User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 24

nominate

) 08:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Tale of the ironing lady

Please read the tale on my talk, and the recommendation by Voceditenore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, but perhaps you might again: The ironing lady had a choice in the story, but you pushed (again) and she surrendered. Did you forget something? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I follow: "why don't you simply add the parameter needs-infobox = yes to the WikiProject Biography template on the talk page? It will put it directly into a category, where many more editors will see it.", followed by "Placing an article in Category:Biography articles without infoboxes is not, in my view, requesting proxy editing on your behalf ... . It is simply stating a fact, "this article has no infobox". Any editor can act on it (or not) without "getting into trouble" after evaluating the article and without reference to the specific editor who added the article to the category.That is not pushing, it leaves readers of that category a choice. - I would not have asked the more specific question, if you had left it there, open. - In the example (that followed): is grinning "pushing"? It also leaves a choice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Any editor can act on it...after evaluating the article and without reference to the specific editor who added the article to the category" - exactly, so why did you object to that?

Pushing leaves a choice, yes, it just makes the choice harder, because it often requires pushing back. And you seem to have forgotten a question. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get it, which objection do you mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one. The question missed is, of course, above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that an objection? I only simplified to the default. - But let's look at the first step, please: I added what was recommended, which results in a polite line in the bio template and an entry of the article in the category. Why did you change that at all? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an objection because of the edit summary, and I changed it because your "question" (despite the above) had already been asked and answered - and even if it hadn't been, the very quote you provide allows anyone to evaluate such a "request" and act accordingly. My question, on the other hand, still awaits your answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you don't understand.

1. I request by |needs-infobox=yes that "An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information." (the message issued by the bio template) That was open.
2. You changed "yes" to "no". Why? That is the question. None of the later steps (that we can discuss if you wish) would have happened if you had not done that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, this too has been asked and answered: compare the timestamps [1][2], read the quote above. Now will you answer my question? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that I read my watchlist top to bottom. First thing I met was your edit which made no sense to me:

• Yes, I asked you to follow my edits for language but not for such a change.
• Why would anybody think that a folk singer should not have an infobox?
• Why would someone who did nothing substantial to the article interfere with its contributors?
• Why would the harmless parameter, following advice and leaving it open, be changed.
• Why would someone who ignored all this not remove the parameter altogether, instead of a "no" that has no consequence?

The case you quote: I met a main contributor to an article where am a visitor. However, in this case I am one of two. Parallel to the open request, I asked the editor who started, Hafspajen, with whom I enjoy a cordial relationship which includes humour and teasing. We did articles together which have an infobox. He's a gentle man ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More's the pity. The parameter offers a choice, allowing anyone to choose, remember being told that? A choice had been expressed, and "needs infobox=yes" was less true than "needs infobox=no". If that has no consequence, why would you post here at all? Besides, when someone did remove the parameter elsewhere, you simply readded it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

• News and notes: Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge

• Technology report: ULS Comeback

• WikiProject report: Countering Systemic Bias

• Featured content: Holotype

• Traffic report: Chilly Valentines

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

edits

Hi. For Nathaniel Dryden, I added a wikilink from American to United States, otherwise it could be the whole of the American continent... Also you removed some info from the Dillard infobox, which I reverted. Please don't remove information. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, please don't remove the nationality from the infobox! Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zigzig, see

WP:OVERLINK and the template documentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. Well, I think that's wrong, especially the nationality in the infobox...do you know where I could try to change this policy please? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zigzig, we just had a discussion not too long ago, so it's probably a bit early to try again. Can you explain your concern? Relying on wikilinking to convey content is a bad idea, as not everyone will click on the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Man and Lazarus

Normally per

WP:BRD it's better to discuss on the article talk page before making the same edit again. In ictu oculi (talk

)

DYK removal

Is there a reason why you didn't insert a new hook when you removed one of the hooks from DYK Queue 1? The main page looks sort of pathetic with only 5 hooks in DYK. The DYK "rules" at Wikipedia:Did_you_know advise administrators that "In the case [a hook] has to be removed, try to replace it with another hook from the suggestions page." --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was only a picture hook in preps at the time. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there were about 20 approved hooks on the noms page (the page formerly called the "suggestions page") from which you could choose a replacement. --Orlady (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, however I would suggest that falling behind in queue/prep filling is becoming a significant problem again. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (Spring 2014) - Wiki article project

Nikkimaria - It is my understanding that you are one of the volunteers for our class to help with answers to creating and improving Wiki articles. As part of our Wiki assignment we are supposed to ask you and/or other Wikipedians for advise. I am working on Reproductive rights in El Salvador. Other than the Wiki article creation links and basic available information; Do you have any suggestions on the best way to structure an article? What about content? Is there something within this topic I should focus on more than another? For example, if you were reading an article, called Reproductive rights in El Salvador, what would you like and/or expect to see? What advise can you offer to a first time contributor? Thank you for your time. TINGLED1 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

neutrally. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your advise. TINGLED1 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Did you know nominations/Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance

Nikkimaria, your last post here has been answered. Can you please check to see whether you concerns have been addressed? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

• Forum: Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

• Featured content: Odin salutes you

• WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience

• Special report: Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest

• News and notes: Wikimedia chapters and communities challenge Commons' URAA policy

• Traffic report: Snow big deal

• Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In search of another favour!

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is good with you. I have another article at FAC in need of a sources check. Is there any chance you could pop round to have a look when you have a free moment? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gopher may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• known for their extensive tunneling activities. Gophers are endemic to North and Central America].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

talk) 00:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jens Hoyer Hansen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• over 30 solo exhibitions, and participated in a large number of group exhibitions in New Zealand, [Australia, and Europe.<ref name=Telford/>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hans Scharoun may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Bernhard Hans Henry Scharoun''' (20 September 1893 – 25 November 1972) was a [[Germany|German [[architect]] best known for designing the [[Berlin Philharmonic]] [[concert hall]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eleonora de Cisneros may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Edison-Opera.jpg|thumb|Edison record cylinders and player, typical of what would play "Ben Bolt"]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steve Woodmore may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | birth_place = [[London]], [England

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adam Link may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 0667904|The Outer Limits (1995) "I, Robot"}}i-robot.html "I, Robot" on The Outer Limits (1964)]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bobby Ball may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | children = 3)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I looked over the issues you raised with the Adam Levine article, and I think I addressed all of them (except for the unreliable source bit). A revisiting then maybe? GinaJay (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, have the remaining issues you had with this nomination been dealt with? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria - you've got some messages on WP:HighBeam waiting for review. No rush, but it's been a week so I just wanted to check in with you.--v/r - TP 04:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I really appreciate your resourcefulness with those FA lists needing cleanup, makes things much easier to find. Thanks for helping me Nikki! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Winnipeg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aqueduct (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit surprised that you found a sentence to object to in the article Poultry which I had been expanding. I don't reckon to do close paraphrasing, but there is quite a fine line between paraphrasing and close paraphrasing, and when polishing up prose one can inadvertently revert to something near the original. Ironically, a couple of days before you rejected the nomination at DYK, I had made complaint to another editor that he had copied and pasted several sentences from an online source into the article. We subsequently sorted that matter out.

In case there were any more accidental copyright violations in the article, I have today been through nearly all the online sources with "Duplicate Detector" and made a few minor adjustments to the prose. Having given the DYK nomination the "kiss of death", please could you take another look. Nobody else will dare approve it! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I completely agree with your interpretation of the close paraphrasing guidelines. Although the "harvested rice fields, canals, swamps and waterways" bit was not good, I consider the rest of your example unexceptional. Perhaps I am at fault and don't realise it. I don't know. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might consider having someone else look over your paraphrasing of sources, if you're unsure? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can suggest someone suitable I don't think I will do that, not wanting to involve my Wikipedia "friends". Instead I will try to be careful in future to follow the guidelines on article writing suggested on the close paraphrasing page. My concern with them is that the requirement to provide inline citations is compromised when you mix information from different sources in the way suggested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "rm non-RS" It appears that you removed a reference to an article that I wrote and changed nothing else. Simply curious, that's all 75.34.24.101 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It means "remove non-

reliable source". If you link to the specific article that you're curious about, Nikki will be able to give you a more specific reason for why she removed that specific source. Dana boomer (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Dana. To elaborate, assuming you're referring to

living people. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that is the article I was talking about. Thanx for clarifying what that meant. I know there are two articles with that same quote. 75.34.24.101 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious as to why the material that had been added along with the source wasn't taken out. (I just now noticed a similar edit in Loser Like Me, which I'm about to fix because its only sourcing is from a definitely unreliable source.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually where the information is not contentious or otherwise BLP-problematic, I tend to leave it. That's a judgement call and I would readily accept someone opting to remove the material as well, on this or similar articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good to know. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I just received a request on my talk page to take a look at this due to copyvio concerns. Can I please turn this over to you, since you're so much better at this than I. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused now whether or not Samsun was part of the Selcuk empire. Do you know or would I have to ask at the town museum?

I don't know, so if you can't find a source to say so you could certainly try asking to satisfy your curiosity. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right the source I used before does not look reliable but I have now found the same map at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anatolia_1097_it.svg which is presumably a reliable source (if you doubt then I could ask the map author where he got the info) so I will put it in. If you can see any other unreliable sources in the Samsun article please let me know and I will try to improve them. Thanks for your help.

Hey Jzlcdh, it's certainly possible that the source is outdated, but it's from a publisher that is generally reliable. Do other sources agree or disagree with the present content? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume IV, Issue II, February 2014 Headlines France report: National Archives; Sèvres & mass uploads; Wikipedians in the European Parliament Germany report: Claim open culture, again and again India report: National Museum, New Delhi, India (January 2-5, 2014) Netherlands report: Art and Feminism; Wikipedian in Residence; War memorials Norway report: Women on Wikipedia Sweden report: Local portal and CC toolkits UK report: Wikimedia UK Open Access report: Open Access at Wikimania; Signalling OA-ness Calendar: March's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Thank you very much "Nikkimaria" for the cookies :D can you help me get some colour on the Paul Yee page? Best intQsol — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntQsol (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki - If you're online, could you handle the latest nom at FAR? It doesn't have a talk page notification and needs to be put on hold. I'm on the run today, and won't be back online until late tonight. If you haven't had a chance by the time I get back online, I'll take care of it, but it would be great to have it dealt with before that. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, there seems to be a disagreement as to whether there is significant close paraphrasing in the nominated article between the creator and reviewer. As the creator says he welcomes other opinions, I was wondering whether you could weigh in, since you're our expert in this regard. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I agree with the reviewer that some of the paraphrasing is too close, but given the nominator involved I think it best that I not participate in that review. My apologies. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's quite all right. I wasn't thinking about that when I asked. Still, it's good to know—I have to say that the examples given seemed at first glance to be pretty clear cases. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) I saw this, took a whack at the problem, hope it's fixed, BlueMoonset. Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least restore "Commentators believe that Annie Hall demonstrates as much a love for New York City as it does to the character, and the block containing Annie Hall's apartment on East 70th Street between Lexington Avenue and Park Avenue is by Allen's own confession his favorite block in the city. Like many of his other films, the nature of love is important to the film, but in Annie Hall psychoanalysis and retrospection are important concepts, laced with with humor. Allen's character of Alvy Singer is identified by scholars with the stereotypical neurotic Jewish male, and Emanuel Levy believes that the character became synonymous with the public perception of Woody Allen in the United States". to the lead where it was? As it is the lead isn't an effective summary of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. B, unfortunately you would really need a consensus on talk to re-add it - editing through protection is meant to be for uncontroversial things only, and we already know that that was disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about publicizing it and requesting input which gives a fair consensus without it seeming like I'm canvassing. Would it be acceptable to leave a notice at the top of my user talk page requesting input?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About this issue, or the one that was the cause of the edit war? In either case, posting at your talk, or an RFC, or posting to a relevant WikiProject would all be okay so long as you were careful to be neutral in your request for participants (ie. not targeting particular people or opinions) - non-neutral notification is much more of what "canvassing" is meant to represent than notification, period. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the page. I would like to suggest that you restore the status quo. The current draft leaves in place a change that was under discussion and, per WP:consensus, no consensus means no change. I believe the status quo is this version or perhaps this version. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ring Cinema, while the current version may be

prefer not to have any further editing of the article (including by me) until we see some sort of consensus emerging on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, it looks like there is a consensus to include the proposed sentence about the academic coverage in the lead section as seen here. Ring Cinema is the only one who does not seem to support it. I'm trying to engage him about re-identifying "Themes" as "Critical analysis" (the proposed sentence does not even call them themes) but he has ignored my question three times now and keeps asking for sourcing to support these sub-topics as themes. What is your assessment? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it's clear that nobody agrees with him and that Rosie's suggestion is desirable to most and Nikki can see I've shown the content is legitimate by the sources linked on the talk page. The thing is Erik I've proved in those sources linked that Themes is a legitimate section title and of the issues in it and that multiple reliable sources discuss them as themes. You could change the section title to Themes and motifs, that might be OK but I doubt many really have a problem with it as it is. Nikkimaria can add it to the lead and change the section title to themes and motifs but I think it's clear that once the block is removed on 20 March Ring CInema will start hacking away at the themes section and remove it from the lead again even though consensus is against him. I don't want to have to repeat defend it again and see another edit war. If he persists on ignoring consensus and hacking away at it then it's not fair on the article just to have it locked just because a single editor cannot accept guidelines on here. I really want to promote this article to GA but I'm not going to walk away from it just because of one person with serious ownership issues who ignores guidelines and normal conventions on here. It deserves to be promoted. If he simply cannot accept consensus and persists on editing it in a way which nobody agrees with then blocking him or banning him from it might be necessary. I really don't want that to happen, but he needs to accept that he doesn't own the article and he's going against consensus/MoS guidelines. I've tried to reason with him and answer his concerns but I think it must be clear to you Nikki that discussion with this editor is unlikely to produce results.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm reviewing this now and expect to be posting to article talk shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Hall Group, I feel your discomfort. The changes advocated by Ring Cinema will in most likelihood re-emerge in the text development of the article. I see the move to thank Nikki as a way of not only getting someone else to do what was wanted but then turn around and say that the "consensus" held by Ring Cinema is being supported by Nikki. It is a common ploy of Ring Cinema to take some aspect of a statement put forth by someone and then claim that it supports Ring Cinema's position therefore there is a consensus and what Ring Cinema wants is what the group wants. And voilà it cannot be expunged from the article. And any effort to do so is then a revert of which you can do within a 24 hour period only 3 and if more you can be cited and blocked. Then there probably follows a sting of criticism that question your language skills and your spelling skills, and grammar skills and composition skills. And that English is not your first language and that there is no shame in leaning English. And edit summaries about others will include words such as idiot or stupid, or not correct, or my statement is better, or you are incapable of comprehending, blah blah blah. Essentially, some statement of superiority. Currently, Ring Cinema has taken objection to someone's characterizing their experience with Ring Cinema using the conventional spelling of the phonetic word phucking. Karma, it can be a birch tree. Keep the faith!SharpQuillPen (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I don't know if I will find other material in a better source, but there is an interview with the owner of Mucho Macho Man that I'd love to be able to use in the article, but it's at this source which is both a blacklisted url (why?) and I think you raised issues with it as an RS in the past. Given that what I want to use is the owner's comments, not other stuff, do you have any advice on how to get this to pass muster at FAC? Or is it just not going to be possible? (blacklisted url) www.horseracingnation.com/blogs/furlong/Reeves_Thoroughbred_Home_Breds_123# Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was added to the spam blacklist in June 2011, no explanation given, nothing on talk that I can find. In terms of reliability: where an interview is accurately transcribed by a non-RS, we have historically treated it as a

primary self-published source for info about the opinions of the interviewee (see here and elsewhere). However...in this particular case we are explicitly told that this is not an accurate transcription of an interview, per the "This is not a direct dialog, but rather a recap of our discussion" notice. For that reason, I don't think it would be possible to include it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (Added re PR: I've replied now - just FYI, pings don't work unless there's a timestamped sig added in the same edit). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

timestamped sig? A normal Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC) or something inside the ping template like Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters.? (curious) Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The former, I think, per

"the post containing a link to a userpage must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, it looks like I just forgot to sign my post. Happens. I closed the PR, gotta think about what to do with all the weird coincidence stuff, but once that's sorted, I'll be putting it up for FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Victuallers (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Daft. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A great deal of work has been put in to

ok thx 4 reminding me. Ninjadude8 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree with you that the format of Reflinks could be better -- as it is not exactly the the most accurate of algorithms (it seems to be based on a embedded page information). However I think that its output is better than that a raw HTML link as shown in the example we are discussing, and it has some clear advantages over the raw url link (primarily presentation (text is better than a raw url, and secondly the protection it gives against link rot (both by providing text and an access date).

That is not to say it can not be improved by hand crafting the output, but that is a separate issue and on balance I think that the page is better for the alteration than it was before Reflinks was run.

OK so I have explained the benefits, but you say that the "output is inaccurate at best", but you will have to explain to me what it is that you think is inaccurate as I don't see which inaccuracies you are talking about. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Access dates are unhelpful for GBooks links - they are not archived, so access date provides no protection against link rot
2. The title is incorrect - it is incomplete and includes non-title information in the title field
3. The authors are listed in the "title" field
4. The date is entirely incorrect - the book was originally published 1957 and that edition in 2010
5. The publisher is incorrect
6. The output excludes ISBN, which would be far more helpful
7. The output excludes page number, which is needed for verifiability
8. The presentation is incorrect, both in that it uses cite web for what is clearly a book source, and in that it does not match the citation style used for the rest of the article. This is a problem for both CITEVAR and common sense.

Having a raw HTML link would flag someone to cite this properly, while the Reflinks version looks somewhat complete but actually is quite the opposite. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is produced:

• "The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined: An Analysis of Cryptographic Systems ... - William F. Friedman, Elizabeth S. Friedman - Google Books". Books.google.co.uk. 14 April 2011.

What you are doing is looking at it from the point of view of an editor and worrying about what is or is not in specific fields within a template, but from the reader the view is somewhat different.

• Access dates fulfil two functions one is for the reader and when a page was read, the second case is that it gives an editor an idea of how long a problem has existed. In this case while I agree with you that it is of no use to a reader it is of marginal use to an editor, and it is not inaccurate. whoops I see not accessdate. The date field seems to be accurate.
• The title is not incorrect it is just shortened
• The authors are present
• The date seems to me to be accurate.
  • The three pieces of information will allow a reader to find the source even if the link goes dead.
• The field is not filled in with the true publisher's information, but as the whole display is not being presented in a standard way so the reader is not likely to assume that the publisher is called "Books.google.co.uk" so I do not see that as a problem as the reader is informed that the link is to Google books.
• The page numbers are missing but they are missing from a raw html string as well
• The output excludes ISBN it is missing from the raw html as well

For any editor interested in altering this information it is blindingly obvious that the template is not filled in correctly, indeed in this case it will need to be split into a short and long citation. However from the point of view of a person reading the article the text that is there is far more useful that what was there before and I think it is a useful first step in sorting out the problem. I think you are wanting perfection without incremental editing (which is not the Wikipedia way). -- PBS (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a coincidence but the raw html link was put in 11 July 2013 (so there has been no quick fix) I altered it on 18 March 2014 and a day later its been improved again. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, I know what it produces; I looked at the article before I posted the diff. The date field is not accurate, as I explained above; as a result, without the ISBN or a publisher, the reader is unlikely to be able to find the correct source. The page number is present in the raw html, but is not present in the output. There's no point talking about perfection when basic accuracy and completeness is absent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have not persuaded you to see it my way or vice versa, we will have to agree to differ. So I will write no more here about it. -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding on

Jinkinson, I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps if you don't know what happened it's best to leave out the details and let someone who does know fill them in? The diff you linked to was a) not actually the account's last edit, and b) the subject of a dispute that ended with the account being blocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I guess next time I should just go on

talk to me 17:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Nikkimaria. I saw that you recently blocked User:Jdogno5 for edit warring and I would like to ask you if you could keep an eye on them. They have been using reverting and edit summaries to state their case, rather than the article talk page to discuss their edit histories. As well, they have taken to the talk page of all the editors who reverted them, telling us they would request page protection as a way to deal with "the matter in a constructive way" and seeing if that is "reassuring" for them to get eventually get their way, and, after being blocked, stating that they are "being persecuted on the grounds of having a different opinion". It appears they do not have an understanding of Wikipedia etiquette and procedures. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can certainly try... I don't know that I'll get further than anyone else, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just watching to see if once the block is lifted, if they continue the same editing habits/style, is all that is asked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I ask which article did I edit that caused you to block me when you did?

Jdogno5 (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdogno5, you were blocked (and have now been re-blocked, I see) for

edit-warring on Space Jam. I suggest you take this time to read the various policies and guidelines that have been provided on your talk page as well as the discussions linked from there. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

We seem to have another language problem. I said I respect if an editor fills |nationality= in {{infobox person}}. So did kosboot, for a person who's place of death would let you infer a different nationality, in an article that I nominated for DYK with that infobox. I wanted respect for the decision, so logically had to revert what you did. You seem to have a different logic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep: I respect that editor's choice to include a template that shouldn't be there, but since it's there it should respect its own guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the guidance says not to use nationality when two countries are mentioned in data of birth and death, the guidance is not good. Who says "template that shouldn't be there" if we are reminded again and again that it is decided case by case? See for example Imogen Holst. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that the reversion of an addition is a removal, then "logically" the reversion of a removal is an addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that? - You didn't comment the guidance remark, and you didn't answer my question. - I would appreciate if you would extend your generosity - accepting a template, that you (!) think shouldn't be there, just a little bit and also accept a parameter that you think shouldn't be there. It would save the time of several people, - another way of showing respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example. It would "save the time of several people" if you didn't ask questions to which you already know the answer, or if you took the advice you've been given. Another language problem, perhaps: just as "compromise" doesn't mean "capitulation", "respect" doesn't go only one way. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is not mine. Enjoy your Sunday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I am starting to have some real concerns about your attitude that a mere guideline, subject to IAR, is a policy, which it is not. Particularly when it appears you yourself created the guidelines in certain situations. Observing this from a vantage point of who is doing the mass editing here, you may be starting to have an obsession about this issue. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the guidelines, nor do I think them policies. As to the rest, "your logic is not mine". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at current instructions. "Nationality. May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ. Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace. Do not use a flag template." Here, the definition is "inferred." Where, as in the UK, things like being from Scotland, Ulster or Wales does matter deeply to some people, seems to me that the UK editors should be granted some deference on the matter. Seems that those who care, care deeply. I can also see this as an issue for Native Americans or First Nations people who might be US/Canadian citizens, but also view themselves as members of their tribal nation. Not a moral issue, just think that completing the parameter does no harm, and it IS, after all, part of the infobox parameters allowed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you could have deleted those pages and already had them restored, instead you seem to have some elusive point to prove by interfering with banning enforcement and waiting for someone else to get involved.  Care to explain?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the benefit of deleting some poor newbie's talk page for reasons they would not understand? Banning enforcement is meant to be applied using common sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing these needless tags, Nikkimaria. I went to remove them and found you got to them first. No reason to delete an article talk page that hasn't even been used. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Banning policy applies to all edits, good or bad.  If you want to discuss that, the place to go is WT:Banning policy.  Assuming that you re-create the page after the db-g5, your WP:IAR explanation doesn't hold water, because the only flaw you can find that makes the newbie a "poor newbie", is an entry on the deletion log for the page.  For my part, I've never looked at that log on my talk page and I'm confident that newbies won't either.  Aren't you claiming that an obscure entry on the newbie's talk-page deletion log is more important than supporting a policy?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As the banning policy already makes clear, "obviously helpful" edits can and should be allowed to stand. For my part, I have my userpage (and so my talk page also) watchlisted (and encourage newbies to do the same, when I do training sessions), and can quite easily imagine myself as a newbie being quite confused to see a deletion with a "banned user" notation pop up on my watchlist. So since there is no clear benefit and the potential for harm, since it'd be a waste of time to delete the page and then just recreate it with the same content for the sake of process alone, since the policy already allows for the retention of obviously helpful edits, since user talk pages are not typically deleted unless their content (not creator) is somehow problematic (ie copyvio or defamatory)...nope, not seeing any reason to continue this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to the article; I originally had the further reading section below the refs per the MOS, but the trouble is that there's a citation to a reference in it, and the reflist template doesn't pick it up if it's below the template transclusion, thus leaving an error message in the references section. Is there some fix for this? It's the only reason I put the sections in the order I did.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my question would be whether we really need that quote and citation in the section at all - it's nice, but doesn't seem essential. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Vanda Godsell page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

]

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

Please revert your change, and start a discussion on the DYK talk page. We have two queues and nearly two preps in reserve at the moment, which is why there are only five approved hooks—the review rate is steady, but the prep build rate has been a bit higher. It looks worse than the situation really is. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: When you do reset the interval to eight hours, please also set the time of the next update to 16:00 UTC, when it should be (eight hours after the 08:00 UTC update). Otherwise, we'll still be off cycle with a 20:15 UTC update, and it will take several days for the bot to move at 15 minute increments to reset as above. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I would be very uncomfortable with resetting to 8 hours right now, when over a third of posts to WT:DYK are late update warnings, when updates have repeatedly been several hours late, and when even after that change we still needed to reduce to 6 hooks per set to get updates through on time. We can certainly do it after the weekend in time for April Fool's. As I mentioned at WT:DYK before making the change, number of approved hooks is only one metric to consider when deciding on run rate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(

WT:DYK should always be done even in an emergency: this is something that affects the whole community. (I'm not sure what you mean about the reduction to six hooks per set; we've been there for a while.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm, you're right about the six/seven hooks thing, my mistake. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverted (not by me) at Charles Dickens, where there 'was consensus to exclude them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria,

I'm Tordeforest, the writer of Lee S Jablin. On 17:04, 16 February 2014‎ you placed an advert box on the Lee S Jablin article. A day or two later Meatsgains made a huge number of edits to the article, and in his/her Talk page suggested that I give the article another look in order to remove the remaining peacock words. I want to be compliant and follow the rules of Wikipedia but after several careful reads I cannot find peacock or soap language. I think that maybe there are some misunderstandings remaining about the use of certain terms. For example, the terms 'building reimagination and best sustainable methods' are purely architectural terms and not puffery. 'Building reimagination' and 'Best sustainable methods' stand on their own as whole architectural terms with meanings all their own. 'Best' is not being used as a discreet adjective.

I'm writing to ask if the advert box can be removed. I have made a good faith effort to comply with the request to remove peacock words and and I am being sincere that I cannot find any remaining. I believe that Meatsgains has made many significant changes to the article and it no longer appears to be written as an advertisement.

Thank you, Tordeforest

Hi Tordeforest, it looks like Meatsgains has done some good work with that article. My only remaining concern is the "Interests" section - I would suggest combining the committees/councils into the Organizations section, and possibly removing the other material. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I made the change you suggested. Is this satisfactory? Tordeforest (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tordeforest, I've removed the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been confused by some of your recent edits, as I wasn't able to understand what your edit summaries meant. Per

1. First, you deleted language from the infobox. Your edit summary stated: "(rm, fmt)". That did not explain to me the reason for your removal.

2. Next, you changed the format, here. With an edit summary stating "(fmt)". I did not understand from your edit summary the reason for your format change.

3. I restored the original state of the article, given the lack of explanation that I could understand, with my edit summary stating: ("Rev unexplained change from long-lasting format, and content del supported in text.)". You then again deleted the text and again made the formatting changes. You left an edit summary stating "(rm: parameters no longer supported)".

You didn't open tp discussion to explain further, so I'm coming here to understand your edits better.

Are you stating in your third edit summary that the long-standing format is no longer acceptable? And if so -- why is that?

And are you stating that the "influences" section of the infobox (with its text) that you deleted is not longer acceptable, and is required to be deleted? And if so -- where is that indicated?

BTW -- I see my difficulties with your edit summaries today mirror those raised by Obi-Wan Kenobi a few months back, when he wrote to you here:

== Use edit summaries, plz == Per here and here, especially given the controversial nature that you know these category additions to be, could you please use better edit summaries, and not hide them in a "formatting" edit. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And Thibbs raised similar points to you a few months ago here. Pointing to similar comments from still other editors.

Many thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche, the influences/influenced parameters were removed from the template after

MOS:ACCESS - because there were only two items I opted to list them inline, or if you prefer you can use a list template, but the previous format was not acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Nikki. That's quite helpful. The RFC is especially interesting -- it seems to be a film problem, as described at the RFC. But prompts deletion in non-film articles, such as this one.

Perhaps you can understand why your simply writing "rm, format" as your edit summary is insufficient, as there may be a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why you made the change.

I see that many editors have made similar complaints to you on your talk page over the months and further in the past, including the above as well as Gerda Arendt and User:Koavf. I think you did great work here. But I must add my voice to the chorus. If you would go that extra step to provide further clarification in edit summaries such as this one, it would be much appreciated.

I know you've told one of the others in the past who suggested that you be clearer in your edit summary that: "I suppose we can give it a shot". But this sentiment seems not to have led to a helpful edit summary here. Especially when editing contentious articles I think it would be quite helpful if you were to assist other readers by providing better edit summaries. I echo here the comment by Obi above. Best.Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Give it a shot" refers to using only summaries listed at

WP:ESL or the glossary, as opposed to my own custom summaries. I felt then, and continue to feel, that that change represented a step backwards. I do not see any realistic way in which multi-part edits such as those I tend to make can be adequately represented by a comprehensive, explanatory and specific summary of the type you seem to be requesting, nor do I see such an effort as worthwhile. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

(watching) What do you think of not making multi-part edits, but one thing at a time, - not for obvious errors but at least for changes that might be questioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes do that, but on the whole inefficiency is a poor solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that transparency is a good solution, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to its extreme, Nikki's remark that "inefficiency is a poor solution" could support a view that we should not have edit summaries at all. Nikki -- I don't think you are evidencing a sensitivity to a half dozen editors who have independently approached you to say that your edit summaries left them confused or failed to explain why you made the edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency can indeed be a good solution, but I've found that asking others to practice what you yourself or the majority do not rarely inspires a positive reaction. Epeefleche, as already mentioned, I did "evidence a sensitivity" by changing my means of edit-summary use. The further change you are requesting is neither feasible nor in practice typical. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are an excellent editor, on the whole. But I find your response very disappointing. Both because editors are encouraged to provide explanatory edit summaries (as

wp:admin states that you "are expected to lead by example". I hope that you will take a moment to consider this, and re-consider your position.Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:ADMIN requires that I justify my conduct as needed, and I have done so; I have also taken feedback into account in adopting ESL summaries. I do not expect, nor do I in practice typically see, the level of explanation in edit-sums that you seem to be requesting - instead, the typical edit summary "succinctly summarize[s] the nature of the edit", not the in-depth rationale. As I have explained, that is the most practical approach to the limitations of the medium. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not just me who has found your edit summaries lacking in explanation that would allow understanding of your edit summary. I already quoted this, but let me bold the key part: As

wp:edit summary says, "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it". Writing "fmt" in what I pointed to for example (and the complaints of others were similar) did nothing to explain to me ... beyond what I could already see with my eyes without the edit summary ... an explanation that would allow me to understand the change. You wrote "what" you did; not "why". Answering "why", when it comes to you changing format, is what we are asking for. Otherwise, frankly, its the same as no edit summary at all, because I can see you are changing format. As another editor has stressed as well, when you do this with contentious articles, it is especially likely to cause consternation.Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

There was no reason to expect that the simple housekeeping edits at issue here would be contentious, no reason why anyone who actually looked at the change effected by this edit would need further explanation of why it was helpful, nor any reason why "no longer supported" is an inadequate explanation for the removal of something no longer supported. Your repetition leads me to suspect you have not spent much time reviewing edits by others, which typically use a summary-only edit summary ("succinctly summarize[s] the nature of the edit") rather than a full rationale, for the reasons I have already explained. We shall have to agree to disagree on this matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, on this issue of three-letter edit summaries, I have to say you do have a blind spot and it would be wise for you to realize that your personal view of what other people "need further explanation"- trust me, there is no one who knows the minutae of WP:THINGSINALLCAPS guidelines better than you; the rest of us are mere mortals. You make assumptions that everyone knows what you are doing,why you are doing it and what all the rules are you are applying. Unfortunately, you are often mistaken and you know your actions are often misinterpreted. Sure, these tiny abbreviations are "legal", but they are not always wise. Using two or three word summaries is better than two or three letter ones. I've gotten in two or three (short) SENTENCES sometimes. We even have pull-down menus you can add in your prefs that use whole words. "Succinct" is enforced by a limit on how many characters that fit into the edit summary box and so you can use the space. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to hit the high points of how to avoid aggravating folks, "fmt" really needs to be limited to things like when you screw up a bracket, omit a comma, or have a bad ref tag, things so minor, TOTALLY uncontroversial, and unrelated to content as to be wholly undisputable - & even then a lot of people still say, "added a comma" in their edit summaries. Something like "rv" or "rvv" with nothing more should be used with vandals and trolls, not content editors. In contrast, you use "rv, fmt" for very significant changes, and though technically they might be reversions and "formatting," they really need explanation - whether you think they are contentious or not (sometimes even changing the position of a comma CAN be contentious). Similarly, "re" is meaningless ... even summarizing with "more of the same," or "reply to previous" is clearer. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are used, very much so, to direct and explain to other people. This is such a simple issue. If edit summaries have become too abbreviated to understand just make it easier for other people by extending the explanation. This isn't about the editor who creates the edit summary, its about those who read the summary and what they need to follow and understand, Nothing personal, just make it easy for others. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Nikki -- Given all of the editors who have written to you in this string, and in prior discussions referred to above, might you in the spirit of wp consensus editing take a different position? When you, as you did in what brought me here, delete from an infobox of a highly controversial Al Qaeda member the "influenced" section and all of its entries, an edit summary of "rm, fmt" is less than the community should be able to expect from an admin in terms of transparency. Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you think "the community" should reasonably expect that you haven't already gotten? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What many editors have requested of you. As indicated above. That you leave edit summaries that better explain the reason for your edit. And that you be especially vigilant in this regard with controversial articles and edits that if unexplained can be expected to be controversial (your already-mentioned removal of the "influenced" section in the infobox of a particular notorious target-killed terrorist, with your edit summary reading: "rm fmt", comes to mind as an example). There are a number of individual examples above and in what is linked to above where editors asked the same thing of you. And you have above said you refuse to do what all of us have requested (you wrote: "We shall have to agree to disagree" -- I assume at that point it was clear to you what we are requesting, and what you were refusing to do), so I'm not sure where the confusion lies.Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear what you were requesting, and it was equally clear that that is not a standard that the community requires. That is why I specifically asked: what should the community reasonably expect that you haven't already gotten, looking at my recent edit history? To me, it seems reasonable for the community to expect, for example, that when an experienced editor sees a change referencing template documentation, they might actually read that documentation before incorrectly claiming that there was "nothing wrong" with the original. This is where "we shall have to agree to disagree" comes from - your expectations are not mine, your expectations are not the community's, and your expectations as thus far expressed are not reasonable (and not even you meet them). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the community giving you feedback above, and in the linked-to conversations above. You criticize others, saying that you think an "experienced editor" should divine what you fail to state in your edit summary. Well, you have a whole slew of experienced editors here who didn't divine your thoughts. Which, of course, is besides the point -- you should write the edit summary not for yourself, or for experienced editors, but for all editors, who include newbies. And your suggestion that "fmt" means "fmt deprecated by RFC", and that those who can't divine it are surprisingly deficient, is not one as you can see that all of us who have come here agree with.

Another example would be this -- I just now had an article I created go to DYK. You have repeatedly now -- and again, as we have all complained in the past, without sufficient explanation as to why -- edit warred to seek to impose your preferred format, even though there was a prior-existing format, that was perfectly acceptable. Even though my comments to you in my edit summaries pointed to this. Your sphinx-like edit summaries failed to explain why your format changes were necessary, and why your format was preferable to the already-exiting one (it's not, on my screen, and it is not mandated). I assume on good faith that it is just a coincidence. But edit warring is annoying, and that is compounded when your edit summaries fail to explain why, rather than what, you are doing.

Fail to state? No, what I said was that an experienced editor—such as yourself, in the example you are now edit-warring over—should look at what is actually stated. That applies both to edit summaries and to discussions like this one. Your comments in both venues are incorrect. If you are unable to read and respond to the question I actually asked, then there's little point in continuing this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You continue to fail to explain the reason for your edit summaries when you should -- here today, for example, while engaging in your third revert in short order of two other editors, you simply wrote "change width". That reflected what you were doing. Which anyone could plainly see, without your edit summary. It failed to explain "why".

I'm still puzzled why after all the editors above, and linked to above, have requested that you explain "why" in your edit summaries, you continue to ignore flatly the consensus in this discussion that requests that you do so. Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clear that you're puzzled - you present a link that doesn't support what you're saying and make claims that simply aren't true. My first two edits to the page in question explained why the change has been made, which was for the same reason that I've previously explained to you in depth - per the template documentation. The third summary responded to an edit-summary made by another editor, in attempting to address that concern. Now, will you continue to "ignore flatly" everything you've been told, or will you answer my question? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikki -- in edit summaries, you write (or should) to inform the community, especially in contentious edits (as here, where you reverted 2 editors 3 times in 7 hours), WHY you are making the edit. Your edits elsewhere across the project, to one or more editors, are not know to everyone on that article's talk page. Similarly, as is discussed above by other editors in this string, your edit summaries often fail to inform the community at large of WHY you are making the edit. Furthermore, your edit summaries -- as in your second revert, of
  Sven Manuguard, when you simply wrote "doc" -- at times like this do little to shed light on what you mean us to understand. The same with your first edit summary, on your first revert -- "(ce, doc, refs)". That's not -- as you assert -- an acceptable explanation as to why the change has been made. And certainly, on your third revert of 2 different editors in 7 hours, for you to simply write "change width" as your edit summary when you know 2 editors disagree with you and that your change is contentious, is completely unacceptable ... especially as you made your third revert without initiating talkpage discussion (which I had to initiate first). There are a number of instances listed above by other editors expressing similar concern with similar edit summaries of yours. Yet, you indicate that you will not change. I don't get it. Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's clear that you don't get it. There was no "third revert", and there was no reason that the initial edit should have been contentious, as it already has community consensus. Since I had already explained the issue to you at length, I was surprised to see your talk-page post and your revert, and consider both to be inappropriate. I was also disappointed to see your misuse of article talk to express a personal disagreement - it's off-topic there.

So here's what I don't get: since your initial post here, I have changed my edit summaries to almost always include an explanation for changes made. While I don't claim to meet the completely unreasonable expectations expressed in yours and Montana's earlier posts, I know from experience that my edit-summary usage is above average for both admins and the community as a whole; I also know that pretty much no one, including you yourself, meet the standards you proposed earlier in this conversation. So I will ask a final time, and hope to get an actual answer this time: what should the community reasonably expect that you haven't already gotten? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I have a tremendous respect for you as an editor, and I think that, in most cases, using two or three letter codes in edit summaries is entirely fine. I use "ce" all the time. It becomes problematic, however, when you use those codes after the edit in question has become contested. The first edit summary, where you said "ce, doc, refs", was fine. I didn't know what "doc" meant (and I still don't), but it didn't matter because I got the gist that it was a copyedit and reformatting. The second edit summary, where you said "doc", is where the abbreviations become problematic. You're now no longer dealing with a routine copyedit, you're dealing with a formatting choice that has been contested by another editor. In such a case, you would need to explain your reasoning in the edit summary or on the article talk page (in which case the edit summary would need to point out that there was a thread on the article talk page about the edit). Likewise, the third edit summary, where you said "change width", is also unacceptable. Yes, it's more descriptive than "doc", but you still failed to provide a reasoning for your change, which by that point had been contested several times.
I should note that between 11:39, 26 April 2014‎ and 18:40, 26 April 2014‎, you made the same change three times. Yes, the width was different one of the times, and yes, it wasn't just a straight revert, but right now, you are edit warring. A rules pedant might take you to 3RR (although I doubt it would actually go anywhere). I am not a rules pedant, however. I don't see any point to you being blocked over this; it would do more harm than good. What I'd really like is an explanation. Why do you keep making this change? What, exactly, is wrong with {{reflist|2}}? When you get reverted, and you make the change again, you need to back up that change with an explanation. Keep your abbreviations for the bulk of your edits, just break out something more substantive if someone contests the changes. That's really what's being asked for.

The change is per the template documentation (doc), which deprecates the use of a fixed number of columns in favour of the more flexible width option. What I'm becoming unhappy with, aside from Epee's failure to read, is the application of different standards: when you reverted the change the first time you didn't provide any explanation, and you too were edit-warring. I certainly don't intend to pursue any kind of action against you either, and you're far from the only one doing that, but it does make it hard to see your (and Epee's) point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rachel Mahon, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Rachel Mahon played the music of Star Wars in "five-inch stiletto heels and blue sequined spandex"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rachel Mahon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, I am a campus volunteer at University of Utah. I have some questions regarding the course University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World by Gunseli Berik. Some students are facing problems with downloading references in the sandbox as a pdf file. Specifically, when the students download the sandbox page as pdf, none of the references show up on the pdf file and for some students, some references show up and others are not there.

I tried to verify this and I face the same problem. Could you please help us with this problem??

thnx Diksha41 (talk)

Hi Diksha41, there are a few things that can cause that type of problem - do you have an example page that I can look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki

You can view sandbox of codyG123 or Eva.varnju on the course page University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World. thnx Diksha41 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria,

The problem is quite widespread and a source of frustration for students. In addition to Cody and Eva, take a look at "Missing women in China" (only 6 out of 23 references show, apparently) and "Women's education in Saudi Arabia." "Gender inequality in India" author claims she lost sections (not sure if they are in the textbox or not (she says: I am missing 3 sections of text (about 2 hours of work) - on Mortality rates, variation in education quality by the sexes, and my own text on sex selected abortion. i have no Idea why. I was sure it was saved.") I suspect there are others that I have not yet heard from. Once you diagnose the problem could you post the solution in a way for all students to see? Thanks. BerikG (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...that's odd, it's not caused by a problem I've seen before. I've added a post here to see whether anyone else knows what's going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ragnar Tørnquist may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Tørnquist studied art, history and Englis] at [[St Clare's International School|St Clare's]], [[Oxford]] from 1987 to 1989. From 1989 to 1990,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tess Broussard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Teens Wanna Know (2013)]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

[3]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments! I have adjusted the Reception section in the article. I am more concerned with the improvement of the article than the need for it to be DYK, so your help is much appreciated. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I have now worked on the text before "reception", chasing copied texts, and improved refs. Do you think I should change quotes with fewer than 40 words to inline? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that'd be a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Since all were shorter than 40 characters, all blockquotes are now gone. A couple of quotes removed, and a few other things done.

This diff. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not wrong, and it's already been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was reading these new additions to the article and found it odd that the use of native, indian and aboriginal were randomly used over just using one term. This leads me to believe there is some copyright concerns so i did a search and found that parts seem to come from globeandmail the source provided. Do you think the changes are enough or is it simply plagiarism with a few changes?

i.e

Now on Wiki = "Black slaves were known as bois d’ébène (ebony wood), or pièce d’Inde if they were of high quality. Black slaves being more difficult to attain were double the cost of indigenous slaves. Both native and black slaves were sold at auctions and advertised in newspapers."

vs

From the globeandmail = "Black slaves were known as bois d’ébène (ebony wood), or pièce d’Inde if they were in prime condition. Blacks, being harder to get, were about double the cost of indigenous merchandise. Slaves of all kinds were sold at auctions and advertised in newspapers, including the Montreal Gazette, which had slaves in its print shop."

-- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moxy, most of those additions were way too close to the source - I've reverted and left a note for the newbie in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was thinking too- just wanted to make sure. -- Moxy (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Ethically yours worked on Shammi (actress), check to see if your close paraphrasing concerns were addressed. The creator of the article keeps popping by and adding stuff that is not formatted terribly well, but I hope we can educate him/her a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately not even close - I checked seven paragraphs and six had problems to varying degrees, to the point that it would probably be more productive to rewrite the entire article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editor who was helping the newbie is traveling, maybe they will be able to help out later, think there is any problem letting this sit for a week or so? I think this is one of those situations where we have someone of limited English language ability who needs some hand-holding. The story of this actress is really quite interesting. Maybe I'll @Rosiestep: to see if she is interested in looking at it with an eye to rehab. Seeing as how I was just doing the review, I don't want to get myself bogged down, and I suspect that BlueMoonset will want a new reviewer to do the final approval now? BTW, do you run that duplication detector that's linked at the DYK review page on every source listed, (which I seem to have to run each link individually AND it gives me shitloads of false positives so I find it rather useless) or do you have a different tool? I've been trying MadmanBot (though not on this article) and am just trying to figure out if there is a way to streamline this process that I'm not aware of. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to take a lot of work to fix, so we'll see whether someone is up for that. I almost always check stuff manually, because automated tools give false positives and negatives and because it's easier to catch close paraphrasing (rather than verbatim copying) that way. I don't know that there is really any quick-and-easy way that's still effective. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True that, it's probably why I bailed on CCI after cleaning up ItsLassieTime's socks and reviewing the Rlevse situation. Very time-consuming to do that level of review. Seems that on wiki, one can create content or you can review content, but doing both is quite a time sink if you also have RL commitments. I pinged @Ethically Yours: about this issue. It's really up to @Sortlips:, though - perhaps we can gently lead that user through the rewrite, I'd like more editors from India who can also create good content; the language and usage issues we so often see in articles from there are an ongoing concern and I'd like to see more editor development from that part of the world - is there a mentoring corps or anything for folks from India? Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of, other than the massive failure that was the

IEP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm traveling, too, but I might have some time for it on Saturday at Sarah's edithathon. I agree that a re-write is probably the best way to go. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

consistent quality control
Thank you for consistently checking the quality of articles going to the Main page, for taking your time to preview critical ones for those who are

awesome Wikipedian

(25 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 82nd recipient of my