Misplaced Pages

User talk:Nikkimaria

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tortaguero (talk | contribs) at 07:44, 24 November 2013 (→Sergio Sendel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:44, 24 November 2013 by Tortaguero (talk | contribs) (→Sergio Sendel)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is Nikkimaria's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.
Shortcut
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

New Prep 2 hooks

Nikkimaria, could you please take a very quick look at the two hooks I just moved from P3 to P2 to be sure there aren't any problems with them? (First and last hooks in the set.) Since they could be shoved into Queue 6 and picked up in about six minutes by the bot, it would probably be a good idea... Sorry I didn't pick up on the problems with the Linda hook: I should know not to trust a claim of copyvio check. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, both look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. Of course, we're now overdue ... and Crisco's doing something weird... BlueMoonset (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume Linda is Template:Did you know nominations/Linda Braidwood. I did run the copyvio tool on the article, but Nikkimaria, I'm curious how you found the close paraphrasing—do you compare the text with the source manually or what is your technique? Thanks czar ♔ 14:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I default to manual checking (details), because the tools available are so limited in their capabilities - the Copyvio Checker in particular is rarely helpful at DYK. In this case we get significant results with Duplication Detector , but that doesn't always happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Lambeosaurus and the Dinosaur Wiki-Project

Just so you know, the Dinosaur WikiProject generally requires you to source statements to reliable sources, of which you did not do for the following statement, "The crest of the lesser-known species L. paucidens is not currently known.", making it seem as a fact. Here is a list of what we at WikiProject Dinosaurs use as sources and references. Just thought I'd leave a note here out of courtesy. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your courtesy is misplaced: I didn't add that statement. This is the only edit I've made to that article, which dealt only with phrasing and linking and did not address that sentence at all. The sentence you are concerned about has been in the article since June 2012, and the information since 2007, so I'm not sure why this note is here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hans Morgenthau wikipage making some possible progress out of start class.

Hello Nikkimaria: At last I was able to re-do the artwork and add several dozen citations to the Hans Morgenthau page. This may be enough to get it out of the start class for others to get involved in the editing. Let me know what you think and if there is anything you might like to see happen to the page before or after assessing some type of page rating. LittleIPEditor (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey LittleIP, I've updated it to C-class. It's quite close to being B-class, actually, but could use a few more citations (and page numbers for book citations, where possible), and some work on neutral phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria: Thanks for the quick assessment. If you think that the page might be close enough to B-class that a half-dozen or dozen edits might meet the task, then i could offer to do them over this coming week-end if you could insert the templates for "cite-needed" and "NPOV|neutral" as needed directly into the text. Since i have all the research materials in hand right now it would be straightforward for me to do this, as opposed to someone else needing to retrieve all the books at some time in the future before being able to do this. Otherwise, at least the article is out of Start class! LittleIPEditor (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey LittleIP, I'd be happy to do that if/when you're unblocked and able to work on it - just let me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria: During the last week i was unable to research this account block. Apparently a User:bink has made a falsified/misrepresented report about sockpuppetry which was applied by an unsuspecting Administrator. Socks involve opening several accounts for the purpose of deceptively manipulating outcomes on edits, which was never done on the Hans Morgenthau page since i am the only one who has ever done editing there over the last three months. After filing the flasified sock report, User:bink then defaced the Morgenthau page by deleting much of the artwork and captions along with researched text to suit his own purposes, all unresearched, right after you had just moved it out of start class. User:bink has had several ANI reports filed against him in the last month and managed to dodge them as well. This present report to you is submitted from an innocent by-stander ip since i have not done any editing on the Morgenthau page since the account block following the falsified sockpuppet report. Can you look at this, there is no one else to look after the Morgenthau page. ip for LittleIPEditor. 146.203.126.246 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you check a nom in prep?

Nikkimaria, can you please take a look at the John Davis Pierce article, currently in Prep 2? There seemed to be quite a bit sourced to the Encyclopedia Brittanica source, and while what I could see of it looked like it had been paraphrased, I wasn't sure whether it was paraphrased enough, or far enough from the EB structure. I know you'll have a better sense of that then I. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey BlueMoonset, sorry I was late and will be unhelpful here - I don't have access to that source, so while what I do see looks fine, I can't evaluate the structure effectively. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

About this edit

Hi,

I am wondering if this was done inadvertently? Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it was deliberate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Capgras Delusion

Hello,

I am new here, so please let me know if this is a silly question. I had edited the "In Popular Culture" of the page, and see now that the section is gone. Can I ask why the section was removed (version history here). If I made an error please let me know - I'm still learning the rules and norms here! Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammccarthy (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ammccarthy. That section did not have any reliable secondary sources indicating the significance of the references listed, so I removed it. You can read more about recommendations for dealing with In Popular Culture sections here. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118

Nikkimaria, when you get the chance, could you please take a look at this article for close paraphrasing. As you'll see, I found an instance of very close paraphrasing indeed, and although it has been rewritten, I'd like someone who's good at checking this sort of thing to take a look at the whole article, including the place that was problematic before the rewording. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you work hard: can i add to your list?

Hi Nikki, I'm planning on taking Florence Fuller to FAC soon, but the referencing is bothering me. If you have a moment to look at it, you will see a large number of cites of newspaper articles that follow a particular format. It is an automatically generated citation, specifically crafted for wikipedia by the National Library of Australia for newspaper materials re-published by them. I'm concerned about the large number of locational details, their variation, and the use of state acronyms etc in these, but not when i have done monograph etc refs myself in, eg, the cite book template (where, eg, I have just put "Melbourne", not "Melbourne, Vic."). Would you be prepared to provide some comments on what you think would be the best way forward with these? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated this at FAC now, but have tried to adopt a standard approach of including abbreviations for Australian states in all refs. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I missed commenting here; I'll take a look at the FAC shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for visiting so promptly. I have responded to your queries, and in one case wasn't sure of the issue. Re the NLA bibliographic template, we could possibly start a discussion somewhere about that cite template, invite Moondyne and I could drop into the NLA and ask if anyone there wanted to participate, and we could see if the community would prefer a different approach. But I wonder if it pops out in the way it does because the template is limited to using the library's metadata in whatever form it comes (eg. it isn't possible to get newspaper names without the paper year ranges, because that is how they have their title metadata)? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Responded to the one case there. As to the NLA citations, yes, it's probably partially a problem of how they've got their data set up: if you look at a page like this, the record gives the title correctly, but the page title includes the odd date range. So they're basing the citation on the page title rather than the publication title, and causing problems with the citation template in the process; there are also some linking issues for which I can't understand the rationale (like this resulting in a piped link that redirects to the apparent title). I really think that pending a broader discussion about these citations we should modify the outputted template (which is really just a prefilled {{cite news}}) to conform with our MOS. That's what is usually done for automatically completed citations in other styles - for example, the APA citation that NLA gives isn't consistent with the APA style guide either, and it would need to be amended to suit a publication using that guide. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-11-04

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James L. Conway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 7th Heaven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you: Samuel Merrill Woodbridge now an FA

I just wanted to express my appreciation and thank you for your time and efforts in helping me get Samuel Merrill Woodbridge to featured article status with your insightful comments and focused critique during the FA process.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sara Chapman Bull redux

Nikkimaria, can you see whether the prose issues (and others) have been addressed here? I finally got impatient enough to fix "Brattel" myself, but I'm leaving the determination to you. Thanks, and welcome back! Hope you enjoyed your days away. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Lest we forget

"The Unnatural" and "Home" FANs

I have addressed and/or fixed the concerns you brought up on both the these articles' FAN pages. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request for clarification

The Arbitration Committee is considering a request for clarification which involves you. Please act accordingly.—John Cline (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hallucinogenic fish

Nikkimaria, could you take a look to see whether the added material is sufficient to make this qualify again? If not, then please specify what's necessary; that way, someone else can check after the next expansion without us having to ask you to do the check yourself. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

Talk:Ventura_Freeway#Popular_culture Trackinfo (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing?

Hi there. I have reviewed a DYK-nom, which there was some close paraphrasing, but it seems to be good now. Before I give it a "good-to-go", would you check if there was anything I've missed? The nomination can be found here: Template:Did you know nominations/Jamari Lattimore. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:JoeWIki

Hello. While I realize that you think the template {{JoeWiki}} should be deleted, the discussion about the template was closed with "no consensus". Since there was no consensus to delete it, why have you been removing it from all G.I. Joe articles anyway, citing WP:ELNO? Fortdj33 (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Because, regardless of whether the template exists or not, the inclusion of the link on those articles is inappropriate per WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, that defeats the purpose of the deletion discussion. It feels to me like you are editing Misplaced Pages to make a point, since the discussion did not end in your favor. If the template was chosen to remain, then it should remain on all the articles that use that template. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't - the fact that the template exists doesn't mean it's appropriately used in articles. If the template had never been nominated for deletion, these removals would still be appropriate. Given that, it would be the re-addition of the link that would be pointy. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not biting the newbies

Yes, you're quite right. Your addition to EmmaGothGal's talk page is a model of kindly correction and a gentle hand on the tiller. I shall follow suit as best I can. Incidentally, I am in awe of your technical expertise in grammar: I had no idea that we were talking of a preposed appositive, and I am grateful to have learned something. Many thanks! Tim riley (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that's a term invented quite recently, and not a term (or a practice, for that matter) all are fond of...and although I must reject your "technical expertise in grammar" descriptor, I thank you for your praise nevertheless. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Word cut and paste

You helped me before with cutting and pasting a word document to Misplaced Pages. My second word document also lost formatting. I have tried to re-past the document in sections but this did not work. Can you check my Nov 11th document and help me get the formatting back? Thank you so much, Gretel30 (Gretel30 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC))

Hey Gretchen, is this what you're trying to do? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thank you for answering my query. I am new to Misplaced Pages and tried several attempts to cut and paste my 2nd word document to Misplaced Pages, but like the first assignment (which you fixed for me) the format disappeared. Yes, I would like the format to be like my first document. My second document is dated November 11th and is Misplaced Pages Assignment #2. Can you help me? Thank you so very much. (Gretel30 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC))

Hey Gretchen, Section Two here is your second assignment, correct? That was the only edit you made on 11 November. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! You have fixed the Word doc format for my Assignment #2. I appreciate your help! (Gretel30 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC))

Holloway FAR

Nice idea! But. You took out inappropriate stuff from Arsten in his post at 06:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC), but left KWW's requote of that same text at 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tennis infoboxes

Hello -- it strikes me that convention in tennis infoboxes is to use the function that wp affords us -- even though some areas do not embrace it -- to reflect the flag of the country of the person, as in  United States. I noticed you change this to US. Please look at the GA articles Roger Federer and Juan Martín del Potro and Laura Robson and whomever else comes to mind -- this is certainly standard across tennis bios. Might I trouble you to reconsider, and consider a self-revert? If you want to reply, you can do so here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Epeefleche, I don't think I will - WP:INFOBOXFLAG is quite clear that these icons should be avoided in sportspeople infoboxes, so it would make more sense to remove them from the GAs than to re-add them to this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Will you have a problem if I revert? We do at times look at the consensus treatment of a matter such as this, though I agree that as a general rule Project-wide guidelines trump individual views. I'll also see if others have views. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Before I say yea or nay, can you explain why you want to? Is there a reason for the convention beyond it being a convention? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
A main reason for wp:MOS is uniformity of presentation. Consistency in style and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion. Here, we have a consistency in the tennis articles, even at the GA level, that appear to be well-accepted by the community. I've not been a party in any meaningful way to that convention being developed -- I recognize that at times individual editors go against MOS, and then say: "look; we have a convention", and in those cases I'm very suspicious of the depth of the consensus of the community. I've seen that most dramatically with two or three editors who don't abide by MOS on year range XXXX-yy presentation. This as far as I know is different. But I've dropped word for the tennis types (none of which I expect I know well) on a couple of group talkpages, and asked if they have views if they might share them here. Perhaps they will have further views. The wikiproject approach appears to have been codified here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that it's a consistent style, I'm just wondering whether there is any reason for this consistent (but inconsistent with MOS) style to exist. Perhaps someone will know why this convention developed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
One reason may be that in tennis tournaments, and with the ATP and WTA -- the official sites -- it is common to see such a flag. For example here. And here. For author bios, for example ... perhaps not so much. Also, tennis is a sport that has high-level international country vs. country competitions ... Davis Cup ... again, when it comes to author bios ... not so much.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You also have to remember that MOS changes through the years. I wasn't there when the original decisions were made on this, but consensus since then has been firmly in favor of the icons. Tennis is very international.. as is Olympics, and World Cup soccer. If I recall you cannot play Wimbledon (or other tennis events) without a backing nation. And like Epee mentioned, the ATP/ITF/Olympics/ etc, use those flags regularly. Since these players are regularly listed in most sports press lists with nationalities right up front, and with numbers of wins per country, and country droughts when you don't win... it only seems fitting to make the "playing nationality" stand out from the massive amounts of stats in an infobox. We never use it for locations or birth places... just playing nationality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Stalking

Please stop stalking me. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "stalking" you, simply telling you that your behaviour is inappropriate. Please stop restoring unsourced WP:BLP info to articles and resuming the disruptive activities that led to your previous block. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Seddon Greeting Card Collection

Nikkimaria, could you please take a look at this one for close paraphrasing. I'm afraid I'm not at 100%; I was hoping to build enough of a set that you could grab one of the hooks for Queue 5, since all the preps were empty when you had to remove that hook from it. It's been slow going—I only trust myself to promote ones that very clearly appear to be fine, and I've already run into one that wasn't even minimum length—and when I got to this one, I knew I couldn't promote it unless it was checked by someone trustworthy. Thanks for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

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) 05:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tony Swatton DYK

I've responded to your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Swatton. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Have you gone through all of the material, as I suggested? I don't want to look again only to find that you've again fixed only the specific example raised. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been through it and changed a few other sentences. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you re-review it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hang on, I missed one part (which I've now changed) and it's automatically a X? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
After finding two obvious examples, I asked you to thoroughly check the remaining material, and asked again here whether you had done so. You said you had. When I find that you had not, then yes, the X is warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
On one thing that slipped through the net? This has now been changed so it should be OK, I don't see the reason for putting an X there for something that is not intrinsically unfixable and can be sorted out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you suggest that the article now avoids all close paraphrasing while still being supported by the sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, I have removed the close paraphrasing. This hasn't been easy since I usually work with articles I have mostly written from scratch at DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What I'm going to suggest then is that you need to rewrite this article from scratch, if you really want it to be featured at DYK. The problem that has developed with each successive edit here is that in your effort to eliminate paraphrasing, you've actually introduced material that does not agree with what the sources say - so now you fundamentally have both problems. To give you an example, you say that "When Swatton was 7, he would refer to himself as..." when the source shows no indication that the 7yo used the terms, only that Swatton now does. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Well short of deleting it and recreating it, how would that work within the DYK rules? Are you fine to hold it until I can rewrite it, which might be some time tomorrow given the England game on tonight. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That's why I left the X: "article...requires considerable work before becoming eligible". As I said, if you really want this to be at DYK, you're going to need to put significant effort into it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. That's why I asked if it could be held for a while because I can't do it tonight but I can tomorrow. If the X is left there, it might get closed prematurely is my concern because that X usually means it's straight out ineligible when it isn't. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten it now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

....and again. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

New Citizen Program

There is no claim to notability to the article...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A national million-dollar NGO? Well, it's at AFD, so perhaps it'll be deleted nevertheless. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Chopin

Hi - I think the protection on this article could now be usefully lifted as there seems to be consensus amongst all (apart from the guy who got a block) that Chopin was indeed Polish. Also, some editors show signs of wishing to do some constructive editing - which would be great if it happens. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Dena Epstein

Updated DYK queryOn 18 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dena Epstein, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dena Epstein "shattered myths" by proving that the banjo came from slave music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dena Epstein. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Ventura Freeway

Just letting you know that I'm fine with the last edit you made to this article and had no intent to revert it before the protection. You are correct that the source regarding Michael Jackson doesn't match the content.--Oakshade (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Great new article at Dena Epstein. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sergio Sendel

I want to create a page for Sergio Sendel, a popular Mexican actor. He has had a page before which you deleted in 2010. Sendel is as well known as many of the Mexican actors who have pages here. I would like to create the page but am to ask you first if it is okay? Tortaguero (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tortaguero, I will say yes if you can show me any reliable sources that you can use to cite the content of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I will write it up directly. There are plenty of sources. Thanks!Tortaguero (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have written the page at my Sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Tortaguero/sandbox#Movies. Thanks for looking at it.Tortaguero (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Request re redacting

Would you please redact Sandy's claim of edit warring? That seems gratuitous, and any such accusations should be made in the proper forum or not at all. Also, you redacted her statement that you would be redacting, for the sake of transparency that needs to be left in. I do not agree with your reductions of my text, but will not argue with you over them at this time.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit warring is directly relevant to 1e, wehwalt-- is there some wording that I can change to that would make you more comfortable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest striking the language entirely, sandy. It's gratuitous as your point is neither strengthened nor weakened by the omission. And there was no edit warring that I am aware of, and as you did not choose to file anything on a noticeboard that might subject you to WP:BOOMERANG, that should be left as the end of it. Certainly, if you go file an edit warring complaint at the appropriate noticeboard, and if it is upheld, then you may properly refer to it as such. As it is, it's just accusing people of misconduct while evading review of what you said on NYB's talk page and how accurate that was.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave this to Nikkimaria-- sorry, I thought I'd be able to help with a wording change, but I see that isn't likely to be possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Assuming you have the ability to edit, Sandy, I do not see why it is not likely to be possible. You went to Brad's page and left a gratuitous and off topic post. Busy arb that he is, he seems to have done little checking before he acted, and of course Kww reverted him. Now, if I had done that, you would be mumbling things about "canvassing" and "meatpuppetry".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've redacted the "edit warring" verbiage in the interests of keeping the peace here (Sandy, you can simply say something along the lines of "there was some instability then", if that would work); I removed the statement about redaction because of your "Let's let the coordinator decide what should and should not be redacted without big hints", and am inclined to leave it out - I made the redaction independent of her comment about redacting - but am open to being persuaded otherwise, if you feel strongly about it. I will say I'm no more interested in hosting an interpersonal dispute here than at the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Noted and understood. Thank you for your time.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

redactions

I understand what you are trying to do, but please bear in mind that Sandy is intentionally making false statements in multiple places. If you choose to redact my admonition (as you did in https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_review/Natalee_Holloway/archive2&diff=582636597&oldid=582631835), please also redact her intentional falsehoods. I'm really tired of seeing that particular piece of nonsense repeated over and over as if repeating it will somehow make it true.—Kww(talk) 13:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I will be out today for a family friend funeral, so have not been able to keep up, but pls check your AGF-ometer there, KWW. It appears that we have different versions of "truth". And if you want to claim that I am "intentionally ... blah, blah, blah", the place for that is my talk, not Nikki's. By the way, I am unlikely to revisit that FAR soon-- I have laid out only a small sampling of the issues (there are many more in terms of what is left out that results in POV), because sheesh, someone had to give the poor delegates something based on WIAFA-- now I leave you all to fight amongst yourselves. As long as you don't reinstate the off-topic discussions of Natalee's mother, I am done there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Truth is truth, Sandy, and you exhausted my good faith on this matter many repetitions of this same untruth ago. Nikki is the one that took it upon herself to edit my comments, and pointing out that she did so without editing out your repetition of the same falsehood does belong on her talk page.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. I removed and will continue to remove unneeded personal commentary from the review. Your statement that her statement is false remains as a rebuttal, if you need one; I don't know who's telling the truth, and since the material in question has been removed from the article it's not directly relevant to the review anyways, so there's little point in continuing to argue over it. Please, everyone, refrain from continuing your personal disputes or dragging up no-longer-relevant issues either here or at the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nikki, if you are removing material on article pages (and where in policy is your authority to do this, by the way?? It would be better if you just struck it), be sure you are removing EVERYONE's commentary, as you are not picking up on the between-the-lines snark that Sandy is putting forth quite freely, as well as her assorted exaggerated accusations. (If you are harping on both sides equally, I may not be happy, but I can live with it if it's truly neutral, so be sure it is) As far as personal disputes being over here, given that Sandy and I have mutually banned each other from our respective talk pages, we have no where else to deal with disagreements between us other than other people's talk or the dramaboards. I am sick of her behavior and tired of her accusations. I have never understood what the heck I ever did to her to earn her initial vitriol, but now that I apparently have, and then (horrors!) dared to defend myself rather than tell her how great she is, (how dare I?) we are off to the races. I WILL NOT back down when I am attacked, and I WILL defend colleagues I respect when I believe they are correct. Personally, I would be a whole lot happier if she'd just leave me alone EVERYWHERE, including bashing me by her comments and with links at places like User talk:Neutralhomer. I am so tired of this crap, particularly in an article where I simply popped over to review the work of a colleague whom I respect, and was initially neutral at the outset. Montanabw 18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I've not removed any material from article pages relevant to this FAR. If you have particular comments by others that you feel should be removed from the review page, feel free to point them out; I've been trying to remove personal comments from both sides equally, but when such comments are couched in critiques or defenses of the article content, that becomes a bit harder to justify.
I realize that several of those involved (not just you) are becoming frustrated with the comments of others. I don't really know where you can pursue the interpersonal issues, other than WP:DR; I'm trying my best to keep it out of the review page so we can focus there on improving the article, but that doesn't mean I want to host it here either. I suppose you could try requesting an iban at a dramaboard, though I don't know how that would turn out (and it would certainly make a review in which you are both participating more difficult to conduct). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Nikki, you have removed material, based solely on your assumption that it is "Not relevant," but in doing so, you remove context and nuance. You may intend the best, but you are better off not doing this at all; we're still going to look at edit history, compare diffs and respond accordingly. At most, strike what you don't like but leave it. As for the dramaboards, when you have two editors around as long as SG and myself, it's fruitless. In an IB, with tens of thousands of edits each, going back years, how could either of us know if the other touched some article 4-5 years ago, thousands of edits back? Not doable. And doomed to failure. I know that world well enough to know that it would immediately become a two-month "drahmah" that would bring in dozens of partisans on both sides. I have a 100% clean block record, whatever Sandy accuses me of. I'm quite tired of her unwarranted accusations and exaggerations, particularly when she is fully supportive of other editors who engage in far more aggressive and snarky behavior than myself. Montanabw 21:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I have removed material from the review page, yes, but not from articles as you mention above. As I understand things, only the editor him- or herself may strike his or her own comments, whereas removals or redactions (so long as they are noted) are broader in their application. As to the personal disputes, understood, but please keep them off the review page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
In either case, show me with a link the precise place in WP's policies and guidelines that allow you to do this. I think Wehwalt is giving Overagainst some excellent advicd that you just deleted. I'm quite sincere in saying that I don't think you have the authority to do this but if you can point me to where it says you can, then please do so. Or else stop removing comments. Montanabw 02:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Er, what? I just removed part of a post by Overagainst, not by Wehwalt. What advice from Wehwalt are you referring to?
In terms of authority, in addition to the usual provisions of WP:TPO, I am a coordinator at FAR and am charged with managing the review process. In that role, I have and will continue to remove personal commentary, in the hopes of keeping some semblance of focus on content policies and the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dispute not yet resolved

Nikkimaria, I noticed that you removed protection for the Wells Cathedral article but the dispute has not yet been resolved. Please see Talk:Wells_Cathedral#Restrictive_which. Thanks, Inglok (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Inglok. If you really feel the issue is unresolved, I would suggest you open an RfC on the matter or solicit a third opinion. Protection is meant to stop edit-warring, and hopefully, given the comments at AN3 and elsewhere, it's stopped. (And not that you would, but for completeness: please don't take the lack of protection as a reason to re-start it). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many thanks for taking the time to do the source review at the Spanish conquest of Petén FAC, and for picking up all those details I wouldn't have noticed - the article was recently promoted. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway FAR

Just to let you know that although I am going to take a back seat in the FAR to others with more understanding of the procedure. I don't support closing it.Overagainst (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting closing it outright, but I think it's pretty clear to all involved that what's happening right now just isn't helping anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree with you that far.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm caught up. Nikki, per the ping at Wehwalt's talk page, I don't think you need my "approval", feedback or concurrence for whatever you decide: you're the delegate, and it's not even "my" FAR. I see some unusual conditions requested on Wehwalt's talk page, which are not within your (or anyone's) domain to grant and as far as I know would never be granted to anyone for any article (FA or not). Other than that, I understand that Overagainst may be disappointed, but Overagainst, Nikki is not saying it's closed-- the FAR is only on hold for a specific amount of time, meaning only that discussion of these issues will occur elsewhere-- and it would stay at FAR for that three months at this rate anyway, so not much changes. Is that everything? I guess the only thing I would do differently, Nikki, is to have held this discussion on the FAR so that the conversation is "centralized". Perhaps you want to place permadiffs to the two discussions (here and at Wehwalt's talk) on the FAR talk? That way, when the FAR is "enshrined" in articlehistory, the record will be on FAR talk. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. As for the condition, they are more a proposal than anything else but I don't' think it will work. All we can do is see what happens, I guess. Sandy, I appreciate the things you've said in all of this. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't caught up. MastCell's post to the FAR is deleted, and not placed anywhere. In other words, the FAR is out of kilter; did you intend to place that on the FAR talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You're right about Mastcell's thread, I thought I had done that but apparently not. Now fixed, and a link to the thread on Wehwalt's talk added. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118 redux

Nikkimaria, I'm afraid I lost track of this one. Could you please check again and see whether the close paraphrasing issues are finally solved? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)