In a way. I certainly limit the personal information I provide in a way that I don't necessarily do in real life. I also edit in some areas that those who know me in real life might be surprised at, and for the most part have avoided editing in the areas that have been the focus of my education and career. However, the opinions I express, the tone and language I use, and the biographical information provided on my user page are for the most part consistent with who I am both on- and off-wiki.

I would like to request a copy of your final report, as you offer above. I would also like to make a comment about your project and approach here. I don't know how familiar you are with Wikipedia, nor how you selected the participants in your study. However, I can tell you that unless you've queried some fairly new contributors, the answers to questions 2 and 4 parts 1-2 will almost certainly be yes, as these are fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. More generally, it might be helpful for you to contact the Research Committee regarding your efforts here, or to scan through the Recent research columns (hit "previous" to see more) in our newspaper. Feel free to ask if you have any further questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- and thank-you. Because I am still gathering data at this point, I feel I should not comment on the questions I am asking, so that I do not skew the results of others. However, I will get back to you about this to reply to your comments. Also, thank-you for the links you provided -- I have seen this kind of research before, but there was useful information on the Recent Research page that I had not seen before. Thank-you again for your participation -- it's much appreciated. Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook

Thanks for moving James Cook. Sorry about putting him in the RAF Uxbridge section, my mistake.--Harkey (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's not the first time I've seen that kind of thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sheen - source review

Would you be able to give me feedback as to whether I need page numbers for newspaper articles? I won't be able to get them over the weekend so it would be great to know for today or tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to review it, Popeye191 (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to address all the issues you raised in the source review. I'd be grateful for some feedback on your current thoughts. Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does your oppose on this article (link: WP:Featured article candidates/Michael Sheen/archive1) still stand? Ucucha (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Img review request

Hey. Would you be able to do an image review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rogers Hornsby/archive1? Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hello! I'm Abbi and I'm taking part in Wikipedia's Canadian Education Program, just introducing myself and trying to get familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia! Abbisparling (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Toronto

Hi Nikkimaria! My name's Bernice Cheng and I just wanted to drop by and say thank you for being our class's online ambassador. I'm a newbie at this, so all comments and advices are greatly appreciated. (BerniceCheng (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I found something really interesting but.........

Hi Nikki. Hope you had a pleasant journey. As you know (i think), "

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Jivesh, I'm travelling right now but will get back to you either tonight or tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Nikki. Take your time. I am not in a hurry. I think it is better you rest today and then have a look at it tomorrow.

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay now, let's take a look: I'd definitely ask you to defend all three at FAC. The second is pretty much commentary on the first by mostly pseudonymous forum posters, so that's not a reliable source. The third looks okay, although I'm a bit hesitant since it's a "teaser" to get you to buy the full report. The first is borderline: it's a blog connected to a business, but the author works in the industry and has a good idea of what he's talking about. I'd say you can use it, but try to support it as much as possible with other sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, please do not get me wrong. Actually, i am not a native speaker of English. So i request you to please use a lower standard of English while replying to me (i am not being rude, sincerely, this is just a request). So if i understood well, i can use the first one only?

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry Jivesh! You can use the first and third, but carefully, and you'll probably need to explain both at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to be sorry Nikki. Thanks. See you later. Take care.

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 12:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello there!

Hi there Nikkimaria! I too am a participant in Wikipedia's Canadian Education programme. I'm still a little bit disoriented in this Wikipedia-setting, but I hope to get the hang of it quickly. I look forward to working with you! (Kathleenmcleod (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria!

Holobowj (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Hi there! I wanted to take the opportunity to introduce myself as one of the participants in UofT's Wikipedia Canadian Education Project. I really look forward to learning some of the ways I can be a bigger part of the wiki community and am looking forward to getting things started in class. Thanks you for being a part of our project, hopefully you'll be able to help me and everyone else involved throughout the semester![reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Kurt Heinecke Mildred Keith Mean Green Village Orff (Animorphs) Mildred Allen Ken Bahnsen Gym Animorphs (video game) Mildred McDaniel University of North Texas Discovery Park Fur of Flying David Rudman Environment (film) Animorphs (toy) Contra Costa College Portage La Prairie (provincial electoral district) Animorphs: Shattered Reality 878 Mildred Charleswood Curling Club The Official Album of the Disneyland Resort

Cleanup Fred Housego Greatest Hits (Vengaboys album) Dominique Strauss-Kahn Merge Green College, Oxford Saybrook College Sikh Add Sources Michael Ignatieff The Diversion (Animorphs) West Orange, New Jersey Wikify Village Christian School List of The Worst Witch episodes Royal College Expand A Bad Spell for the Worst Witch The Deception (Animorphs) Multiculturalism

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) 01:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Harrison ...

Think I fixed the image issues... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bish's piccies

I found a direct link to the Nell Gwynn piccy at the National Portrait Gallery (Tin Eye search FTW!), so I updated the link you found. I've also tracked down the info for Erik XIV - would you believe Commons has a commons:Category:Eric XIV of Sweden! All is quiet again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for resolving an image issue :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for resolving an image issue :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

• Sociology of Poverty
• Architectural Design
• Introduction to Educational Psychology
• Intro to Mass Communication
• Psychology Seminar
• Theories of the State
• Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

• Housing and Social Policy
• Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
• History & Systems
• Horror Cinema
• Digital Media... just bits in a box
• Composition I
• Telecommunications Management
• Training Systems
• Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
• Art and Terrorism
• Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please suggest me someone???

Hi Nikki. I hope you are fine, as always. I found all this information on

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know anyone who really works with the technical aspects of mixing and recording. You could try asking at a relevant WikiProject, or looking for authors of articles involving these aspects. In general, though, a good place to start would be to figure out how long / how much detail you want to make of this. Once you've done that, it would be easier to assess what's important from this source, and to begin rephrasing it in your own words. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki. As always, you are right. You should be a teacher or a psychologist. Lol. Thank you very much.

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Update on English 103

Hi hi Nikki, I've noticed you've chatted some of the students in my English 103 course. Thanks so much!! I wanted to give you a quick update on what we've covered thus far and what I'm working on next in class.

All students are set up with user pages and have had some time to practice editing. I don't have a Campus Ambassador, so I'm handling all the training myself. I spend about 15 minutes a week at the beginning of class and introduce something new. We covered creating headings, linking, citing, and some other odds and ends in class. I've assigned some out of class work, but I've noticed some students have completed the assignment and some haven't. I didn't frame it as 'graded' homework so I assume that not everyone took it seriously. I'll address that tomorrow in class. I get the sense that the students are not too nervous about learning the WP interface. I think slowly easing the training in on a weekly basis has taken away some of the intimidating edge off of the WP editing experience. So far so good.

What I need to do next is make sure that everyone choices an article that is notable and substantive enough to write 1500 words or so. By next week I'm going to require each student to post the title of the article they want to work on and a short description of the topic on their user page. Is that a good idea? Should I have them do that in their sandbox? At that point I will have them identify the article they are working on in my course page. I'll let you know when that happens.

The next thing I want to accomplish (in the next couple of weeks) is to get them more familiar with the Wikipedian community of practice. I also want to give them some guidance on how to avoid having new articles marked for deletion. That's where I'd really like your help. Would you be interesting/available to video chat with my class one morning? Please say 'no' if you're too busy. I don't want to impose on your generous spirit, but I do think the learning experience in Wikipedia will be richer if they can relate a friendly face to the wikipedian community. Let me know what you think.

Cheers, Pfancher (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Glad to hear the class is progressing well. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need help. In regards to your question, it doesn't really matter whether the article topic is listed on their userpage or a sandbox, so long as they are aware the actual article should not be built on the userpage. Are you requiring that the topic be one for which there is not currently an article on Wikipedia, or are you allowing for expansion/improvement of an existing article?

I would be open to a video chat with the class via Skype or some other interface, depending on scheduling. For the near future, I am available most Tuesday mornings. Was there a particular date you had in mind? The particulars of such a chat would likely have to be worked out via email. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI hi Nikki, Sorry for the delay responding. I am not putting too many restrictions on what they choose to write about. Some have selected topics that do not yet have a page. Most have selected topics from starts or stubs. One quick update: someone on Clemson campus vandalized WP so all of us were unable to edit for a couple of days. That has since been resolved. Let's plan a time to video conference with the class!! my email is [email protected] I could fit you in on 10/25 or 11/1 or 11/8. One of the earlier dates would make more sense for my syllabus. Looking forward more communications via email.

Cheers Pfancher (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It's Thanksgiving weekend here, but I'll email you after the holiday. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

I am pleased to inform you that you have been elected as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for volunteering!

Discussions of our plans for the coming year will no doubt begin in the next few days. In the meantime, please make sure that you have the coordinators' discussion page on your watchlist, as most of the relevant activity happens there. If you have not already done so, you may want to read the relevant courses in the project academy, as well as the discussion page and its recent archives.

If you have any questions about your work as a coordinator, or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask me directly. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Nikki, I hope and believe you will coordinate the Project well. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill, and congrats on your election also Phil (and everyone else, of course)! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for standing, Nikki, and welcome aboard! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing conundrum

I wonder if I may bother you with a question about referencing that is rather baffling me. I am quoting three different authors' sections of a single book edited by one of them, and I can't work out how to cite them. Using the

cite book

template would end up with my listing the same book several times under "sources", which would look a bit odd, thus:

• Smith, Fred (1957). "Introduction". In Smith, Fred (ed.) (ed.). The Masters. Pelican Books.
  OCLC 655768838. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help
  )

• Brown, Bert (1957). "Such and Such". In Smith, Fred (ed.) (ed.). The Masters. Pelican Books.
  OCLC 655768838. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help
  )

• Jones, Mary (1957). "Something Else". In Smith, Fred (ed.) (ed.). The Masters. Pelican Books.
  OCLC 655768838. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help
  )

• Green, Sidney (1957). "Another Chapter". In Smith, Fred (ed.) (ed.). The Masters. Pelican Books.
  OCLC 655768838. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help
  )

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a number of ways of dealing with this, but here's one that retains the cite book template:

• Smith, Fred. "Introduction". In Smith, Fred (ed.). pp. 1–3. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Brown, Bert. "Such and Such". In Smith, Fred (ed.). pp. 4–10. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Jones, Mary. "Something Else". In Smith, Fred (ed.). pp. 11–15. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Green, Sidney. "Another Chapter". In Smith, Fred (ed.). pp. 16–21. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Smith, Fred, ed. (1957). The Masters. Pelican Books.
  OCLC 655768838
  .

Would that serve your purpose? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Tim riley (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Nikki - Congrats on your recent "promotion" to MILHIST coordinator! If you're not too busy with your new duties, I was wondering if you could do me a favor... I've been working on and off on

American Livestock Breeds Conservancy (which I'm pretty sure you know, since I've seen you editing there a couple of times, but w/e). In June, before I got busy for the summer, Malleus and I were having a disagreement over whether or not the "Conservation Priority List" section placed undue weight on that topic. I ended up doing a fairly significant reorganization of the article, which included work on this section, but we still never came to a solution that was satisfactory for both of us. Would you have the time to take a look at the article (and possible the discussion on the talk page) and see what you think? I would like to take the article to FAC in the relatively near future, but would like to get another set of eyes on the discussion first. Thanks in advance, but no worries if you don't have the time/interest. Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Battle of Vukovar reviews

You made comments to the FAC for this article, and in the meantime we did the MILHIST A-class review. Would you be so kind to revisit the article now and tell us if you think the issues you had previously reported are resolved? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For continually helping other editors improve references and citations, with eagle eye and mastery of technique. Tim riley (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honour of your achievement, I present you with these stars. Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Parsec! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

Johnny B. Goode

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Housewatcher (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that

lovely template, although I'm afraid I was already welcomed to Wikipedia back in...2005, I think? I assure you that it in fact was my intention to remove that template, and that it was not done in error. If you need any help understanding the correct use of templates, feel free to ask! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

About.com

Hi Nikki. Can you please briefly explain to me why

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Jivesh. About.com employs writers with varying levels of expertise, and does not really have a strong editorial/verification policy; I've even seen it cite Wikipedia as a source. It tends to be considered a

WP:RS/N quite a bit - see for example here (especially Sandy's comments), or here. Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course it helps Nikki. You are the best. Thank you. Happy editing. See you soon (with my questions). I hope i do not bother you too much. You are one of the nicest persons i know here, i mean you always reply to my questions unlike some other editors.

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 19:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't worry about it, ask away :-). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vukovar again

Thanks very much for all your help in the Battle of Vukovar A-class review. I've renominated it for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2. Please feel free to comment there. Prioryman (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Princess Royal FAC

Could you revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive3 and see if I've fixed the issues that you identified to your satisfaction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Redding

hello,

I saw you on FAC, PR, etc very often. Can you check the prose on

_Hey^{it's me} 22:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies

Hey Nikkimaria, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your copy-edit on Heyit's me 11:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

• Is that better?--
  _Hey^{it's me} 11:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Unfortunately not. With the first "offered" or "gave" would probably work better than "delivered" or "committed". I'm still not sure what you're trying to say with the second. If there were 55,000 total attendees, there could not possibly have been 90,000 in one night - total implies the sum of all attendees over the entire event. Do you mean a daily average of 55,000? 55,000 total during daytime events? Are the numbers wrong? Are these estimates based on two different sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

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

ygm

}} template.

Sevastopol

All fixed. thanks again for your comments. Buggie111 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mice and Men in popular culture

Good clean-up of this mess. However, I would put back in the

good reference can be found. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If you've got one, go ahead. I haven't any to hand ATM. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Uxbridge A-Class review

The article has undergone numerous edits while the A-Class review has been ongoing. Would you be willing to have another look to see how it has been progressing? Harrison49 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Mothers of the Disappeared

Hi Nikkimaria, if you have a spare moment would you be able to revisit the FAC for "Mothers of the Disappeared" to see if the spotcheck concerns you raised have been fixed? Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erick's FARC

Sorry about that bit. I'll admit I am not familiar with FARC. Thanks for helping the process out. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If in a week or two you still think an FAR is warranted, you can re-add it, or ping me and I'll do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Giving you this after your amazing contributions to Mario 10:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks, but I don't think I'll be trying for GA with that article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Do you think Hard (song) could become an FA? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has potential. I'd suggest a thorough copy-editing - you might be able to take advantage of

WP:GOCE's pre-FAC program. I'd love to see the Critical reception section expanded to 2 paragraphs, if possible. The sample description page needs to list the length of the original song to check the <10% rule, and the FUR for the music video needs to be expanded. Ref formatting needs consistent-ifying, and you'd have to be really prepared to defend About.com and Idolator (you remember the much-feared FAC source checker ;-)?). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Lol, thanks. What is FUR? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationale, on the file page for non-free media. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/FutureSex/LoveSounds/archive2

Hi Nikki. Do you do peer review? I am planning to take FS/LS to FAC and would want to straighten out things before doing so. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do on occasion; I'll take a look at this shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandman

Hi, if it's not too much trouble, could you please expound on the rationale behind your recent edit to Sandman over at Talk:Sandman#Trivia section so I (and presumably others) can be un-confused? Thanks! -- ke4roh (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HP and PopEater

First time we have talked, and I'm sure we'll meet again on my first FAC, but I have a question. Would

WP:FACR's standards for reliability? They seem to satisfy GAN but I have doubt because I am planning to take an article to FAC during the holidays. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Depends what you're planning on sourcing to them. Huffington has both news and blog content, and only some of its authors could be considered reliable. Its science content in particular has been criticized as being biased and unreliable. I'd also be careful about using it for BLP-related content. My inclination would be to treat it as a

self-published source. PopEater, as a "gossip blog", is less reliable, also self-published, and can only be used in very limited circumstances - to source the opinions of its bloggers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Can you take a look at [2] and [3] then? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see posts by Baltin at a few other music blogs - do we know what his qualifications are? Without knowing that, you could source Grey's quotes, Baltin's opinion, or the first paragraph to that source. For the second, I'd go with Kavner's opinions (like Baltin's, explicitly attributed to him), and very uncontroversial facts like "VMAs on 8/28/11" and who is nominated for what. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

FAR

Hi Nikki! Just a quick note that I'm leaving delegate decisions on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Yom Kippur War/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Homo floresiensis/archive3 up to you, since I've been involved in both. I've also dropped a note to Raul for him to close the League of Nations FAR, since we've both had our fingers in the pie there. Let me know if there's anything you need me to do, Dana boomer (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Did you want to handle Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)/archive1? I participated there way way earlier in that review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*grumble, grumble, whine* Do I have to? Just kidding, of course I'll take that one - I had forgotten that you commented on it. I'll take another read though it later today, after I've had some more breakfast and caffeine. Dana boomer (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm on airport wi-fi ATM (it's turkey weekend up here), but will take a look through the others when I get home. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran story

This one needs pulling. The article has two orange tags. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? What "Iran story"? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, found it. Taking a look...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the POV tag be removed now?

Location (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Not with that unsourced Fallout section the way it is. You might want to consult the person who added the tag, though I see it's been removed anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Charleswood

Just noticed that you and I come from the same general abode. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Cool. I'm from one of the Saints, although I'm out-of-province right now. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson Welles

Hi, there. On the LW entry, the entire section on the b.g. of the director and his film was deleted. Rather than just getting rid of pertinent data - and therefore taking away from the article's informative qualities - it is better to include it into the body of the text.

You have a very excellent resume (sic) here, congrats! Your diligence in keeping up so many articles is highly laudable.

All the best, SSCricketsnapper (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Cricketsnapper (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricketsnapper (talk • contribs)[reply]

Canadian federal election, 1957

Hi, you were one of the FA reviewers. Could you take a look at this discussion and consder weighing in? All substantive FA reviewers are being asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family honor issues

I've issued a warning to my students, promising wrath and retribution :) Please do notify me on my talk page if any other issues are detected; and I'd suggest you notify other instructors if that happens through their talk pages to warrant quick action (I doubt that few are as active as I and watchlist and check other pages so often). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. However, most student articles don't hit the DYK queue, which is where I caught this one. (And sadly, despite warnings and potential for retribution, plagiarism still happens, even at the university level). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Smith (fell runner)

Dear Nikkimaria, You put up a couple of templates. Taking them to heart, I made changes as you suggested. I don't think they are warranted any longer. Please take a look. If you have specific concerns, of course, please make the changes, indicate them, or let me know so I can address them. This is a little like having someone 'key' the hood of my new Bentley. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are still warranted, unfortunately, and the close paraphrasing needs to be addressed before copy-editing can begin. Please see my comments at the DYK nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the offensive sections.

Peat bogs are "a potent menace to all runners and walkers." Although thought to be among the most tender and threatened British landscapes, in the northern uplands they are a common site. They can appear as solid ground, but be "little more than a

quick sand, panic and erratic movements make "it impossible to escape without help."^[1] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I would merely point out that in the 20 sources that I included in this article, there is a great deal of overlap in the statements, the thoughts and the verbiage. Let me know if you need more changes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the DYK nom. I would point out that your revised example doesn't actually solve the issue, given that it's still very close paraphrasing. I would also note that you echo the source's mistake of using "site"; the correct term is "sight". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the DYK nom. I do believe that neither the source nor I was wrong on the use of the word "site". It was used in the sense of being a geographicasl feature or location. To quote the Oxford English Dictionary, in part: " n. location, place, plot, ground, spot, setting, locale, area, milieu, neighiborhood, locitty purlieu, placement, positon; sitaiution, orientation, plat." Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus (Oxford University, 1996) p. 1418. Feel free to use on of those, if you like. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a substantial rewrite for continuity, etc. Please take a look and compare since the last edit by Nikkimaria. I do think it reads better. Please remove your tags and your objections. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your tags. But if you don't like it, put them back, or delete the whole article. Have at it. If this is beneath your standards, there are millions of articles in Wikipedia that you should be deleting. You'll have a lot of work to do. Might want to enlist a bot. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I had any intention of deleting the article, I'd have done so days ago and saved myself a lot of trouble. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kecak

Hello, I have once again reverted your edits to Kecak. I believe all three references you removed (an iconic series of erotic movies and works by two groups whose careers span 3-4 decades) are at least as notable as the bulk of other entries. Please reply either here or on the talk page of Kecak as my IP address is dynamic. 89.133.130.234 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited before I saw this, sorry. Find some sources to demonstrate notability and it should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knowle West, Bristol/archive1

Thank you for your comments, Nikki. I believe that I have addressed the points raised. If you have time to take another look, I would appreciate that. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

• News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

• In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

• WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

• Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

• Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

• Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

FAR James I

You appear to have ignored criteria 1(d) one of the main reasons for bringing it to FAR. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ignored it. There is a dispute; FAR is not going to solve the dispute. Therefore, the dispute would best be taken elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is looking for FAR to resolve the dispute? It does fail Criteria 1(d) one of the main reasons for bringing it to FAR, so it should be either fixed or have FA status revoked pending resolution of the problems in the article. DR doesn't exist to resolve problems with FA criteria and if that article went to FAR with the current title would it pass? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the problem: it would depend on who participated, because some obviously feel it does meet 1d. DR exists to resolve disputes; the reason it was brought to FAR is because of disputes about the title and the argument that disagreement on the talk page made it fail 1e. Because you can't get the title changed through RM is not justification to then bring the entire dispute to FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the argument is going round in a circle here, I brought it to FAR because I believe it no longer meets FA criteria not because I failed to get the title changed; those are separate issues . 1e is also relevant I believe, this has been a long term controversy but because editors have tried to resolve this in the appropriate manner instead of being disruptive it seems that controversy is ignored. This seems counterproductive as it encourages disruptive behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the other FAR delegate, I completely agree with Nikki's decision here. A FAR based completely on the title's neutrality (not the neutrality of the article itself) will cover the same ground as the RM. Obviously, the fact that the RM failed to have the article moved was proof that other editors felt that the current title was correct, and therefore neutral. While it's obvious that you disagree, there are editors that disagree with various points in just about every FA on Wikipedia - this is not automatic grounds for delisting or even for a FAR.

WT:FAC would probably be the best place to raise a proposal. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

As a totally uninvolved editor, I have to agree - title issues are not part of the FA criteria. If you'd not held a requested move, your argument about the title might hold more water, but right now, right after a failed move request, it isn't something that FAR can deal with. If you have issues with the close of the RM, there are avenues for that. But, to me, it looks like most folks think the title is neutral, thus the article meets the FA criteria. The fact that you do not agree is something that needs to be dealt with at DR. (As an aside, I think Wikipedia editors spend way too much time agonizing over article titles - to be honest, readers pay little attention to them, and as long as it's clear in James' article that he ruled Scotland as well as England, I'd be happy.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangent have either of you actually looked at the talk page discussion on RM? As in previous discussion, the argument for the move was dismissed in a condescending and prejudicial manner being as motivated by Scottish nationalism. It wasn't the case that editors felt the current title was correct and therefore neutral, rather they dismissed the motives of the editors. I will take up 1e at

WT:FAC for that reason. Seriously I would welcome a fresh pair of eyes from genuinely neutral editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked at it, and decided that BOTH sides were such that I didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Any time the discussion descends to "Anglo-centrism" or "Scottish nationalism" I know that any opinion I offer will only result in me being labeled as "pro-something" or "anti-something". Given the subject matter I normally edit, I really don't need to be painting that large a target on my back, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs)

Well not by me it wouldn't, unless you labelled me a Scottish nationalist. :-) Wee Curry Monster talk 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Can't recall why I have this page on my watchlist, but thought I'd comment anyway. To continue on your tangent, Wee Curry Monster, I participated in both RMs and indeed supported moving the article to "James VI and I", but I completely agree with the closing admin's decision – there was no consensus to move the article (actually, now that I look more closely, the proposer of the move was the one who closed it). There were a few editors who made comments along the lines of Scottish nationalism, but the majority of those opposing did not and gave valid arguments. I honestly don't think you will not have much luck convincing people that the article fails 1e at WT:FAC. My suggestion would to wait a few months, gather all your arguments and statistics and start a new RM, as well as advertising that RM as an RfC. I don't think your current path will get you the result you want. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and reply. First of all my comments about WT:FAC were more of a general comment about article controversy not specifically this issue. But I'll probably wait awhile so the two are separated. As I recall many of the opposing arguments were comments about nationalism and others being about not wanting to be at the forefront of change. But I suppose I was rather outraged at comments along those lines, must be the Spanish side of me coming out. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia removal

Thanks for removing 18 kilobytes of trivia from Greek mythology in popular culture. It's something that's been on my to-do list for a while, and every so often I have nibbled at it.

You might be interested in the discussion on inclusion criteria at Talk:Greek mythology in popular culture#Revision 2. As a first cut, I proposed including only entries entries that (a) have a parent article; (b) the parent article must mention the Greek name; and (c) the connection to mythology must be clear, not just a by virtue of having a Greek name. As far as I can tell, most of what you removed from the article failed to meet those criteria.

After pruning based on those criteria is done, more stringent criteria can be applied, like requiring sources that mention the Greek mythology connection of each entry. ~

talk) 22:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I like your criteria, at least for an initial cull. The "in pop culture" class of articles often seem to get quite bloated, and that's a good method to keep them in check. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akagi FAC

I think I've fixed all the issues that you identified at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. Can you check to see if there are any I missed or misunderstood?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

	Helpful feedback
	Many thanks for the very helpful feedback on the article I nominated for FA review. Marj (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About.com Again!!!

Hi Nikki. I hope you are in good health. Remember last time, you showed me all those discussions about

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It depends. Can you demonstrate that the author is a published expert in the field, as required by

WP:SPS? If so, you may be able to use the source in a limited manner - for example, "Bill Lamb of About.com described as "lightly creepy in a good way."". However, you should definitely not be using it to support "According to Priya Elan of The Times...", because no matter Lamb's qualifications, he is not Priya Elan of The Times. You should also avoid overemphasizing the source - right now, you have almost a whole paragraph on his opinions, which in a three-paragraph section is overweighting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Nikki. I will do my bets to make minimum use of Bill Lamb's sources from today. Happy editing.

♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 19:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Clarification

Regarding

WP:SPS on About.com. Bill Lamb is not a self-published source if you read the description: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources" he does not fall under this. He is paid and works for About.com, under The New York Times. This is not a SPS so why are you claiming this policy? Thanks. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You're right that he is not technically self-published; however, because of the issues of editorial oversight with About.com it is conventional at FAC to treat that source as self-published. If you like I can try to dig up old discussions about this; I believe there was one at RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the discussions and consensus deemed the site allowable with exceptions to extraordinary claims; EG: Album sales not verified by anyone else. His reviews however, are reliable and high-quality and he does have a history for fact checking. He conducts strong interviews and I see no problem in using him, neither do any other music writers here. Either way I've e-mailed Lamb to try and see if he can elaborate on his qualifications to see if we can help this issue along. Thanks for the response, happy editing. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for divorce

I made changes to the example that you gave. I would like examples of all the other sections in our page that you feel are to close to the copyright information. Thanks--Nas132 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the nomination page (which I've got watchlisted, so feel free to reply there). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is my advice and example here sound? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Although it takes time to get a slot with them, I believe. Still, if any of them seek their help (which I cannot force them to), that's progress. Also, see my comment to another student at User_talk:Rojast07#Plagiarism_issue. I think the content was improved, but not sufficiently, would you agree? At the same time, I think most of her contributions are fine... or do you see problems with other paragraphs than this (poorly reference) one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phodopus

Hello again Nikkimaria, I'm sure you remember peer reviewing

Djungarian hamster for me. Thank you for that again. If it's not too much trouble, would it be possible for you to review Phodopus? I would really appreciate it. Thank you Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

'In popular culture' maintenance tag on Shinto in popular culture

Hello, Nikkimaria. You recently removed an {{In popular culture}} maintenance tag from the page Shinto in popular culture. Thank you for helping to re-organize the page's content. However, as the page still consists primarily of a list of appearances and does not discuss the impact of Shinto on Japanese popular culture beyond two sentences in the lead, I feel that the tag is still appropriate. I have therefore re-added the tag with it's original October 2009 date. If you disagree with this change, discussion may be appropriate at Talk:Shinto in popular culture. Thanks and Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for divorce (United States)

Can you please check my sections? I made changes this weekend. If you still need me to make changes can you please post examples so I know where changes need to be made. Thanks--Nas132 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections to Grounds for divorce (United States) page

With the examples you provided I did make the changes. Can you please check again to see if more corrections are needed providing examples. Thanks--Nas132 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for divorce (United States)

I went through every single sentence. Looking at the reference links, and using an old reference sheet I had so that I did not make the same mistake or so that I can change them. I value the time that you have put into checking my mistakes. You have taught me alot over this past weekend. If their is still mistakes in my paragraphs it was by accident. So thank you again for your time. --Nas132 (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Phodopus/archive1

Thank you for your comments, can you see my replies and tell me if I have resolved most of the issues? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 09:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Nikkimaria/Archive 10! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

• From the editors: A call for contributors

• Opinion essay: There is a deadline

• Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

• In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical

• WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case

• Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page,

this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Requesting an article review Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act

Hi Nikkimaria! I was wondering if you'd be able to review the edits I have made to the article Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act. It is my first time editing a Wikipedia article and I am interested in getting some feedback. Thank you very much for your time! Nikasho (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to make suggestions on how I can make better edits to my article. I will do my best to apply the Reference tool for citations and enhance the article via the format you have suggested. Thanks again! Nikasho (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship?

Why are you so fast to support Malleus Fatuorum, regardless of how many insults he gave and to how many people but at the same time you were able to censor an user page? --Lecen (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because per

WP:UP#POLEMIC you can't have material like that on a user page. I understand he's (I'm assuming he's a he?) is upset, and you're upset because he's upset, but that page resolves nothing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

But you still haven't asnwered why Wikipedia policies should be enforced in Tbhotch's case but not on MF. What one user has that the other hasn't? And remember: I was never a friend of Tbhotch nor worked with him before. But I really want to understand why there are so many people moving mountains to protect MF and to knock Tbhotch out. --Lecen (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in knocking anybody out. What I am interested in is ending this stupid dispute that never should have escalated as it did. Taking MF to ANI and blocking him doesn't do that; removing a diatribe that would otherwise be a serious point of contention does. See also my reply at User talk:Tbhotch. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plateosaurus

Hi, I replied to your comments on the FAC [4]. Could you please reply wrt page numbers so that I can start the massive amount of work if you convince me it is really useful? I can also offer to give you exact sources for specific things you want to spotcheck, maybe that's easier.. HMallison (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting editing feedback -

Moral rights (copyright law)

Hey there, I recently completed my first-ever article edit on

Moral rights (copyright law)

as part of an assignment for a class that is taking part in the Canada Education Program. Would you be so kind as to review and provide feedback, if you have the time? Many thanks. --Cgriffioen (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting editing feedback -

Privacy Policy

Dear Wetman,

I and a colleague have edited a Wikipedia article as part of a class assignment, on the following topic Privacy Policy

Could you please comment on our edit and indicate your opinion of the edit? Any commentary is useful. The assignment is due oct.31 so it would be great if you could give us some input before that thank you, (Kanesham 14:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanesham (talk • contribs)

WP:Featured article candidates/Hobey Baker/archive2

The nom and I have tried to address your concerns; did we succeed? - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there seems to be a more serious glitch - check out the first paragraph of the Princeton section. "During a game against Yale on November 18, 1911, Baker set a school record when he had 13 punt returns for 63 yards.College Football Hall of Fame 2010Princeton Tigers Football Record Book 2010, p. 41". My old comments have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. I've self-reverted ... the nom will need what I did as a first step to fixing the article, I think, but he'll have to figure out how to unbreak things after that :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Good Article" to "B-Level"

Hi there - I'm a student from the iSchool at UofT and I was wondering if you'd be able to answer a quick question. I edited the Podcast article for our Wikipedia edit assignment and I'm just in the process of writing everything up. I noticed that the Talk:Podcast page has a box that says this article went from being a "Good Article" to a "B-Level" article, and the "delisted version" is dated October 13, 2006. Am I right to assume that this is the date the article's rating was changed? I can't find any information to confirm that this is a time-stamp for the decision, so I was hoping you would be able to clarify this. Thanks very much in advance for your help! Nessalkr (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. You can find the delist discussion here if you're interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very helpful link. Nessalkr (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Sims Legion Park Alakina Mann Distant Voices Dragon Racing Calvin Fish Dance for Me (Mary J. Blige song) Indianapolis motorcycle Grand Prix Ronald Berndt 1967 Wilkes 400 Prophet Motive Erich Barnes Peter Kreis The Easy Riders (American band) Candy (Cameo song) Bernard Jourdain J.E. Heartbreak Shakaar 500 Ladies Classic Citibank Ballpark

Cleanup (Fork and Knife) Villa Manifesto EP Honey, I'm Home Merge Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Official Soundtrack Mitch Canham Justin Souza Add Sources Dan Wheldon Please Forgive Me Exit Strategy (Arrested Development) Wikify St. Martin's Island Buffalo Fire Department There Is a Hell... Tour Expand Extended Secondary School PlayStation 3 Time's Arrow (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

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) 00:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Independent was invoked but never defined (see the help page).