User talk:Nikkimaria

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image review?[edit]

Could I possibly trouble you for an image review for Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, so it can be put to bed? Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sturm, looks like there already is one? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

<blush>I guess I forgot to scroll down far enough to see it! Thanks for checking anyway.</blush>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/SS Etruria[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was hoping you could take a look at this nomination and assess its status with regard to close paraphrasing. I had found, within the Aftermath section, some overly close paraphrasing with regard to the NRHP source, and while there have been some edits in this regard, I think it's best if you cast your eagle eye over it and determine the current level of problem. I did tag the article with the close paraphrasing template; if it's no longer needed, please feel free to remove the template. If there are problems, and the recent edits did not adequately address them, it may be time for me to mark the nomination for closure. Thank you very much as always for your help at DYK. (I just closed the Iris article that I last asked your help on; the nominator never came back to address the sourcing and paraphrasing issues.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, I concur with the concerns you've raised there and agree with the placement of the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to look into it. I've just marked the nomination for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2020[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png

Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 19:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Annelien Van Wauwe[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just found some close paraphrasing in the article's Recordings section's second paragraph, and given that close paraphrasing was also found earlier in the review process, I was hoping you could take a look and see if I found the last of it, or if there are more instances. Many thanks. I apologize for messing up the ping from the DYK nomination page; my finger stayed on the Shift key a little too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Not that you have the time but...[edit]

I am getting Bath School disaster ready for possible submission as a Featured Article. I have been doing deep-diving on the sources (boy those copyright volumes are so much fun to read! lol) and on the photographs in the article. My tentative conclusion is that the one book source M.J. Ellsworth's Bath School Disaster (published in 1927 but there is no record of the copyright being renewed) is public domain and almost all of the photographs (all of the photos in Ellsworth's book plus all of the newspaper/National Editorial Association/Associated Press photos) are public domain. I can find no record of Ellsworth's copyright being renewed or of the newspaper photo copyrights being renewed in 1954/1955/1956. For the pertinent discussions I'll refer you to a discussion at Media copyright and to the article's talk page Talk:Bath School disaster especially here. If you can take a look that would be awesome, thanks in advance. Shearonink (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink, reading through those discussions, it's not clear to me whether we ever got an answer as to whether the images are credited to someone in the 1927 publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The photos in Ellsworth's book and their lack or credits can be seen in this online version of The Bath School Disaster. The 1st printing has an asserted copyright of 1927 but I have been unable to find a record of this in any of the Copyright records I have searched. The various subsequent Printings have no renewal of the asserted copyright in 1954/1955/1956. The photos included in the book are not credited to any entity or to any specific person or business. The only copyright statement I am aware of is when Ellsworth asserted a copyright (though apparently not registered with the Feds) over the entire content, stated plainly as copyrighted 1927. The photos that appeared in various newspapers were initially copyrighted in 1927 to National Editorial Association/Associated Press but, so far as I can tell, those various newspaper photos were not renewed in 1954/1955/1956. Shearonink (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What I'd suggest is you add the information you've found to the description pages for these images - right now some of them just say ""scanned from historic image", which won't be enough information for an image reviewer at FAC to verify the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I have just adjusted/cleaned-up the permissions & sources etc for File:Bath Consolidated School.jpg and File:Bath Consolidated School (cropped).jpg. Do these look ok now for an image reviewer or do I need to do more... (I did the main File because the cropped File is extracted from it.) Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Bath_School_dynamite2.jpg still has the "scanned from historic image" source, as does Bath_School_Disaster-east.jpg and Kehoe_car.jpg, whereas File:Keyhoe_sign.jpg just says "unknown". I also don't see that any of the images have been credited to NEA/AP? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I know that not all of the photos in the article have had their sourcing cleaned-up, I was asking specifically about File:Bath Consolidated School.jpg and File:Bath Consolidated School (cropped).jpg, I need to know if the adjustments I made to their Commons pages are good to go. So, if you just look at those 2 photos' File pages, are they filled out according to image reviewers' & FAC requirements? Or do I need to find more information, did I not do something correctly, etc...I'm working on each image in the article one at a time, doing more deep-dives into their copyright status if needed.
Referring to the NEA/AP - Some of the various photos out in the internet-ether were claimed by National Editorial Association/Associated Press (as seen here at but the asserted copyrights were not renewed. I did several deep-dives into the copyright volumes from 1954, 1955, and 1956 and could find no photo renewals at all (including for NEA/AP) for any possible photos connected with the Bath School disaster. Shearonink (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I think those two specific images are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
When you have the time if you could take a look at the 11 photos in Bath School disaster. I think all the permissions/sources/etc are good now. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like File:Kehoe_car.jpg is missing discussion of (non-)renewal. Otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. At first I wasn't sure I understood what you meant by "missing discussion of (non-)renewal" but I have now adjusted that File. I think it should pass muster at this point. Thanks for all your expertise on the images. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing the Neonfly Page[edit]

Thanks for your great work on editing the page.

But I didn't understand , why did you delete the link? because under the second picture is the text about the group ("Other honourable mentions for Friday also have to go to Slash, still the coolest guy in rock, and London-based Neonfly who performed early on the acoustic stage."). The acoustic stage called the Jägermeister Acoustic stage. This is very importent for the band and Dailymail is one of the famous newspapers in UK.

If you think this is possible, then return the link back, please. Maybe it can be put after the words: "a memorable performance.."

Thank you for spending your time on us!

--Yulia Markhutova (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yulia Markhutova, I've added an alternate source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria!

I've seen your source. It fits well. Thanks a lot! --Yulia Markhutova (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159

Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

AF Mark sq.jpg
Visible Wiki Women campaign official logo.png

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging


Hi Nikkimaria. I'm not sure if you're stalking my edits, or all uses of {{Wikidata Infobox}}, but I see that you convert them to the standard infoboxes within a day of them being added. You convert them quite nicely (and thank you for taking the time to do that, rather than just removing them), but I find it makes the infoboxes more difficult to expand. Mostly it doesn't matter as I've finished working on the article by then, but in the case of Playa de Las Teresitas it's taking me a bit longer. Any chance you could wait a day or so longer before converting them, if you must, please? (Also, in that case, the date of opening was removed from the infobox, I'm not sure why.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Can I ask under what consensus you are adding the infoboxes, Mike Peel? CassiantoTalk 19:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cassianto: There's a long history here, see Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC for background (and note that only referenced info is shown in the infoboxes when I'm adding them). In this case, though, I'm only asking for a bit more time while I'm editing articles (which are either new, or didn't previously have a [good] infobox), before they are converted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mike Peel, I'm keeping an eye on all uses of {{Wikidata Infobox}} - any chance you could use a different template? This one isn't particularly mainspace-ready at the moment, and isn't limited to sourced info. If not, perhaps you could throw up an {{under construction}} until you're done your expansion? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll start using {{under construction}} while I'm working on articles. I'm happy to improve the infobox template to make it more mainspace-ready if you have suggestions. It should already be limited to sourced info. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mike Peel, one hopefully quick fix would be to avoid displaying parameter names when the value is unsourced - preview the template at John W. Beschter for an example. More broadly, it's not possible to say it's limited to sourced info so long as it includes the description from Wikidata, since that can't be cited there at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, "Date of birth" shouldn't be showing in that case, I'll fix that soon. That shouldn't happen for most fields, though, it's because the date of birth and date of death lines include multiple pieces of information, and the checks for those don't use WikidataIB at the moment. You're right that Wikidata descriptions can't be referenced, but then, neither can the {{short description}}s that now seem to be used here, and article intros typically aren't referenced. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
If you haven't seen it already, you might want to look at the discussions around why {{short description}}s are used here instead of the previous system of just pulling them from Wikidata. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I read the discussions about short description when they were happening, they are depressing and unhelpful, and offer nothing more than the Wikidata descriptions did except that they are now stored locally and can't be accessed from other wikis. And again, unreferenced. In other news, the "date of birth" field issue should now be fixed, thanks again for pointing it out. Back to article writing... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, just seems pretty clear from those discussions that the current consensus is not to use Wikidata descriptions here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the energy to argue against that right now. I can disable the descriptions in the infobox, if that's the only issue, though? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Notification about a FAC renomination[edit]


since you did comment on this later withdrawn FAC I wanted to notify you that I've renominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020[edit]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Signpost: 1 March 2020[edit]

Order of Eagle of Georgia[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, please see Order's Talk page before once again removing sourced content without cause or consensus. Ortolan57 (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ya Got Trouble - Notable covers[edit]

Following up to ask why the "Notable Covers" update to Ya Got Trouble made on Feb 19 2020 was removed by you on Feb 22 2020. The explanation that you left behind was "non-RS". Interestingly there were nine items in this section; only four are actual covers, while five are noted parodies of the original material, yet only a single parody was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1010:8976:B480:729F:A480:B266 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, the entry I removed was cited to an unreliable source. If there are other entries there that you feel warrant removal, you're welcome to either bring that up on the article's talk page or be bold and remove them. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Sulhamstead Estate, Chiswick[edit]


Thank you for editing my page. I don’t think I have written so much since I left school, I am not sure I wrote that much when I was at school. I would like to put back part of one of your edits as it was something one of the local historians mentioned to me when I was visiting the library. “This is not about the Kings, Queens and Dukes that gave their names to the area, but about the Miss King's, Miss Dollman's and Mr Lathbury's that shaped where we live.“ There is another change “so you can continue the journey to The Vale a long time after the river disappeared. “ I’d like to put back, but references the wider area and not the area included in the article, so doesn’t change the article if it’s not included.

I also noticed you removed one of my photos, was this removed because of a size issue or for another reason. If I resize the photo can I put it back in the article?

As you may have guessed this is my first wiki article, I have referenced a few books that I haven’t directly quoted from. To save me searching all the help pages can you let me know the code to add these books as my references please.

Many thanks

Colin Colin Potter 20 (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Colin, the simplest way to add references is just to put the details of the citation in between <ref> and </ref> tags. For example, if you found some information on page 30 of the book England by John Smith, you might type<ref>Smith, John. ''England''. Oxford University Press. p. 30</ref>. WP:REFB has some more in-depth information about referencing.
I removed the photo because it was not clear to me what it was intended to show. Can you elaborate?
In general the prose I removed was because it didn't fit with the general tone and style of Wikipedia - for example, we don't generally use first or second person (which is present in both of the excerpts you want to readd). I think the second could be readded with some rephrasing, to talk about the wider area. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2020[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png

  • Armenia report: Wiki project on Museums with My Armenia
  • Brazil report: Moreira Salles Institute GLAM initiative in Brazil
  • Finland report: The Helsinki then and now exhibition
  • France report: GLAM related blogposts
  • Indonesia report: Proposing collaboration with museums in Bali; First Wikisource training in the region
  • Netherlands report: Students write articles about Media artists, Public Domain Day 2020, Wiki Goes Caribbean, WikiFridays at Ihlia - Wikimedia Nederland in January & February 2020
  • Norway report: Wikipedia editing workshop with the Norwegian Network for Museums
  • Serbia report: Great dedication of librarians
  • Sweden report: Historic photos; Support for international Wikimedia community; Library training tour; Many GLAMs improved on Wikidata
  • UK report: Kimonos and Khalili
  • Ukraine report: Winning photos Wiki Loves Monuments shown in different cities; Libraries Lead an All-Ukrainian Challenge
  • USA report: Black History Month and Open Access Anniversaries
  • Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Summary of pilot projects, and what's next
  • Wikidata report: Leap into Wikidata!
  • WMF GLAM report: New Team Leadership, GLAM-Focused Grants Review, OpenGLAM Declaration Research
  • Calendar: March's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 02:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Barrett Brown (wrestler) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barrett Brown (wrestler) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrett Brown (wrestler) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sismarinho (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


Please stop breaking the references on Sylvia Rose Ashby. You’ve done this twice now. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, I’m not ungrateful for the edits, just please be careful. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock: Did you want to use those references for something else, or should they be removed entirely? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Why would I want them removed? I think you miss the point. I have used the children parameter correctly. I think your script is making mistakes. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock: I'm not using a script, and as I've explained on the talk page, children/parents/relatives are generally included only if notable or particularly relevant - there's no indication that's the case here. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
they were particularly relevant - I detailed how in the article text... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock: The brother and sister, the names currently using the unique references, are not even mentioned in the article text. The children and parents are mentioned but not significantly. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I only just noticed you commented on the talk page, I have responded there. This is all getting rather disheartening though. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could check this one for close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc. It had earlier been noted as having issues in the review, and the most recent review cites an Earwig link as evidence of continuing issues, though I'm not seeing any red flags when checking the first few results. Can you please see what there is to find, and note issues (or lack thereof) on the review? It's been stalled for a while now. Many thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi Nikki, I just wanted to apologise for my behaviour the other day. I think I was having a depressive episode, so I was highly sensitive to everything. I'm saying this as an explanation, not an excuse as I am ultimately responsible for my actions. But I wanted to say sorry to you as I think I was rude and not terribly reasonable. Thank you for your work on Women in Red, I'm trying hard to get our articles up to speed and filling in the blanks as fast as I can! Your help is really valuable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162

April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Any input for Puddleglum's The Signpost article?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Tenryuu from Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. A fellow collaborator, Puddleglum2.0, is looking for editors to answer some interview questions regarding editing and COVID-19. If you're interested, please leave your thoughts over at User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR. Cheers! --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬📝) 18:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

File Name is incorrect but I don't see how to change it...[edit]

File:Kentucky Mounted Militia Battle Of Raisin River Frenchtown In 1813 War Of 1812.jpg has an incorrect File name but I don't seem to be able to fix it.
A couple of things:

  • It was uploaded by a now-blocked user so I don't quite know if the permissions/sources are actually valid...I suspect not.
  • The File name should be something like File: Remember the River Raisin" a battle-cry at the Battle of the Thames . The painting is depicting a battle after the River Raisin Massacre when the memory of the Massacre had become a rallying point for the Americans during the rest of the War of 1812.
  • The pertinent articles are Battle of Frenchtown and Battle of the Thames.

Anyway you're an image expert so I figured you're probably able to move/change the file name. If you can't move it or aren't interested, that's cool. Just leave me a note here and I'll try asking elsewhere. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink, you'd need someone with the file-mover permission, but if you have reason to believe the file's permissions are invalid then we should be looking at deleting rather than renaming it. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

... for improving Jessye Norman's article by pointing out the copyvio, borrowing her smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020[edit]

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

WikiChevrons.svg The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 21 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Old Time Rock and Roll.[edit]

Hi Nikki can you please see if I referenced this YouTube video properly? It was showing many options. Here is my edit

Here are the ways it says you can do it.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talkcontribs) 16:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wifey93, you need to fill in |id= and |title=, as I've done here. However, the existence of the YouTube video isn't enough to include the mention because it doesn't demonstrate that it's significant to the subject - see this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I had googled how to reference YouTube as I've not done that before. It wasn't showing one like that with the ID. I was able to get the article to go to the YouTube video however by clicking on the link in the Old Time Rock and Roll page Wifey93 (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Chuck Norris parents[edit]

How can grave of his father and paper written by Chuck Norris himself were he tells that his mother will be 99 on 4 May 2020 be unreliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan (talkcontribs) 21:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Miloradovan, the paper is borderline - I could see an argument for including it, but generally we err on the side of not including personal details like DOB for living people who are not notable. As to the grave, that is a primary source and one that doesn't directly connect to the article subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Well at least that I can accept as an fact. But one day when she dies I will add her. Many actors and actresses have their parents dates of DOB and DOD on their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan (talkcontribs) 22:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers login[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I created an account on Newspapers for my email address as instructed on 26 March, but I have yet to hear anything since. I commented on my application, but not sure if it got lost. Thanks! PotentPotables (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

PotentPotables, thanks - for some reason didn't get a notification on that, will follow up. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2020[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png

  • Australia report: Know My Name; Public libraries of Queensland join Wikidata
  • Colombia report: Gender gap, Wikipedia and Libraries from the GLAM team
  • France report: WikiGoths; WikiTopia Archives
  • Indonesia report: Volunteers' meet-up; Wiki Cinta Budaya 2020 structured data edit-a-thon
  • Ireland report: Video tutorials; Celtic Knot Conference 2020
  • Kosovo report: WoALUG and NGO Germin call Albanian Diaspora to contribute to Wikipedia
  • Netherlands report: Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen contributes to Wikimedia Commons again; Student research on GLAM-Wiki at Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • Serbia report: March Highlights - Everything is postponed
  • Sweden report: FindingGLAMs; Wikipedia in libraries; Art from the Thiel Gallery Collections; Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete
  • UK report: Colourful Kimonos from Khalili
  • USA report: Women & Editing in the time of virus
  • Special story: COVID-19
  • Wikidata report: Lockdown Levellings
  • WMF GLAM report: Mapping GLAM-Wiki collaborations
  • Calendar: April's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 08:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Cora Livingston[edit]

Unless you find credible sources per Wp:PW/RS for this article you created and appear to be promoting, the unreliable source tags stay. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, along with reverting other improvements your edit restored a source that you objected to - that doesn't make any sense. Further, WP:PW/RS is not a comprehensive list of every possible reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Regardless they can be challenged until proven reliable. Hence I haven't removed anything, just added unreliable tags. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You've not provided any rationale for challenging the second source other than that it's not listed at WP:PW/RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok fine keep it this way for now. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Forty Saints Monastery, Sarandë[edit]

Nikkimaria, there were a number of passages in the article that Yoninah identified as having been copied from the sources. The nominator has said that the issue has been addressed; can you please check to make sure that indeed no more copyvio or close paraphrasing exists? Thank you very much; I hope you're having a good holiday weekend. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Women's Championship (Original Version)[edit]

The connection between the Women's Championship (Original Version) and the women's world championship can not be found under any WP:RY, and fails WP:V, thus it is worth mentioning that there is no link between the two and I will report you next time you keep using wp:or terms, the sources in Cora Livingston claims her as just women's champion not women's world champion. Stop pushing personal POV. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, WP:OR refers to making claims that are not found in reliable sources. The claim you added meets that definition, which is why I removed it. If you'd like to try reporting that, beware of the boomerang. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Nikkimaria I am sorry but what I included is just to show that no WP:RS claims the two titles are linked, it is your failure for trying to push title reigns that had no connection, no source at all they were connected, I merely pointed out that there are no source to connect them, pretty sure I am allowed to disambiguate to avoid confusion. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Also you have been misinterpreting sources and using OR terms, pretty sure they are unacceptable behavior. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless you have a source to support this claim, then no, you can't include it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria Unless you have source to link the titles, you cannot claim they are linked. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Good, so we've agreed that claims should be supported by sources. Will you remove your claim that is not? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I# have not made claim, I# have stated the obvious, no link between the two has been found and to disambiguate between two different titles that have no connection you do not need sources, as I am not writing anything new, i am just disambiguate between the titles. Go seek dispute resolution if you mus, but dont drag me to edit warring, you have a history of doing that. Either find source linking them, or state that tehy are not link and disambiguate between them or just make separate titles. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Another thing I can do is just give the source which calls it as just women's championship and not world championship to show the obvious that will clear the dispute, and the no link between these two stays fine. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) We rely on what sources say, not "stating the obvious". If you want to put the work into developing two separate articles, knock yourself out; it really doesn't matter to me. But in the interim, if there aren't sources that comment specifically on linkages one way or the other, then we should make no comment on that at all. Also, you've now changed several articles (eg) to link to Women's Championship, which is a football title; please correct that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok I am doing it. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok fixed the linking issues redirected to Women's Championship (Original Version). Dilbaggg (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Lula Mae Hardaway[edit]

In this one I noticed the person had plagiarized rather than just showing the reference so revised it Wifey93 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Josephine Blatt[edit]

Here, I am copying the entire Talk:Josephine Blatt talk page discussion to you:

Yes she may have been the first female champion in the 1890s, but not the first wrestling champion, one of the many early wrestling titles include the American Heavyweight Championship first won by Edwin Bibby in 1881.[1] There are even earlier titles than that. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Look at the 1905 world title and 1881 heavyweight title, they have Ney Work Times edition publishing news of the title victory from 1905 and 1881 respectively: [2], [3] pure WP:V for thenm, while this so called women's championship only has modern day blogs for source, and those aren't even WP:PW/RS and make dubious claims. There are even older wrestling titles before 1881: World Greco-Roman Heavyweight Championship is from 1875, any source that claims Josi's title if at all it existed is the first recognized title, its totally dubious !

User:Nikkimaria is known for the propaganda pushing povs, she even uses unreliable sources, like once she used the pre 2013 bleacher report despite clear instruction to refrain from it on WP:PW/RS, such desperate editors are unsafe for the community ! Here is a prove of her relying on forbidden sources to push her personal pov [4] ! Dilbaggg (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I have checked your block history, blocked for edit warring multiple time, please be rational and engage in talk page discussion than edit warring, see what I wrote above. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I would be happy to engage in a discussion with you if you are prepared to be civil and actually read the policies and guidelines you're referring to. None of them allow you to alter a direct quote from a source because you don't believe it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
A quote from a source which does not fit WP:PW/RS and is contradictory to multiple valid sources from older titles , automatically makes the source unreliable if it states such false contradictory statement. I am certainly allowed to question the validity of such source and it is you who keep pushing personal pov with stubbornly quoting unreliable sources, I have also provided another example of you doing that with the pre 2013 bleacher report which WP:PW/RS forbids to use. I removed that source altogether and added an alternative source that simply says she is the first women's champion, as that source violates WP:RS. Take it to WP:DR if you must, I know what the outcome will be. I will stand my ground against usage of unreliable sources and sources that contradict reliable sources. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
As I've already told you, WP:PW/RS is not a comprehensive list of all reliable sources, and you've cited this particular source several times. It doesn't contradict the other sources you cite either, you're just not correctly interpreting it - it refers specifically to "fair wrestlers" not all wrestlers. Given that context I see no reason to question its reliability, although you're of course welcome to raise the question at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The title fair wrestler is misleading, either use the exact word fair sex , instead of using fair wrestler to disambiguate it to it. Point is that it is far from the first wrestling title, but that quote makes it sound like that, so its best to use source that does not use misleading quotes like that, and I have just done that, kept the information intact that she was the first female champion using a different source, the information stays but the misleading part is removed. Also only 21st century writings cites her as more than a strongwoman, there is absolutely no news coverage from her time as her winning wrestling championship, unlike the AHC from 1881 and the WHC from 1905 which were published in the NYT 1881 and 1905 editions respectively giving them tremendous credibility, the Josie's title fails to show any such news coverage from her time, anytime before the 21 century. I am not saying you to remove the information that she was the first women's champion, just don't use the misleading and contradictory quote, and that certainly brings the validity of the removed sisterhood article as a source. Regardless the information she is a women's champion is still intact and I gave a different source, just the misleading quotation no longer exists. So lets settle the matter on this. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You actually removed more content than just the quote that you find objectionable, and the content you've replaced it with doesn't make sense as written. So unfortunately we can't just settle the matter on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Then seek WP:DR and no I only removed the quote nothing else, admins can check for themselves, and you falsely accuse me of personal attack when I only showed your misleading behavior including edit warring attempt and use of non WP:RS (as with the 2011 bleacher report), well then: No Wikipedia:Harassment. Kindly cooperate on talk page without posting threats for what I have not down. Pointing your errors is not a personal attack. But you harassed me with threat. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I did no such thing. As to the content you removed, anyone can compare for themselves: these are your changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You can add the latter portion back, as its not contradictory and doesn't go against WP:RS, but the quotation does not stay as it violates it. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You have yet to provide evidence of the source's unreliability, only your own misunderstanding of the quote. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I have already provided evidence above. How many times do I need to repeat myself? That was not the first wrestling title, there are multiple WP:RS citing much older titles , I have already said it about a 100 times above, please read all the points I made above as it appears you are commenting without reading. The quotation makes a false claim that it was the first fair wrestling title, it isn't true, as all the older titles have WP:RS on them proving they are much older, and thus the validity of the source is questionable and you are known to use unreliable sources as you did previously here [5] . If you are bothered so much by it I told you already to take it to WP:DR and let a neutral party judge it. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out above, the quote you object to never stated this was the first wrestling title. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It gives the misleading impression of doing that, it is not essential to use direct quotation, and the statement "first fair wrestling champion" actually does give the impression as though she was the first champion ever, this is why it is always best to use WP:PW/RS to avoid such confusion, but since you use beyond that, at least use sources that do not make such contradictory claims. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, WP:PW/RS is not a comprehensive listing of all sources that are reliable. For example, you yourself cite the New York Times above - that source isn't listed on that page, but that in no way means NYT is not reliable. The source you're claiming is of questionable validity is used elsewhere, not only in that article but also by you yourself at the women's championship article, meaning that if there is any actual reason why its reliability is questionable then we should replace it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Many unreliable sources are still used elsewhere due to lack of monitoring, wrestlezone which has been classified as unreliable for example is still sued in a lot of wrestling articles as sources. They were only classified unreliable after certain misleading information was published, and the sisterhood is doing the same, it definitely is a contradictory statement that goes against all other WP:RS, the NYT isnt listed in WP:PW/RS because it is an already accepted WP:RS not just for pro wrestling articles, and seeing such a misleading quote on sisterhood, I will take it out to project page to classify it unreliable later, but even you seem to agree that she was not the first wrestling champion, so why are you still trying to use this unreliable quote ? Dilbaggg (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Because the quote doesn't actually say that. And because the quote doesn't actually say that, you've presented no reason why the source should be considered unreliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I have presented reason why iyt should be unreliable, saying something like: "the first generally accepted champion among the fair wrestlers of the USA" is just not true, she was not the first generally accepted champion, there were countless others before that and WP:RS proves that, this false quote is clearly contradictory to that all, makes sisterhood unreliable. This false quote must not be used until its reliability is proven. I already kept saying this multiple times, yet you say I have not given reason ! Dilbaggg (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
What you have said multiple times is that you interpret that quote to mean "first generally accepted champion", period. But that isn't what it says. No one - not me, not that source - is disputing that other champions existed earlier. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"the first generally accepted champion among the fair wrestlers of the USA", so what does it say then? Fair wrestler, does it mean that she was the first fair and square wrestler? Does it mean other wrestlers who were champion did not have fair and square matches? Just because it has the term fair before wrestler does not nullify the misleading impression the questionable article is trying to give. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It means among women. Happy to expand the quoted section if needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
If that the case please do, though I have no idea if the term fire is synonymous to female/women, however if that is the case expand the quote to show it means among women just to avoid confusion. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The current version of Josephine Blatt looks beautiful, cheers, I support articles on historic female athletes as long as they maintain authenticity, this one now does, and so alls well that ends well. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Easter or whatever you celebrate[edit]

Cherry blossom, Ehrenbach.jpg

or: the resurrection of loving-kindness --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about capitalization[edit]

Hi, Nikki - it's been a while since we've communicated. I can't remember who told me quite a while back to capitalize titles in books and newspapers even if the source didn't - and for some reason, I'm thinking it may have been you. If so, does that still hold true? If not, what are your thoughts about it? Atsme Talk 📧 01:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, the applicable guideline is MOS:CT. That being said, in terms of citations so long as whatever's being done is reasonably consistent I don't usually fuss with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Drew Cultural References[edit]

Hey there, I noticed you removed the "Cultural References" section to the Nancy Drew page. Was this due to the ones listed not possessing references or pages of these types no longer containing sections of the sort? --H. Roosevelt (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi H. Roosevelt, the ones listed did not have reliable sources indicating their significance - see this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What is ...[edit]

ir? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I see, it is Image Review. I'm guessing this edit was an error? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
FF, yep, thanks for fixing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

It may not be necessary, but I just wanted to say thank you for approving my most recent Wikipedia Library application, as you did for my previous ones. I'm so excited to have access to this latest resource! Have a great day, Moisejp (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Bo Derek[edit]

There must be a gremlin at play. I am utterly confused how I can be adding something when I thought I was deleting it. It was my intention to delete the non-notable parents - I'm sure I saw them there earlier. I think I need to get out and get some air...oh, I cant. CassiantoTalk 23:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: They were there a couple of days ago, before I took them out. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I saw that; I can only imagine that it was some sort of edit conflict...who knows. I'm utterly perplexed. CassiantoTalk 00:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Query about reasons for removing material[edit]

From the article on Lee Fierro, you recently removed the statement "and was survived by five children, seven grand-children and seven great-grandchildren" (diff). You also removed the link to an article that made that statement. So I'm curious about your reasoning for removing that material. Not disagreeing, just curious. Your edit line said "doc," but that claim was indeed documented in the linked article. If it's not a documentation issue, but a stylistic issue of some sort, would you disagree some of that material could be put earlier in the article? Many bios, for example, mention that people have had children (giving names would be preferable, but giving a number would also seem appropriate if names are not available). I'll look for your reply here since my opinions are unformed, I'm merely curious. Thanks. --Presearch (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Presearch, the relevant guideline is MOS:SURVIVEDBY. You could list children earlier in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Perfect clarification. Just what I was hoping for! --Presearch (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Morgan Black Hours[edit]

That is a beautiful image of a book on the main page, and I see that you were the one who nominated the article at Wikipedia:FAC. Thank you. ↠Pine () 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pine, nope, wasn't me. You're looking for Ceoil. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oops, I saw your signature at the bottom of the lede section of the nomination page. Sorry, Ceoil. ↠Pine () 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020[edit]

Unexplained external link removal[edit]

Hello. I saw that you removed the Find a Grave external link on the Madame CJ Walker article and did not provide a reason. I and other editors have been watching the page closely due to recent increased interest in Walker and associated vandalism. The memorial is managed by Find a Grave and I don't see anything inaccurate about it. Do you? Do you have a reason for removing this link template? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi DiamondRemley39, the grave is already pictured in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166

May offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

IP editor stalking[edit]

@Nikkimaria: It appears as though you have a stalker reverting all your recent edits for no reason. I have placed a message to WP:ANI about it, so feel free to comment there. Tknifton (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Tknifton (and Vsmith), thanks - they've popped up several times over the past couple of weeks because they're annoyed about this. Nikkimaria (talk)
Fixing pings: Tknifton (and Vsmith). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Neverwinter Nights 2 and links to external wiki[edit]


With regards to the recent edit on the Neverwinter Nights 2 page, thank you for providing the link to Wikipedia's policy on external links. This helped me to understand why the link I added previously had been removed several times, often with minimal to no explanation. However, after reviewing Wikipedia's policy on this matter, I believe the external link I provided is appropriate and compliant with the policy.

In particular, the NWN2 wiki appears to comply with section 12., which provides for exceptions of links to normally be avoided (in this case, an external wiki). Section 12 precludes "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." I believe the NWN2 qualifies as a wiki with:

  • 1) substantial history of stability and
  • 2) a substantial number of editors.

I believe the NWN2 wiki meets the above two criteria as evidenced by the following:

  • 1) The NWN2 has been in existence since Dec 9, 2005.
  • 2) The Wiki has over 3,812 pages
  • 3) Contributors are not required to own the game NWN2 or be registered users on the site
  • 4) The NWN2 Wiki does not earn a profit (except possibly tangentially by the ads that appears on some of the pages, but I doubt this is a disqualifying factor), nor does it encourage the reader to buy the game
  • 5) The Wiki is intended to be a knowledge resource for those playing the game or who may be interested in the game.
  • 6) During the over 14 years this wiki has been in existence it has undergone over more edits than I can count to build accuracy, clarity and impartiality of knowledge for its readers, users and contributors
  • 7) As part of Fandom, the NWN2 Wiki is administered solely by unpaid volunteers (such as myself) and is monitored for standards of civility, decency and legality by both the admins of the Wiki, Fandom's paid staff and Fandom's automated monitoring system.
  • 8) All contributions to NWN2Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA

In light of the above, I believe the NWN2 Wiki complies with Wikipedia's policy on external wikis and hope you will see fit to leave this external link in place.

I am happy to discuss further and, if you decide it has to be removed, I will respect the decision and not get into an edit war. This was not my intention, and I apologize for appearances of doing so.

Respectfully submitted, Raelind (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Raelind, I disagree with your assertion that it meets the "substantial number of editors" requirement - it looks like there have been fewer than 20 editors who have made any edits within the past year. Additionally, as per the directions on how to address disputed links, the link should be excluded from the article until you've achieved consensus to include it. I suggest you raise this issue on either the article's talk page or the external links noticeboard, but in the interim the link should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Begotten Paraphrasing[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, As your FA review on the article suggested, I have been attempting to paraphrase certain problematic sections of the article so that it does not constitute as plagiarism. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and let me know if there are any sentences or sections that still need to be adjusted.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

On a quick look I don't see anything obvious in terms of paraphrasing, although I don't have access to all of the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, though it is rather difficult sifting through all the sources to see if I did it right (or wrong). In terms of access to the sources which ones did you need?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: I thought I would explain my whole process here just to give a better understanding of my whole definition when I say "paraphrasing". Essentially, I am looking at the original quoted and explaining it in terms of what the author meant, with short blurbs in quotations where I am directly using the original author's quote. Hopefully, this is right.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's appropriate. Extensive quoting might be a style issue for some reviewers though, so keep that in mind as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hidden category[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I am working on Category:Wikipedia articles containing unlinked shortened footnotes. I am active in converting unlinked shortened footnotes into something more useful, & plan on training other to do this as well. If you are unacquainted with the power of this, I invite you to examine the Icarians & Oneida Community articles. This is a hidden category & thus not available to readers unless they have the option to turn hidden categories.

In the future, if you have questions about edits that I make that are invisible to the typical user, please ping me first.

Peaceray (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I know you have many more edits than I do, but considering my longevity & quantity of edits, I would appreciate a discussion before simply undoing my hidden category edits. After all,, we are both here to improve the project. Peaceray (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Peaceray, could you point me to the discussion where you've established consensus for this initiative? It seems to me likely to run afoul of WP:CITEVAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Butting in, re this, please see the thread I've opened here for discussion. Nikkimaria is correct and this needs to be discussed but on the article talk page. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
There are two conversations to be had here, but I am concentrating on Talk:Ernest Hemingway#Hidden category to re-do citations first. I believe that parenthetical referencing is fully compatable with WP:CITEVAR & give a detailed explanation there. Peaceray (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Image rights[edit]

Do you know how to go about letting a copyright holder release an image under commons cc; i have told them that they will no longer own it, and will be uploading on their behalf. Article is here. Txs. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, take a look at WP:COPYREQ. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh jesus, that looks complicated. I have express permission, do I forward the correspondence to some one/thing? Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, yep, the email and tag you need are at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sound Nikki. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Would you mind using your super-powers to move File:Donnely.jpg to File:Donnelly.jpg, leaving a redirect. I misspelled the man's name, but don't want deletion/re-upload as am in contact with both the copyright owner and ORTS. Tks as always and hope you are safe. Ceoil (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ceoil, you'll need to talk to someone with the file mover permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. You were kind enough to do a spotcheck for the Meghan Trainor article here. Following which I have worked on the article a bit more and plan on taking it through another FAC. However, the FAC coords tend to be extremely strict and archive my nominations fairly quickly. If possible, I could really use a full source review at the PR page so I get enough time to work on all your comments. It would be very appreciated.--NØ 14:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi MaranoFan, as a first step I'd recommend taking a look at WP:RSP - I see several sources in that article that have been flagged as potentially problematic, particularly in the context of BLPs. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Identified Buzzfeed and Bustle as potentially problematic and removed them. Looking forward to more comments!--NØ 22:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
MaranoFan, definitely more on that first step - for example I see the Daily Express. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe I've done step one. Btw please let me know if you do not have the time to commit to this, I will seek another FAC mentor should that be the case.--NØ 10:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Think that would be best, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia JSTOR Question[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure how to know if my Wikipedia library card access to JSTOR is working, do I have to do something on either accounts to enable it? I was trying to access this article which I believe Wikipedia covers access to since I don't think it's part of JSTOR books? Also, about JSTOR books, it seems that the voting page for new library card resources lists JSTOR books with twice with different links, so these votes can probably combined. Thanks, Aza24 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: You'll get an email from JSTOR when your account is activated, which might take a week or two after it's approved. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2020[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png

  • Brazil report: GLAMce at Museu Paulista: making things machine-readable
  • Czech Republic report: WikiGap 2020 in Czech Republic; International event; support for Wikimedia community; edit-a-thon run with the US embassy and the Swedish Embassy
  • France report: Association des Archivistes Francais; Palladia, a museum collection portal based on Wikimedia resources
  • Indonesia report: Wikisource Competition 2020
  • Ireland report: Hunt Museum image donation; Livesteaming and video demonstrations
  • Italy report: Archivio Ricordi, webinars and videos
  • Kosovo report: One Village, One Article for each village in Albania and Kosovo
  • Netherlands report: Photo collections Afrika-Studiecentrum Leiden; meetup and media donations for Wiki goes Caribbean; first online WikiFriday
  • Sweden report: Skrivstuga (edit-a-thon) online – Wikipedia in libraries
  • Switzerland report: More women on Wikipedia
  • UK report: Japanese silk and Spanish iron
  • USA report: Earth Day
  • Wikidata report: Seven Million People Can't Be Wrong
  • Calendar: May's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ava Gardner[edit]

I'm confused by this edit. Why did you remove a valid parameter with information that is sourced in the article? A more detailed edit summary might help. What does "doc" mean? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sundayclose, see Template:Infobox person/doc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I still think you need to have a better edit summary. I'm sure I'm not the only experienced editor who would be confused by "doc". Sundayclose (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Roselia (band).
Message added 22:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


Dear Nikkimaria,

Thank you for having approved my application for access to JSTOR via the Wikipedia Library card platform.

With all best regards,

Shams lnm (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


Is the picture that I added of Pascal Langdale correct cause I don't think so.@NikkiMaria: Pixel Lupus (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pixel Lupus, do you have a link to where you added the picture for me to check? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Pascal Langdaleher check please. Pixel Lupus (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Pixel Lupus (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pixel Lupus, I don't see any information at the Wikimedia Commons page to support that that image is under a free license. Do you know where it came from originally? Just because something's been uploaded somewhere, doesn't necessarily mean that it's free to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of images on Stockport County F.C[edit]

Hi Thank you for reviewing the images on the Article Stockport County F.C. Right now it looks like you are seeking clarification on 4 images

  • File:Wycliffe_Congregational_Church,_Heaton_Norris.jpg
  • File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg
  • File:Stockport_County_receiving_the_Championship_Shield_in_1937.jpg
  • File:Stockport_County_Football_Team_1957.jpg

As mentioned these are all from the Stockport Image Archive. There are Images on the website with a Y next to the copyright point - the 4 images in question have an N next to their copyright point. The Stockport Image archive states- "© Copyright. Unless otherwise stated, the copyright, database rights and similar rights in all material published on this site are owned by Stockport Library and Information Service, Stockport Council."

So going off this, the images on the Image archive are copyright images if they have a Y next to them and are not if they have an N. I don't think these images were ever published in the United States so I don't think they would come under U.S copyright law and if they did then I would be unsure what they would come under.

I'd be happy to change the copyright status of the images but as I have mentioned I'm unsure what to tag them as going off the guidelines and tag on this page Wikipedia:File copyright tags

Thanks, Wna247 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wna247, that's why I was asking why they're not copyrighted, because that would allow us to determine what copyright tag might apply. Even if the images were never published in the US, they could be considered copyrighted there under international copyright treaties. WP:NUSC has a more comprehensive explanation of what that means. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok this is something I'm going to need to get my head around I have changed the tags on File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg for the moment (again can always changed it again if required)- I was looking and another football club featured article (Manchester United to be specific) and they way those images are copyright licensed to to help trying to understand this a bit better. If you now anyone who understands copyright better than I do that might be able to assist that would be great. Wna247 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Wna247, if you can track down more information about the image's provenance it'd be easier to determine status. Any idea when and where these were first published? Might the archive have those details? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok looking at the archive website this is what it says for each image
  • Date: Date photo was taken if known.
  • Photographer: Unknown for most of the photos
  • Area: Where the photo was taken
  • Reference: this is the archive reference number in case you already knew it and wanted to search using it.
  • Available To Buy:Y or N
  • Copyright: Y or N

For the Wycliffe Congregational Church photo the Photographer is listed and has been credited as the Author on commons along with the date the photo was taken. For the fire at Edgeley Park photos the Image date is said to be unknown and the photographer is unknown - however the fire was on 23 July 1935 so it can be assumed this is when the image was from give or take a couple of days, but no publishing information is given. For the championship shield photo the Date is given as 28 May 1937 and the photographer is listed as Stockport Advertiser Newspaper so it can be assumed that the image was published in the newspaper on or around that time. Finally the team photograph is dated 1957 with the Photographer listed as Stockport Express so again it can be assumed this image was published. The image does say it from the start of the season, this would have been late August 1957 in this case.

Other than this information I have given you and the Copyright information as provided above in an earlier message, there is nothing else on the website that states anything about copyright ownership of the images in the archive. Hope some of this is useful Wna247 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the problem. Most if not all of these, if they were published, would have been published after 1925, meaning they wouldn't automatically be in the US public domain. commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom tells us that where the photographer is unknown, photos created before 1957 that are not government works have a minimum copyright term of 70 years from creation (70 years from publication if published). This would put the most likely date of copyright expiration in the UK after the URAA date of 1 January 1996. The five-point test would thus lead us to the conclusion that the images are more likely than not still covered by copyright in the US. That's not a 100% certainty - for example if any were Crown copyright they might well be free - but in the absence of additional information that'd be my conclusion. I would suggest though if you're able that you reach out to the archive in case they have more info that might lead to a different analysis. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll be honest I knew there were a set number of years before copyright expires but I thought it was 50 so thanks for the clarification its has made things clearer now. I'm still unsure what tag to use on the images through looking at the page you sent earlier maybe "PD-URAA" - for images first published outside of the U.S. from 1925 to 1977 (inclusive), but PD in the foreign source country on January 1, 1996" with of course the UK equivalent as well which I believe would be "PD-UK-unknown" - A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication - in this case newspapers) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1950) while the publication may be known the actually photographer is unknown" (Fire and shield winners photos) Still unsure how to tag the 1957 team photos because While the start of that season was officially at the end of August 1957 there were unofficially matches between the team before the season start. If it was taken in July then "PD-UK-unknown" might just cover it but I would need to clarify but it more than likely was taken in the August which means that this tag just about wouldn't cover it, unless you can see a reason it may. I know the newspapers these photos were published in were Local newspapers not national ones. Plus I don't think the images are Government or Crown copyright. I'd be happy to put these tags on for now. I won't be able to check for further detail in regards to copyright as all libraries in my local area are closed. I will drop them an email but may have to wait a while for a response. Wna247 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Wna247, as I mentioned, I would consider it more likely than not that the images were not "PD in the foreign source country on January 1, 1996" - the images would have needed to be published by (1996-70 =) 1926, and we know in several cases that the images were created after that date. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bit of an update on this after speaking to one of the Libraries and Archives team this is what I got back "At Stockport Heritage library where possible everything accepted into the collection has the copyrights handed over at the point of donation, to prevent problems of untraceable rights holders arising in the future." I was also told that the archive is made up of council works (E.g the newspapers) and donations (e.g the wycliffe church photo) I was told none of the works were published internationally, only locally. Any photos created before June 1957 by council works would have expired copyright 50 years after first publication. Any donations with Y next to the copyright means that the work is still covered by copyright while donations with a N means they have given up all copyright. Unsure if I can post external links but I was sent this link to the chart that the libraries use to work out copyright - Will try to get more information if needed Wna247 (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

N means the copyright holder relinquished copyright, or N means the library believes the work is out of copyright due to age? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
From what the archives team have told me, the newspaper works are out of copyright due to age. The Wycliffe Church photo was taken to be put into the archive so the photographer has relinquished the rights to that image so its marked as N for no copyright. Wna247 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Update - I have just received three messages about these images being proposed for deletion on commons. Wna247 (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, based on the information you're providing the current tags are not correct, except perhaps in the case of the Wycliffe Church photo - that would depend on the details of the relinquishment, suggest you add any information you have about that to the image description page. Other than that one, here's where things stand for me:
  • File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg: the UK tag requires you to provide information about steps taken to ascertain authorship, and to know US status we need to know when/if this was published. If that can't be determined this would likely be considered non-free.
  • File:Stockport_County_receiving_the_Championship_Shield_in_1937.jpg: based on the diagram this may be PD but needs different tagging for sure.
  • File:Stockport_County_Football_Team_1957.jpg: probably not PD in the US based on possible publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed them but they might still be wrong or need more information so I will change/clarify if needed. Just so you are aware though the Stockport Advertiser dates back to at least 1842 (there are pages from this year on the British Newspaper Archive). The Stockport Express came around in 1953 before the two papers merged in 1981 to be known as the Stockport Express Advertiser (later shortened to Stockport Express in 1999) The Stockport Express was known as the County Express (a series of newspapers covering Manchester and Cheshire with the Stockport Edition available to Stockport residents) from 1959 until 1961. So with that the Stockport Advertiser is out of publication while the Stockport Express is still in publication but in a different form to its 1953-1959 counterpart. Wna247 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Further Update - I'm still a little unsure on the right USA copyright tag to use on the images as none were published in the states. However I may look on to see if there are any images I can use that are under a form of CC license and use those instead. Unsure how this would affect the current image review on the Articles FAC nomination page. I also am able to acquire a copy of a scanned ordnance survey of the football ground from 1910 but the copyright of this may confuse me. Wna247 (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
If it was published in 1910 it'll automatically be PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I might replace the image we are currently looking for copyright tags for all the tags in the comprehensive list you sent me for the USA say for example "first published" The images have not published in the USA and as I don't live in America I wouldn't know its copyright status in that country. All I know what what the Libraries and Archieve team have told me. Just want to check over these before adding to the article:,_Stockport,_during_a_match_in_1994.jpg - Covered by CC BY-SA 2.0 License,_2011.jpg - This image is under the same license as the image above but commons doesn't seem to like it , would I be better uploading to Wikipedia directly (like the image above) or not at all? EDIT- Original flickr link -, on the page if you click on some rights reserved it takes you to this page - Not uploaded by myself - But may use this image in the Stockport county article as the person pictured did play for the team in 1901. This image is tagged as public domain PD-1923 and Anonymous-EU EDIT - Images source shows getty images and here is the info from that site Date created: 01 January, 1896 Licence type: Rights-managed - Release info: Not released - - Ordnance survey map as mentioned above, hopefully I have tagged if correctly based on what was displayed on the website. This is the only image of the 4 I have added to the article. Wna247 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Since your second image is deleted I can't see what about it Commons doesn't like - do you have the original Flickr link? Third one you'd need to be able to demonstrate it was published (not just created) before 1925. As above if the ordnance survey was published in 1910 it'd be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Cheers @Nikkimaria: I have amended info on this page for picture 2 and 3 adding the flickr link/ links to further rights info the pages gives. Wna247 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
NC-ND is not considered 'free' for the purposes of Wikimedia, so that'd be why the second image was deleted. See WP:COMPLIC. For the third, still need to know when it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No Worries thanks for clearing that up - As picture 2 has been deleted I won't re-upload it. I didn't upload picture 3 and have sent you all the information the source link contains so I cannot be sure when it was published (but again on the source website it says not published), that picture is used on that persons wiki page so I just wanted to run it by you before using it on another page. Picture 4 ordnance survey I have tagged as such and it was published in 1910 so that should be fine as you say. You haven't mentioned anything about picture 1 so I assume that is all ok.

Going back to my original images:

• File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg: the UK tag requires you to provide information about steps taken to ascertain authorship, and to know US status we need to know when/if this was published. If that can't be determined this would likely be considered non-free.
The image was published in the United Kingdom but the photographer and Image date is said to be unknown. But we can gather it was taken on or around 23 July 1935 as that’s when the fire was. And likely to be published in the local newspaper on 24 or 25 July 1935 as that is when the local weekly newspaper was released in the United Kingdom. .– According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date
Possibly "Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.

• File:Stockport_County_receiving_the_Championship_Shield_in_1937.jpg: based on the diagram this may be PD but needs different tagging for sure.
Any of these seem relevant as the image was published in the Stockport Advertiser Newspaper on 28 May 1937 in the United Kingdom. – According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date.
"Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.

• File:Stockport_County_Football_Team_1957.jpg: probably not PD in the US based on possible publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
"Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.
This image was can be assumed published in late August 1957, the Photographer listed as Stockport Express. It can be assumed then that this was published in the Stockport Express newspaper in the United Kingdom on or around that time.– According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date.

I can't find any more information of the United States publishing of these images if the archive team have told me that the Images were never published in the United States.

For the Wycliffe Church photo I have added a bit more information to the photos page but I could go and take a photo of it myself and upload it as own work if the information I have put onto the photo page is not enough.

Thanks, Wna247 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

but again on the source website it says not published No, it says not released, which in this case appears to be a model release.
likely to be published in the local newspaper on 24 or 25 July 1935 Can this be confirmed?
This image was can be assumed published in late August 1957... copyright expired after 50 years In the UK. But 1957 + 50 would be after 1996 so likely still copyrighted in the US.
With regards to claiming images as non-free, keep in mind that you need a strong rationale for these, and the more non-free images you use the stronger the rationale for each needs to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

OK Still unsure on how an image can be copyrighted in the United states, when it was never published or released in that country (which I have been told by the Stockport Images and archives team) when its Copyright has expired in the UK I would like to use the 1937 shield photo and/or the fire photo but would be happy to remove the team photo from 1957 due to the copyright. At the moment I can only speak to the archives team over email but will be able to visit the library and see the archive myself once they re-open - at that point I should be able to confirm that date of the newspaper publications in 1935 and 1937, but that might not be fore a couple of weeks yet. Can remove them from the article for now then add back in later once I can get all copyrights/publication dates etc. confirmed. If I can.

So the main Stockport county will have the following images in there after the next round of FAC edits:
File:Stockport County FC logo.svg - The clubs logo. Text is yellow on the website but blue on the sourced Document. Yellow is the official colour but the blue version is used on white backgrounds.
File:Wycliffe Congregational Church, Heaton Norris.jpg - I have given all the information I know on this image but I can now go and take a picture of this building myself and re upload. so then it will be tagged as my own work and therefore I'd give up rights to it via CC.
File:1910 Cheshire ordnance survey map showing Edgeley Park (cropped).jpg - Ordnance survey from 1910
File:Stockport County FC League Performance.svg - a version of this file is on most football clubs pages (differs depending on club of course) is tagged as an own work and updated yearly.
File:Stockport County Warm Up vs Cambridge.jpg - Is an Image I took at a match,is an own work and tagged as such.
File:Edgeley Park - - 763377.jpg - licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. with Attribution Dave Pickersgill
File:Stockport County fans.jpg - not uploaded by me but tagged as and own work under Commons and GNU Free Documentation License

I may later add to the article:
File:Dave_Jones.jpg - Uploaded via flickr via a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
- former manager of the club in the late 1990s (but this image is from 2010 when he was managing Cardiff City).
File:The Railway End of Edgeley Park, Stockport, during a match in 1994.jpg - Uploaded by me, similar to the image above This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License with Attribution
File:WillemIIManchesterUnited1963a (cropped).jpg - This is a picture of David Herd (who is mentioned in the main Stockport County article) scoring a goal later in his career for another club. - Original not uploaded by me but I have cropped it - Original is under the under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. This photo is a maybe, while it does show David Herd (a former Stockport player) in action its from a match between Manchester united and Dutch team Willem II.
I may also upload a photograph I took of a player at a pre-season match a few years ago and like the Warm Up vs Cambridge. will mark it as own work and tagged as commons.

If these are all ok I will go with these in the article and later add the 1937 shield photo and the fire photo if I can verify the copyright status with the library and archives team but as I said that might be a few weeks yet and don't want to delay the FAC of the article if it ends up coming down to image copyrights. A simple Yes or No for the above images will be fine. Wna247 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The church image is still pending the results of the deletion discussion at Commons. At a glance the others appear fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


You have removed a Wikidata template from Jean François Denis de Keredern de Trobriand, and I restored it only after adding another source to the Wikidata Q-Item. The source in question is a semi-official webpage of the École navale (the French naval academy). I would appreciate if you did not keep removing it without explaining clearly what it is you thing is lacking about these sources. I understand that you did not like the website from which the portrait comes from, but as it is you are refusing to believe any textual information from that website, while accepting that the portrait is indeed a portrait of the subject of the article, and that is just confusing. Rama (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Rama, rootsweb is not a reliable source and we shouldn't be including information sourced to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not understand what you are talking about. There was never any mention of rootsweb on this article. Rama (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Rama, if you look at where the template data is coming from, most parameters are using rootsweb as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, I have removed the rootsweb references from Wikidata, and there is now another source for the information. I hope that this works.
Also, as I said, the portrait comes from the web page hosted on rootsweb. Do you think we should remove it? Rama (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Are there other sources that can confirm the identification? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Not that I know of at the moment. Rama (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Then unless that can be confirmed I would suggest not using it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red

June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169

Online events:

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 2020[edit]

Stop removing information as you did on Rhoda Montemayor. Or else you might get further blocked. DustEchos(DustEchos|talk) 12:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC) DustEchos (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

DustEchos, since the subject of the article is a living person, there are special rules governing what kind of content should be included and what kind of sourcing is necessary to support that content. Self-published sources like open wikis, for example, cannot be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Australasian Antarctic Expedition[edit]

Carnations, Kesselbach.jpg

Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cosson[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

Thank you for taking interest in my major project of whipping the Elizabeth Cosson article into shape (given the collection of dead links, outdated and incorrect information, and rather clunky writing it had). It is a mammoth task and even though I’ve been spending eight hours a night on it (it’s my second major project as a registered contributor [although I’ve been a guest contributor for some time now], after rewriting and improving Nursing Service Cross) there is still much work to do.

I would encourage you to please abide by WP:RVREASONS when making anything other than minor edits. One word or blank edit summary reasons, for anything other than a minor edit, are contrary to WP:RVREASONS. It is good practice, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to discuss significant changes on the Talk page, to recent edits before hitting the publish button. Because I don’t have any understanding of your reasons, and the removal wasn’t a minor edit, I’ve temporarily rolled back your changes for now.

As this article is undergoing a major re-write, and is still a work in progress, it is preferred contributions by other editors are held off on until 2 June 2020, unless there is an urgent compelling reason to do so (emergency edit) [I’d prefer review is on the finished product as reasons for content may not be clear without looking at the whole]. But if you have time to explain your reasons for each individual removal, my metaphysical door is always open and my welcome mat is out. Thanks for taking the time to drop by for a lighting visit and I look forward to taking the time to talk together. Kangaresearch (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, please be responsible and follow WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. It’s important for all Wikipedians to adhere to WP:5P4. I draw your attention to the following [6]. I have rolled back your changes temporarily again until you follow Wikipedia policy and discuss them first as they are now clearly contentious. I have asked you to discuss in accordance with WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Please discuss IAW WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: As you are copywriting this article, can you review diff [7] for consistency of capitalisation on military ranks/titles re:Style Guide. Thanks. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
While the request belonged here, as the rest is an article topic, I’ll move it to the talk page so everything is together Kangaresearch (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC) (Moved)Kangaresearch (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for showing some restraint (after getting a bit hot), and I am sorry if you felt changing the new subheading you added without any discussion was harmful to your feelings (I’m just trying to keep the open subsections in alphabetic order for ease of navigation, which changed when it became C after I). And while it appears you feel differently, the change of the title field in the info-box (remembering the info-box is only were I was up to when you dropped in) to lower case is the primary concern of case change - these should be uncontentious things in normal circumstances but I acknowledge your sensitivities. I am glad it didn’t devolve to the farce of earlier though, before we put a line under it (I mean subheadings on a talk page, not exactly the fields of Flanders). As mentioned let us try to be productive, after all, all activity is on the talk page now, not the article (which doesn’t progress us far). I feel like (now) I just get you in bad moments sometimes, as at times you can progress things along (like with the paypoint, even though it got pretty bogged there for a while), but at other times - not so much. I just wanted to let you know there is no urgency in these discussions - if it is not a good time, feel free to come back to it later. It doesn’t concern me much that you personally have these firm views, as long as you can express them as best as you can to me, fairly, so I have no ambiguity on them it is enough (you are always clear whether you want something one way or not, but not always in terms of why, except in generalised statements - and those are the ones I try to tease out a bit more, as sometimes you say something pivotal when that happens). As for myself, I don’t treat these conversations as battles to be won, but there are things I think need a little more, so anyone in the future can track why or why not things were done with some precision. I feel like, from very poor beginnings, we improved things in 48hrs (not an easy task) so that is worth protecting. Let us work in the interests of the article, because I know I was just about take a step rather reluctantly the other day, then suddenly saw a more measured tone and having just previously thought there is no way this will self-resolve, you changed my mind. It shows it is possible, and I appreciate you don’t normally spend time doing this (as normally you are focussing on copywriting, then moving to the next thing - not engaging in conversations), so I acknowledge the time you have provided (but as I said, if you want to take a moment, please feel free to do so - the article will still be there). Kangaresearch (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kangaresearch, to my knowledge no one has changed or suggested changing the rank capitalization in the infobox. If you want to have the open subsections in alphabetic order, please feel free to move that section somewhere else in the list - not because it is in any way "harmful to [my] feelings", but because the comments of mine you've placed in that section never had anything to do with the infobox so logging them under that heading is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I would say I apologise for any hurt feelings about apologising, but if you haven’t been upset over either, well then there is no need to apologise. I actually checked that, and my bad, I’m sure I saw that field in all lower caps, which caused the request (no wonder you were confused when I was talking about the rank as a stand-alone thing). Must be fuzzy eyes from all the talk page activity lol. Oh well, carry on McDuff - if it is outside the info-box, it is not that important (to me, right now). Can you title that whatever you want - mark it suspended - and drop to the end of the section. I’d do it myself, but if you want ownership of the title of a subheading, probably best you do it (then it is to your liking rather than my guessing, and you like things exactly so, so seems best).Kangaresearch (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, don’t know if you will find this interesting or not, but was having a talk with Schazjmd, and well it interested me all this difference, so I asked and did a bit of searching to confirm, but the source of US custom, formally adopted by the US government and the armed service, is the Chicago Manual of Style which says capitalise [or in your locality, capitalize] when used in conjunction with a name otherwise lower case. It does give some context to the fork. Kangaresearch (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:TPO & WP:OWNTALK disregard and repeated blanking of content without discussion, despite repeated request to do so[edit]

WP:OWNTALK "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user" WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection"

Re: Elizabeth Cosson Disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. While "Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively... [the] fact that the disruption ... [may have occurred] in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia... [such as when] a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page... [by] a pattern of... tendentious... editing... that continues with impunity... [and] repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations... [and] repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits... [by engaging in] WP:DAPE."

Kangaresearch, you need to re-read WP:TPO, and while you're at it review WP:DRC. TPO specifically allows for users to remove comments from their own talk page at their discretion (with some limited exceptions that don't apply here). You posted the same message here and at the article talk page, and I'd prefer to discuss it at the article talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Please abide by WP:5P4 - claiming someone needs to "re-read" something is overly aggressive and condescending, especially when you cannot specifically cite a point. While in some limited circumstances other editors comments may be removed, that does not include what you removed, which was drawing your attention to, and discussion of, your controversial blanking edits (made without discussion, despite being notified they were contentious and that request had been made for you to communicate on, before making further blanking edits [which you ignored]) - as per WP:OWNTALK & WP:UP#SUB a user’s talk page is for "messages from, and discussion with, other editors" about that editor’s editing activities (as distinct from collaborative discussion on an article, which you refuse to partake in, despite multiple requests to do so, making eight blanking edits that were known to you to be contentious, without any discussion, despite a request for you to do so after the first edit and only after eight edits engaged in any form of communication at all). However, if you specifically identify what exact parts of my edits on this page, and the reasons for anything to you wish to be edited by me (not a global vague claim that lacks precision, and prevents such consideration from taking place), I am happy to consider them for self-edit.
The Elizabeth Cosson talk page is for specific discussion about editors to discuss "changes [before they occur] to the Elizabeth Cosson article - it is not for discussing the conduct associated of with an editors edits or making remarks on editors (such as you did at 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)). I do consider, however, that while I have responded to certain off-topic remarks by you on the Elizabeth Cosson talk page, to give understanding at the place you first chose to communicate for the first time, they should be moved here to your talk page rather than the Elizabeth Cosson talk page (once you have edited your own off-topic comments [please refrain from making personal attributions] to make polite and considerate remarks about what you believe the article should or shouldn’t include, not the condescending personal ones you have inferred) so that which does belong on each talk page (which serve different distinct roles) goes there. It is unhelpful and contrary to purpose to combine them together on just one talk page, not to mention unhelpful to people actually doing real work. Kangaresearch (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Kangaresearch, I am trying to assume good faith that you simply have misread the policies you're citing, but WP:OWNTALK specifically allows for users to "freely remove comments from their own talk pages", and you should not be re-restoring them multiple times - you can assume that removed comments have been read. I find your postings here and at the article talk page to be overly aggressive, unnecessarily focused on personalities rather than content, and not helpful for resolving the issues under dispute. I will respond to the substantive content matters at the article talk page and will also ask that you not post here again until you are prepared to meet the same behavioural standard you demand of others. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

rm non-RS for Bill Burnett (writer)[edit]

Hello, I see that you removed part due to non-RS. I believe I found a RS to replace the non-RS: Is this RS? Is it OK for me to re-instate that part using this RS? --Dr.bobbs (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dr.bobbs, no, IMDB is not generally considered reliable. In addition to that page there's an extensive list of common reliable and unreliable sources here that might be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020[edit]

Teachable moments[edit]

Most of this edit, which you explained with a laconic "ce", removed quote fields from references.

I wrote a user essay where I suggest every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.

If you know of some guideline, or longstanding convention, that generally deprecates the use of quote fields, then could you please link to it for me?

If you don't think quote fields were generally deprecated, but you think my use of them lapses from some guideline, or longstanding convention, then could you please link to it for me?

In general, going forward, could you reserve the laconic edit summaries of "ce" for edits where the purpose, and justification, is actually obvious?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue of quotes in citations has been discussed on many occasions, with use-cases such as offline sources, potentially contentious claims, or unparaphrasable material - none of which seem to apply here. In this case the quoted material actually exceeded the content of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, there are previous discussions you can point me to? Great, I look forward to you helping me find them with anticipation.
  • I know what a ucase is, but I don't know what a use-case is. You are the second person to use this strange term this month. Care to explain what this term means to you? Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We do have an article on that subject, but briefly, a use-case is a scenario in which a particular feature is appropriately deployed. The examples I mentioned above are ones in which this particular feature provides benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia[edit]

Hi there, since you've already an image review for the this nomination at FAC, may ask you to perform a source review as well? I'd really appreciate it, ShahidTalk2me 19:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, going to leave that to someone else. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you anyway, ShahidTalk2me 21:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

O canada[edit]

My time is limited. Yet your [8] may do more harm than good without sufficient reason. Also note that unapproved alteration of national anthems may even be a crime in certain places, like Chinese Macao since 20 December 1999, though not Canada nor the USA.--Jusjih (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jusjih, if you believe that content does warrant inclusion I suggest making your case on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2020[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png

  • Armenia report: Edit-a-thon dedicated to International Museum Day
  • Colombia report: A #1Lib1Ref to close the gender gap
  • Côte d'Ivoire report: #1Lib1Ref 2020 from 26 to 28 May in Côte d'Ivoire
  • France report: WikiArchives; IMD 2020: Cross-Chapter Collaboration
  • Indonesia report: Wikisource Competition 2020 recap; International Museum Day 2020
  • Italy report: New collaborations and contents!
  • Netherlands report: Analysis of Dutch GLAM-Wiki projects in relation to the Dutch Digital Heritage Reference Architecture, Content donation from Utrecht Archives, Detecting Wikipedia articles strongly based on single library collections and Collection highlights of the KB
  • Sweden report: Free music on Wikipedia; NHB webinars; Wikipedia in libraries – Projekt HBTQI
  • Switzerland report: International Museum Day 2020
  • UK report: Japanese art
  • USA report: Workshops & COVID-19 Symposium
  • Special story: Content partnership category - your help is needed
  • WMF GLAM report: GLAM metadata standards and Wikimedia projects
  • Calendar: June's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 17:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Jana Marie Duggar[edit]

Hi can you please check the layout as I can't figure out what's wrong with it as it's the same as the other Duggar Family member pages. I had to add to the Jana Marie Duggar page that I made in 2018 as someone had edited it and took out the beginning. The page is also missing a picture of her and it won't let me insert it . Here is the page

Thank you Wifey93 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Wifey93 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wifey93, what's the image you wanted to add? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to add a picture of Jana but it give an error and it also is saying the page isn't valid but I thought I had fixed it Wifey93 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Wifey93, is the picture on Wikimedia Commons? Can you share a link? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It will not add any of the first five pics Wifey93 (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Wifey93, okay, so you can't embed an image that's hosted somewhere other than either here on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons. If you can find an image that's freely licensed you'd be able to upload it; otherwise you can post a link to it using {{external media}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi also it's telling me the page isn't notable as it shows the too two messages on this page Wifey93 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The notability tag was added by @Eagleash: who presumably has concerns about whether the subject meets our notability policy but they may be able to elaborate on their concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The tag was added back in March 2019, when the page had no references and had already twice been reverted to a redirect. I note I also "Prod'd" the page as it had no references. I do not recall why I did not restore the redirect as a mention in the main article is really all that's necessary. "Reality" TV people are not typically considered notable and there are often issues such as 'fan' writing and poor quality sourcing. Eagleash (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It's funny because I went through her other sibling pages and they are fine but not sure why this one came up as the notability.... I had to fix the page because it was missing the facts for the biography like where she lives, how old she is etc. I tried to add a different picture and it won't. It also reverts back to the Duggars family and Jim Bob Duggars page for some reason and I can't seem to fix that. Yet if you notice this page of her sibling works Wifey93 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I also had to add info and references as the page was lacking

I don't notice this issue with the other sibling pages Wifey93 (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nikki I can't figure out why there are issues with the page as her sister's page worked with no issues but Jana's page is saying it's not the right format. Here is her page I already had to make a new page for her a second time because Wikipedia didn't recognize the first page I made.

Her sister's page is working tho and they do connect them with all of the other siblings and parents

This is her sister's page Wifey93 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

When you say it's saying it's not the right format, are you talking about the tags at the top of the page, or something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor is at FAC[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria, you had helped me with this article's sourcing a while back. Wanted to point out that I have gone ahead with its FAC nomination. Since you are renowned for this, I would be immensely glad if you could provide a source review. Thanks.--NØ 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible Twinkle error[edit]

Your edit to Robert H. Locke mentioned Wikidata already being linked in the sidebar. However, I'm not seeing any such sidebar or link after your edit (I'm checking using a vanilla Firefox browser in desktop mode). Is this an error in your Javascript, or are you planning to add a sidebar? -Vandraedha (talk|contribs) 03:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vandraedha, it's part of the default interface and doesn't need to be added separately. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it on the default interface, even when I use the search function in my browser. Can you please elaborate as to the location I should be looking for this information? -Vandraedha (talk|contribs) 09:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
In File:Wikipedia_Sidebar.png there is a link titled "Wikidata item" appearing second from last in the Tools section. (Depending on what scripts or gadgets you have enabled there may be more entries in that section). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Minute Man, Daniel Chester French, Concord MA.jpg The Minute Man
Thank you for your assistance with getting The Minute Man to featured article status. I could not have done it without your help. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Congrats! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Rock's Backpages access.
Message added 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC). 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bruce1eetalk 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Space Shuttle FAC[edit]

Good evening! Just looking to see if you have any more feedback for the Space Shuttle FAC. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Not at this time, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

FAC mentoring request[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm considering submitting Cymmer Colliery explosion as FAC and saw you listed at WP:FAM. I'm a first-time FA nominator and would appreciate your guidance if you had the time/interest. Even if you were not able to mentor, a peer review or any feedback on the article would be very welcome please. In particular, the last section of the article uses bullet points – are these a definite no in a FA level article? My experience is in more technical writing where they are common. In this case, their use avoids the seemingly unnecessary inclusion of padding words to make each point a paragraph as well as the repetition of the same citation for each of those paragraphs. (Full disclosure: I made a similar request to another editor listed at WP:FAM a week ago but have not heard back.) Cheers  ~ RLO1729💬 02:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a more detailed look this weekend, but a quick response: bullet points aren't prohibited, but in this case I think it would be possible to reformulate the section into two paragraphs - one on this particular mine and one on safety/industry changes generally. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, good suggestion, I'll see what I can do.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your thoughtful and constructive comments on the article. Please let me know if any items need further attention.  ~ RLO1729💬 23:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again, supplementary comments addressed.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Does the article need further work or is it ready for FA nomination?  ~ RLO1729💬 15:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's ready. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
After I nominated the article a bot removed the FAC template from the talk page with the edit summary "Removing unfinished candidacy from talk page" (see diff). Should it have done this?  ~ RLO1729💬 00:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
RLO1729, it's likely just because there was a time gap between adding the template to the talk page and adding the candidacy to the FAC page - if you restore it it shouldn't get removed again. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't allow much time then, page histories show talk page template added 10:11, FAC candidacy 10:16. (Not sure why the nomination has 00:11 rather than 10:11, possibly my local UTC time difference but this doesn't normally occur on my Wikipedia edits).  ~ RLO1729💬 00:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It would be the gap between 18:29 and 19:16, rather than the creation of the subpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC has been archived in the middle of my ongoing discussion with Gog the Mild. I have messaged the editor at User talk:Ealdgyth#Archiving Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC and would appreciate your thoughts/input. IMO, this lack of careful consideration is one of the reasons editors leave Wikipedia.  ~ RLO1729💬 19:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I would advise not being hasty on that front! I'd suggest the input you really need in that discussion is Gog's rather than mine, since it was his suggestion to withdraw that triggered the rapid archiving. If he believes your changes are sufficient to withdraw his withdrawal recommendation that would go a long way. (And if he doesn't, hopefully he's willing to engage on the article's talk page to elaborate his remaining concerns). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
RLO, I will lend a hand when I am not typing from a hotspot on phone, but for now, archival is often the fastest route to promotion, so please do not be discouraged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Germany ethnic groups[edit]

What made you revert my contribution to the Germany page? It was a very helpful information. Davidjimnez (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Davidjimnez, you had proposed your change on the talk page beforehand, and did not get consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I don't think you ask consensus for every time you edit a page... Davidjimnez (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The alternative is to make an edit and see if anyone reverts you. Which in this case, I have. The end result is the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Imani Perry[edit]

Would you please explain why you deleted parts of the article on Imani Perry? (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, the content lacked reliable sourcing - see WP:BLP. 12:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173

Online events:

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging


Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, you've made three reverts to my two. If you'd like to propose changing the existing citation style, you'll need to get consensus for that first. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You should have stopped after my first revert per WP:BRD: in that case I would have had 100% of the reverts, and you 0% (instead of the current 60%/40% rate). There is no unambiguous right to "re-revert" after you have been reverted, but there is an obligation to discuss whatever revert I made in good faith. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
BRD is an essay, not an obligation. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Re. "BRD is an essay, not an obligation" – apart from having heard that excuse far too often from inveterate edit-warriors, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is the relevant policy, e.g. "... the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation." – afaics you were combating me into capitulation – instead of going to the talk page and explain your case (as the WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy would have it), which you only did after having conclusively undone all my reverts (destroying content of references multiple times in the process – which seems to suggest you don't care too much about the WP:V policy either). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020[edit]

Image review request[edit]

Hello again. Apologies for the random message. I was wondering if you could do an image review for my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Will leave that one to someone else - see it's already been posted at WT:FAC as needing review. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the very quick response. I hope you are staying safe and healthy. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. I just wanted to apologize for the above request, because for whatever reason, I completely forgot that you had already done an image review for the FAC earlier last month. I should have look back at the FAC more thoroughly. Anyway, just wanted to apologize for that as I appreciate that the time/energy you took for it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

L'incoronazione di Poppea[edit]

I recognize your reversion of my addition of an infobox is due to its delicate history and previous discussions on the talk page, albeit from 7 years ago. However, I really don't care if it has one or not, what I do care about is that for the soon to be nominated featured topic, all of the Monteverdi Operas use the same infobox, whether it be this template, the current "Identibox" on L'incoronazione di Poppea or the one that I inserted. At the moment the latter is present in every Monteverdi Opera except L'incoronazione di Poppea and there is quite literally no reason for this one to be different than the others. How can I go about standardizing them? Should I bring up a vote on the Opera project page between using this template, the current "Identibox" or the current infobox used on the other pages? I don't mean to dredge up old conflicts but frankly, it is pointless and meaningless for the articles to be formatted differently in this respect. Best - Aza24 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I restored most of that infobox. The "trial period" is over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
... which was reverted, as expected, not by NM, also as expected --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It was a six-year status quo, so why you thought you could sneak it in without the discussion the note called for, I just don't know. And I don't particularly like you trying to use Brian's name as a tool for moral blackmail to add something to an article that he was sick and tired about. It's extremely distasteful of you. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Sigh, and now I see that your edit has included the reverting of my changes in referencing. I don't even know why you bother? Every other Monteverdi Opera article is referenced in this manner and while not required for a featured topic, consistency is important. I don't understand why you felt the need to step in, do you want me to get a consensus for a different referencing style on the talk page? If so then I will probably end up getting one and in the end wasting everyone's time... Why is it so important to you that the article uses a certain referencing style? The present style has no reason to be used while the one I implemented does as it directly reflect that of the other opera articles. Needlessly frustrating to say the least. - Aza24 (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Aza24 and Gerda Arendt, if your intent is to honour Brian, I don't see a good rationale to undo his work. The Featured Topic criteria do not require that the articles be standardized in the ways you propose, and our guidelines explicitly allow for article-by-article variation on both points. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't argue criteria and standardization. Brian, if around, would probably not object to project opera's recommendation for the normal operatic infobox - which is concise - nor to advanced referencing style. The infobox for L'Orfeo was proposed on the talk in 2015 and found no objection, not from Brian nor anybody else. Neither infobox nor (internal) references show his personal writing style, so "his work" is not touched by changes there. Compare the discussions for his last article, where even some slight changes of the prose found consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting his work can never be altered, but there would need to be a better rationale than that presented by the OP. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, Please read WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." There was an Arb case on this very point back in 2006, and the practice has held since then. I don't see any discussion on the article's talk page or any other form of consensus, and the reason you have given above seems to fall squarely into the examples of why not to change. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

CRM.png Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 14 reviews between April and June 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

FAC mentorship?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm considering making my first FAC nomination, and I want to ask if you would be willing to mentor me in preparation for that process. The article I want to nominate is Honey Davenport. Would you be interested in taking a look? Thanks, Armadillopteryxtalk 07:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Just a heads up, I have withdrawn the nomination for Everything I Wanted because some reviewers recommended a copyedit and peer review. I will put up a new nomination in a few weeks after both the copyedit and peer review are done, so I hope to see you there! Thanks a lot! DarklyShadows (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Mary Louise Day[edit]

I wrote a Wikipedia article on Mary Louise Day, a young teenaged girl who disappeared from her home in CA in 1981. She remained missing for 22 years until ultimately being found alive and safe. I’ve noticed two notes on the top of the page regarding the article tone and the sources. I’ve used all possible sources that reflect the information in the article and I’ve tried to the best of my ability to fix any errors that go against the Wikipedia tone. Can someone please help me, I’d hate to see the article be removed. Strangemysteries2004 (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Strangemysteries2004, I'm not proposing deleting the article, but it does need some work in terms of encyclopedic tone - for example, "Some detectives remain doubtful about the outcome but many believe Mary Day can finally Rest In Peace". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you!!! I’ll rewrite that and whatever else sounds like that Strangemysteries2004 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fabian Ware[edit]

Hi, hope all is well! Could I use an image from this book in Fabian Ware’s article uploaded to enwiki under {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} or am I missing something? Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, given the publication date that makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

BWV 105[edit]

As far as I know, for wiki-historic reasons BWV 105 is the only cantata without template (I think Gerda was involved in an infobox arbcom case so, as a result, there was no obligation to have any infobox). I added the missing template using the same method as BWV 140, knowing that the libretto was anonymous. It is listed as so in the book of Dürr & Jones. As you can check I created the images of the manuscripts on the Bach archive: and in 2008 I started and created most of the article for BWV 105. The fact that the libretto is anonymous is recorded in Dürr & Jones. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The images for the soprano and tenor arias were created from the Bach archive in around 2011 and replaced by higher resolution images in 2016. Mathsci (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Mathsci, I'm not disputing that the librettist is unknown. But since it's unknown that parameter doesn't need to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure, nor am I sure that it really matters. It's true that Dürr & Jones and Whittaker explicitly mention "anonymous librettist"; and there are other examples of the use of the parameter apart from BWV 105 and 140, e.g. BWV 166. Mathsci (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If you're not sure it really matters, why revert? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a colloquial term of phrase. In the mean time, I have acquired a 2nd hand 1978 reprint of Whittaker's book (currently not available in libraries because of coronavirus). Mathsci (talk)

This Month in GLAM: June 2020[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png

Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

2005 AHS[edit]

It has become clear during the FAR that the project and I have different ideas over the way the season should be laid out, as a result, I have recused myself from the review.Jason Rees (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Infobox[edit]

Please explain your changes. They new infobox lacks information, and all the information from wikidata is backed up with reliable sources Germartin1 (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Germartin1 , sources like Freebase and IMDb do not meet our standards, particularly since this is a biography of a living person. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand, first of all it has references from the Indonesian government see, that can be reliable, so just pasting it in a normal infobox is the better alternative?? Germartin1 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
No, the issue is that the sources that aren't the Indonesian government site are not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Please tell which of the following: birth place/date, occupation, and member of political party is not reliable Germartin1 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
"Reliable" is in reference to our page on reliable sources; as mentioned above, sources like Freebase and IMDb are not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
And as mentioned above, the references are not from Freebase or Imdb Germartin1 (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Those references are used for these details in the Wikidata item, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Source-material dispute at album article[edit]

Hi. I found your name in the edit history for the Lemonade (Beyonce) article. Given your experience, if you're interested in issues of sourcing, perhaps you can chime in on such a discussion --> Talk:Lemonade_(Beyoncé_album)#Possible_OR/POV_violation. isento (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Buskieboy (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Buskieboy, the relevant guidance is at WP:EL - what specific benefit do you feel is provided by the link? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for catching my error at the Unconstitutional constitutional amendment article. I meant to cite this link: but for some reason accidentally ended up citing the "Besse Cooper" Gerontology Wiki article instead (which I was simultaneously looking at as I was writing this article). Anyway, I have now put the correct source into this article. Futurist110 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175

Online events:

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Edits on - Nighthawks_(painting) for Dead Like Me TV[edit]

Hi, Would like to understand what further I can provide to sufficiently confirm the edit? I watched the episode last night, and it was quite a thought provoking episode paying homage somewhat to the artists work. Due to a lack of 'reliable sourcing' available online, I wanted to contribute. Are you able to assist? Unsure how to reference video content which has limited reliable internet, text based references.

here is a video source:

appropriate timecodes: 16:50 - lady in red appears 17:04 - lady in red sites with man in a booth 18:22 - artwork appears in book 18:40 - characters introduce artwork 19:45 - characters discuss the artwork 21:49 - lady in red talking with man in background in a booth 27:53 - lady in red with man in foreground in a booth 37:36 - lady in red talking with man outside of diner 41:14 - shot of diner, clear similarities

in fact, other Edward Hopper artworks featured with similar impressions and discussions throughout. 17:28 - Hotel Room, 1931 17:49 - New York Movie, 1939

as discussed on forum: has also been mentioned on a wikipedia banned website (peoplepill) on edward hopper

and is also mentioned on another wiki page, but felt odd to self reference: "...Hopper's painting New York Movie was featured in the television show Dead Like Me; the girl standing in the corner resembles Daisy Adair." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, as per this discussion, sources should confirm not only that the reference exists (in this case, that the painting was featured in the show), but that that has significance for the subject of the article (the painting). I don't see that that exists in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, apologies if this doesnt indent well, this being my first foray into attempting contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you for referencing that discussion, some interesting points were raised. It does appear that the mere fact that the article (the painting, and others of Edward Hopper) appeared in the show, were homaged in the episode, discussed, had the episode title of 'Nighthawks', reflected upon and drew parallels to main characters in the story are not in of itself sufficient sources. There is also limited information from sources that Wikipedia deems as sufficient. This retraction of my edits seems largely unfair given the lack of sources for the "That '70s Show". I daresay blog posts and commentary therein, would be insufficient. Here is another source, unsure if you or wikipedia would deem this sufficient.
On the topic of significance, this is highly subjective, while we may be unable to determine if this is scientifically or statistically significant in terms of calculations, the affect it has on a person can be significant, and in terms of the episode itself, it is significant as Hopper's works were able to present an avenue of reflection for the main characters in the eyes of the lead character. To me, this is more significant than a shot on The Simpsons, or an advertisement for Fresh Off The Boat.
Reviewing the discussion, it appears that there is also a general sentiment against "in pop culture" references. Of which was aptly referenced to this comic . I did think carefully before adding in the edit, ensuring to keep to the standards (as best i could) for the wiki page and Television shows referenced, given the lack of sources other than the source material itself. Reviewing now the important message at the top of the "In popular culture" section, it seems that this section of the page will be subject to some further edits.
I hope that this discussion of ours will help to change your mind on my Wikipedia page edit (my first), or result in further review of this pages populate culture section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi IP, you're welcome to bring the matter to the article's talk page to get the perspectives of other page-watchers. For my part, while I agree that it's unfortunate when sources aren't available to support what we might want to add, I still don't think the sourcing is here, and would agree with you that some of the other mentions probably warrant removal. What about adding a discussion about the painting to one of the articles related to the show? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020[edit]

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing[edit]

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


I know you could pick up your adminship at any time you choose to, but I respect your decision to refrain. Nevertheless, would it make your editing easier if you had permissions like template editor or page mover, etc? I'd be more than happy to grant you any of the unbundled permissions if you ever thought you might find them useful. Regards --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


Hello, might Elizabeth Throsby's family form one of those "unusual" cases "worth highlighting" per MOS:SURVIVEDBY? I included it because of the sheer number of them, unusual even for that time. She was the only survivor of the massacre to go on to have children, and by the time of her death, she had produced a family that outnumbered those who perished. I think these are extraordinary stats. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the existing discussion of her children is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

breaking citation templates[edit]

When changing |publisher= to |newspaper= or |magazine= as you did in this edit, a good thing, please make sure that there are no lingering aliases of these parameters in the template (as seen here and here) so that others don't have to cleanup after you.

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous image review[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you. If I were to renominate The Masked Singer (American TV series) for featured article status, would your image review on the first archive still count, and can it be mentioned in the description? I haven't added/edited any images since your review. Heartfox (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Heartfox, I would expect so, but that would be up to the coordinators to decide. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox in Buckingham Palace[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Why did you delete it? --Jbaranao (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Jbaranao, see the previous discussion on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2020[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png

Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Significance of song about Dick Turpin[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for your query as to the significance of the addition I made to the Dick Turpin page. To me it is a point of interest relating to the appearance in popular culture, through folk music, of the character of Dick Turpin, perhaps especially because the song seeks to portray him as he really was, rather than the romanticised version of him as a dashing hero. When compared with the other items in the Legacy section, the fact that a song has been written doesn't seem any less significant to me than the other entries. Of course I see that a play or a film is a larger work, but the song is still a representation in the arts, and therein lies the significance. (The fact that the song was played in the Royal Albert Hall is perhaps not especially significant, and the only real reason I included that was because I had a reference to it.) Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer. Muonmo (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Muonmo, I would be more inclined to support removing other potentially not-especially-significant entries there than I would to add more. Do you have additional sourcing regarding this entry? The one provided is not particularly reliable, nor does it meet the parameters outlined in this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)