User talk:Nikkimaria

Good article mentoring

Hi there, I saw that you were listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors and am hoping you could give me a few tips, and perhaps review one or two articles with me until I become more familiar with the process. I have a cheatsheet to go by (User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet) so perhaps I should pick a GAN, review it against that list and get you to look it over in case I miss anything? Let me know if you can assist, thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven, I'd be happy to help. Cheatsheets are great while you're getting the hang of things. Another good idea would be to pick an article in a general topic area you're comfortable with for your first few reviews - it can be tricky to see if the article is broad and neutrally written when you don't know what that would mean. In terms of the review itself, some reviewers prefer to structure their review in terms of the article's organization, followed by an "overall appraisal", while others prefer using the criteria as the structure. You should choose whichever approach will work best for you, so long as you cover all of the criteria. I think the best way for you to get into reviewing is to review, so go ahead and try one; ping me once you're done and I'll give you some feedback. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm more comfortable with popular culture, so I did a review on Darren Osborne which is at Talk:Darren Osborne/GA1. Let me know what you think. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I agree with the outcome of the review, but not with some of the specific points you raised. The editor is correct in asserting that plot/storyline sections are generally not required to be sourced, at least not at the GA level. However, I'm not sure that it complies very well with WP:WAF, given the extensive Relationships and Fatherhood sections. In regards to referencing, I notice you didn't comment on the reliability of the sources used - is that because you thought they were all fine. If so, it's still a good idea to explicitly say that. A more important issue is whether you spotchecked sources to verify that they are accurately represented and not plagiarized in the article. You don't need to check every source, but a good representative check will ensure that the article respects copyright laws (criterion 1a), and is properly referenced without using OR (criterion 2).

In regards to the objections raised by the nominator: unfortunately, this does happen sometimes, but if you're confident that you made the right decision you should stand by it. Encourage the nominator to renominate the article once he/she feels it is ready. If you're uncertain of your decision for any reason, you can request a second opinion at WT:GAN or place the article on hold to see if your concerns can be assuaged. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading over Wikipedia:WAF#Plot_summaries as well as Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citations, and as well as past experience, it was my understanding that plot summaries should generally be sourced. The other issue is that without any references I have no way to verify if the content in the plot summary is OR, it could be completely made up for all I know. I will admit that I didn't check on sources due to the other problems I saw with the article, and as such I didn't do an extensive review of the article, but I will definitely take this on board in my next review. I might do a shorter GAN next, so I can do an in depth review. As for my decision, I will stand by it as I feel that the issues with the article are not minor ones that can be fixed quickly. I'll let you know when I've picked another GAN so you can see how I go. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for Divorce

Hello Nikkimaria, Can you please review my sections? Thanks--Nas132 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there particular sections that you are responsible for, or do you want me to check the whole article? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The 6 paragraphs under No-fault were my sections. If you have the time to check the whole article my group and I would appreciate it. Thank you --Nas132 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear that you like the changes made to the article! I did make the changes you suggested in my paragraphs. I did tell my other group member about the non-paraphrasing sources that concrened you in FN 4. I also pointed out the change that had to be made in her section. That change was this one "No-fault divorces are less expensive.....". She said that she would not be able to get the changes until Thursday. If this is a problem can you please let me know asap. I did see that you don't have access to some sources. What sources don't you have access to? are they the sources in FN 4? --Nas132 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, 4 I can read. I don't have 1, 3 (which is the same as 8, 10, 12, 13), 11 or 14-17. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. All but 1 should be accessible through Google Books... at least, in the US. NM, are you editing from outside US? That's the only explanation I can think of. (If so, perhaps a proxy would help...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in Canada - I can see the GBooks links, but most of the ones I listed don't include previews. (FN 11 has a preview, but the direct-page link is for a "page that is unavailable for viewing"). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

well if its ok with you and my teacher. Would you mind if my teacher looked over the rest of the page? since he has access to the links and he would get back to you.--Nas132 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you! I thought I was missing something. I would have suggested a proxy but I never heard of it before.--Nas132 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary quibble

Hi, I largely agree with your edit of the Peter Gabriel article, but, looking at your edit summary "(tr)", I had no other option than to come and check your editing history and your talk page to find out whether you meant TRimming, removing TRivia, or TRolling. Looking at your other recent edits, I noticed summaries like "(tr)", "(rm)", "(org)" and "(rc)". I think I can assume that "(rm)" means "remove" and that "(org)" means "organise", but I have no idea what "(rc)" stands for in, for instance this edit. Quid?

In short, would you mind using slightly less cryptic summaries? TIA and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

tr=trim, rc=recast. I find short summaries helpful for things like quick cleanup, but I'll try to be clearer in future. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and keep on TRimming the TRivia :-) - DVdm (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Blackford County, IN

Hello Nikkimaria, Thank you for taking the time to review Blackford County, Indiana. I thought I had the article in pretty good shape, but that only shows my inexperience. Is it proper procedure for me to comment "back", on the FAC page, to your comments on the FAC page? My plan is to make the easy fixes first. TwoScars (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've got the FAC watchlisted, so feel free to respond there (but note the instructions at the top of the FAC page). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Random question

I just have a random question about your FAC method. I understand that sources are very important to articles, and that that's your area of expertise in the FAC process. I was skimming the FAC page and I noticed that you were challenging a couple sources as reliable and authoritative. And the FAC nominator defended the sources here. But here again, you went on another FAC page and challenged the exact same sources that a previous nominator defended as being an authority in the field (rotten tomatoes being an example, where an editor noted that WP's MOS recommended the site). I'm just trying to get some insight into why this is. Is it that you don't agree that these sources are authoritative? Or do you not remember that the sites were defended etc? I'm not challenging you or anything. Just trying to understand your approach. Orane (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Source reliability is highly dependent on context - sometimes I will forget about a source, but more often it's because I either don't agree that the source is authoritative or because it's being used under circumstances that I feel are different enough or inappropriate enough to be challenged. In your example of Rotten Tomatoes, look at what the page the first nominator linked says: "review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews". That's not entirely what the second page is citing to RT. Furthermore, in-text attribution is recommended for review aggregates, and the latter doesn't include them. Finally, RT includes some user-generated content, which is always a big red flag in a source review.

In a broader sense, though my philosophies differ slightly, you might find this page helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Such an intelligent and well-spoken answer. Ok, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clarifying. Orane (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for Divorce page

Hi Nikkimaria!

My teacher said that everything looks fine now. He left a message on my talk page for proof. Is the box going to be removed from our page now?--Nas132 (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 10

Re: this edit, was looking at the selected articles/anniversaries now on the December 10th page. Out of the present 6 items, 2 are scientific (Nobel prizes, Halley's Royal Society paper), 4 are political. 4 are about European subjects - British (Halley/Royal Society, Brown dog affair, Edward VII), Swedish (Nobel) and then the remaining 2 are the Taiwan and the Vietnam political articles. Most of the 'Selected anniversaries' seem to me to have a tendency to veer towards the political/war or technology/science. Per the "mix of topics" mentioned on the date's page I thought something cultural might be a good idea, especially since the accompanying/pictured photo is of a person of color and so had previously changed the selected articles. Would welcome your thoughts - Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Swapped in a different one, see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's a better mix now. I admit, I do have a soft spot for the Grand Ol Opry/DeFord Bailey story. So many people follow country-music worldwide and people know all about the Grand Ol Opry and yet, there is a wrongful assumption that county music has always had some kind of systemic monotone skin-tone bias. Bailey's presence at the dawn of the Opry, his status as an African-American pioneer of the genre prove that assumption wrong and are both important aspects of the history of country music. But, I have to say, anything cultural (ie "Twain") is a good change-up. Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I can quite honestly say that I never thought of country music as inherently white. Maybe it's an American thing? Then again, I don't know a whole lot about country music, so that could also be why. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Chatting

Hey there! I just wanted to say thank you for spending a little time to talk to us this morning. I feel that your advice has helped to get me in the right direction, and I believe it did for others as well. I had the question about writing about a living person, so your insight has helped me to distinguish what I can and cannot do. Thanks again! Matthewrents (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Let me know if you have any more questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ENG103 Assistance

Hi Nikki,

I am working on this information for my assignment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lflemin/Homestead_High_School_(Mequon,_Wisconsin)_sandbox

I will be adding the above information to this already started article :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_High_School_(Mequon,_Wisconsin)

I am just looking for some feedback so far! Thanks so much!

Lflemin (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lflemin! What you have looks like a good start. I would suggest replacing all the sport-specific sections currently in the article with your gender-based subsections - the general athletics section, though, would probably be good to keep. Check the linking on your State Titles section. The only real concern I have about your article is that you're using a considerable number of sources from the school itself - it would be great if you could find some more independent sources. Other than that, looking good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback! I am definitely going to work on editing my page according to your advice!

Thanks again, I really appreciate it!

Lflemin (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nikki,

I have started editing and adding content to my article and am wondering if you have any advice on how to improve what I already have down. I plan to make it longer and to gather more sources, but for now, this is just a start. Thanks! Tallguy68 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link to my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tallguy68/Nikki_Haley_sandbox Tallguy68 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Project A119

Thanks for your helpful copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For those last two articles saved during FARC. Brad (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for reviewing! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about editing a page!

My name is Caroline Edgar and I am from Ms. Fancher's English 103 class. I was wondering if the topic Central Nervous System Damage from Aids is a good topic to edit. It was in red but I was double checking to make sure the information is not covered in other pages. What do you think?

Thank you Cedgar107227 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not a topic I know a lot about. Do you think there would be enough information to create a complete article about that? Alternatively, do you think it would fit better in a broader article about the effect of AIDS on the body? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have found some research on it so I think I would be able to talk a good bit about it. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't covered in other articles about AIDS already! Cedgar107227 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a little bit in AIDS, and more in AIDS dementia complex. If you're confident that you've got enough for a separate article, though, go ahead. However, I would strongly recommend you read WP:MEDRS first. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS

Nikkimaria, let me know if you need more info on how to identify primary sources vs. reviews in PubMed-- this Dispatch may help. For the initial screening purposes of FAC and FAR, probably least time consuming is to access via PubMed the most-often cited sources to make sure they are recent high-quality reviews, then do a random check of some other sources used to see if primary sources are used correctly. Another thing I do is to search PubMed for the most recent reviews to make sure they are reflected, and also look for free full-text reviews, since they can be helpful for our readers. In PubMed, you can find those indicated in the upper right. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

peer review

Hello. Would you be able to peer review the Giraffe article? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

=

ow do i edit the top of my page? i tried removing something i had typed in but when i clicked edit i didn't see what i needed to fix. helppppTigerfan15 (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

i also used the template to cite my sources but it said there was content area. how do i fix this?Tigerfan15 (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hard FAC

I nominated it about a week ago now but noticed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hard (song)/archive2 isn't in the queue? What did I do wrong? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you forgot to transclude it onto the FAC page - I'm not seeing any edits in the history from you on that date. I would transclude it myself now, except I notice that the two-week waiting period hasn't ended yet (the first nom closed 24 October, 12 days ago), so it would probably end up being closed right away anyways. I would recommend waiting until Sunday before transcluding, and at that time update your signature to reflect the new date. If on Sunday you're still having trouble, ping me and I'll see if there's something else going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to transclude. The S&M FACs always seems to do it by themselves. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

They don't do it by themselves - eventually, someone (usually one of the delegates) notices that an FAC has not been transcluded and does it themselves. See for example S&M's most recent FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ground for Divorce

Hi Nikkimaria,

Thanks for finding problems that I have missed in the previous review for Grounds for Divorce. And I am sorry for not spotting them in the first place. I have received a request from 98.236.51.239 to re-review the article. However, since I am not updated as to the problems in the article and its improvements, I do not think that I am the best person to approve or reject its nomination. I believe that this right should be yours instead. Therefore, can you help to review the article once more? Sorry for the trouble. Happy editing!--Lionratz (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I rechecked a few days ago: the sources to which I have access now indicate little concerning close paraphrasing, and Piotrus has indicated the same as to the other sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the notification regarding this thread discussing the problem with the article titles. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Basham

I purposefully kept to close paraphrasing due to the nature of this part of the article, and I did not want to misreport the facts regarding a legal judgement or the reporting of what happened by a journalist. Cites were given for each. Also I believe that the newspaper articles from which the information comes from are prior to 1923. Could you also sate which of the sources are of questionable reliability and self-published sources so they can be addressed. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing the DYK Queues

In regards to this recent edit of yours, please remember the following when you modify the DYK Queues:

1. As indicated by the edit notice with the bright yellow background under the large, red lettered header entitled "ATTENTION:", all images added to the DYK Queues need to be properly protected in anticipation of their appearance on the Main page. Failure to perform this basic function generates an error message from DYKUpdateBot and will prevent the offending queue from being loaded by the bot unless corrected.
2. When removing {{DYKmake}} templates from the credits section, please only remove those associated with the hooks you are removign from the queue.

Thanks for your contributions. --Allen3 ^talk 23:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I am working on the article, "eye movement in language reading." I have the draft in my sandbox, and I'm trying to submit it to "do you know." Could you please show me how to go about it? Thanks

Julietbee (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria!

Thanks a lot for your help! I have been able to submit my article to DYK. I followed the steps you gave me. Oh I'm so grateful!

English 103

Hi Nikkimaria. I have started to edit this article Goal-line Technology and I was wondering if I could get some feed back. Is it the right style? Did i reference it correctly?

       Thanks Srhanle18  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srhanle18 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 

Julietbee (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hard (song)/archive2

Hasn't been transcluded yet. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Real World

Hi. Please do not remove information that comes directly from episodes. Primary sources may be used for descriptive information, and while many of the episodes in question were not mentioned, you also removed information whose episode cites were mentioned, such as the material sourced to the Los Angeles season premiere. As for the ones whose episodes were not mentioned, putting an episode tag would be more appropriate, so that I or others could be reminded that they are needed, since I wrote much of that information years ago, before I understood the importance of citations.

As for the Cultural references section, can we start a discussion on the article's talk pages, so that we can determine some criteria by which references can be determined to be trivial or not trivial? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Take your point about the trivia, but per WP:BLP material about living people, particularly negative or potentially controversial material, should be removed immediately, not tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The material in question is not "unsourced", it comes from the episodes, which is implicit in the passage, and which I mentioned above. I think I've gone halfway with you by doing a tremendous amount of work in providing specific episode cites, and in trying to open a dialogue with you, but your knee-jerk edit warring does not exhibit the same indication of compromise. WP:V is satisfied when readers are informed of where the material comes from, so that they can look up those sources themselves to verify it. In addition, WP:PSTS says the content of narrative or creative works are self-sourcing, in that they can be considered primary sources for their content, though not for evaluative or analytic claims. Thus, the mention of the seasons satisfies WP:V. Saying that Pedro Zamora died, but removing mention of the disease he died of, when that fact is widely known and given all over the San Francisco season in which he starred, is just plain perverse, and indicates a tendentious letter-of-the-law approach to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However-- if that's still not good enough for you, I'll suggest a compromise: Rather than deleting the info, you put episode tags on the passages that need it, and I'll provide them when I get a chance, since I already spent several hours today on that last round of material you seized upon. Would that be fair? Nightscream (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You can say I'm being too strict on the rules if you like, but BLP requires citations for material like that, and specifically directs us to remove rather than tag such material. Re-add it with cites, not without. If the fact is truly "widely known", adding cites should not be too demanding a task. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"no uncited blp content, particularly not negative" Which material in question do you see as negative?

"...not "sometime in this show this was implied..." Who said anything about the material being "implied"? I don't include "implied" material in articles.

Also, you also removed this material: "Las Vegas castmembers Trishelle Cannatella and Steven Hill appeared in the horror film Scorned. Cannatella has also appeared on other reality shows, such as The Surreal Life, Battle of the Network Reality Stars, and Kill Reality, the latter of which also featured Hill and Cooley", which is not unsourced. For the third time now: The content of things like films or TV shows are self-sourcing, because they can be verified by simply watching them, so in this way, WP:V is satisifed. I've stated this twice before, and you haven't responded directly to it, preferring instead to just say the same thing over and over as if you're ignoring it. This is tendentious, and is not the way disagreements can be resolved. If you disagree with this point, then please falsify it by explaining why. But if you do not, and continue removing this sourced content, you risk being blocked from editing. Please don't make that necessary. Nightscream (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying that someone cheated on their boyfriend, for example, whether true or not is generally seen as negative. Your statement that the "content" of shows or films is self-sourcing is completely incorrect - credits, maybe, existence of show, sure, but stuff like the bit about why McGee left? Absolutely not. It's not sourced, therefore you're adding unsourced BLP material. Saying that something happened over the course of an entire TV show also does not count as sourcing for BLP purposes - these aren't just TV characters, they're real people. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed sourced if it indicates to readers where there information comes from. So long as they know where the source is, then WP:V is satisfied. While putting the specific page of a newspaper in which an article you used as a source is ideal, it isn't absolutely vital that merely citing the newspaper and the date is insufficient. You're saying that specific episodes are needed. I believe agree that this is ideal, which is why I tend to cite them nowadays, but it is not so required that merely citing the show itself makes the passage "unsourced". Just because we don't specify which one of twelve episodes an event occurs in does not make it "unsourced". In any event, tagging it with an episode needed tag would've been a compromise until I tracked down and added the episodes. Since I spent several hours Monday morning and afternoon adding such cites in good faith to all the material you removed initially removed, the fact that you suddenly "find" more material to remove in the second half of yesterday, comes across as a possible case of spite, as if you were just looking for something to remove. This is not collaboration on your part; it's tendentious edit-warring.

Even if I'm wrong, then why did you remove mention of the movies some of them have been in? Was my application of WP:PSTS incorrect? I mentioned that three times, and you never responded to that, instead just saying over and over "it'sunsourcedit'sunsourcedit'sunsourcedit'sunsourcedit'sunsourced..." Why is this? Why do you not respond to counterarguments directly if you feel you can falsify them? Nightscream (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've listed this dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Nightscream (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (WP:BLP, my emphasis); "Exercise caution in using primary sources...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies" (WP:BLPPRIMARY, emphasis in original). A large amount of material that I removed in my most recent edit was material I removed in my earlier edit. Removing BLP material is specifically exempted from our edit-warring policies. "Why do you not respond to counterarguments directly if you feel you can falsify them?" . Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarifying note: You may notice that I gave, and then immediately self-reverted, a Third Opinion in this matter. In order to avoid the mere appearance of possible bias or non-neutrality, the instructions at the Third Opinion project say, "If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute." I have just realized that had dealings with Nightscream in the past (here and here, and indeed the second one of those should not have occurred) and am not qualified for that reason to offer a 3O in this dispute. I've restored the listing at the 3O project and, hopefully, some other Third Opinion Wikipedian will choose to give a 3O. Apologies and regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have indeed responded directly to your stated position in every message I've made to you, Nikki. By contrast, you have stonewalled on specific points and questions numerous times during this dispute. The issue on which we seem to disagree is the question of what constitutes "unsourced" material. I explained why WP:V is satisfied by mentioning the TV show, and explained above with the newspaper analogy why the degree of specificity you seem to insist upon is your own interpretation of WP:V, and not an unambigous fact nor reflection of any community consensus. WP:V requires that a reader be able to verify the material at the cited source. Can readers do this when coming across the material in the article? Yes, they can. It may require them to look through the episodes (which used to number over 20 per season, and now number only 12), but again, this goes to my point: WP:V does not specify, as far as I know, how detailed we have to be in detailing the source or portion of the source in question, and that while I personally prefer to specify episodes now, all I was asking was for a little breathing room, in light of my already great WP workload to find the episodes, so that I wouldn't have to integrate the material back into the article, amid the additions made to it in the interim. Did you respond to this point? No, you did not. You just refer to the material in question as "unsourced", completely ignoring the fact that this notion is one of, if not the precise point on which we disagree. By contrast, can you point to an argument of yours that I have not addressed? Nightscream (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have already explained, BLP requires a proper inline citation, and requires that negative or contentious material without such be removed, not tagged. If you prefer, you can take the material from the history and work with it off-wiki at your leisure. Again: since these are real people, not fictional characters, saying "TV shows are self-sourcing " is insufficient, and is outright incorrect for things like why McGee left. In regards to your newspaper analogy, saying "this appeared in this newspaper (or this TV show)" is significantly different than saying "this appeared in this day's edition of this newspaper (or this episode of this TV show". You have also yet to respond to the issue of WP:BLPPRIMARY, which supercedes WP:PSTS when dealing with BLP info.Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You have not established that BLPPRIMARY supercedes PSTS. You have only asserted it. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources, which is the BLP section to which BLPPRIMARY is a shortcut, talks about, as its name indicates, misuse of primary sources, and specifies using public documents such as trial transcripts or court records to use in order to add personal details to articles such as dates of birth, addresses, etc. This is because of concerns over privacy and identity theft, and while persons are required to document such information to the state, they may not want the general public to have easy access to it. This has nothing to do with the information that they freely make publicly available when appearing on a reality TV show, which is not only given in the series for which they sign release forms, but which is given on the official site of the network in question, in this case, MTV. Neither MTV nor its TV shows nor website are "public documents" akin to court records. Arguing that citing the shows they appear on constitutes a "misuse" of a primary source is false, and not supported by that section. But if I've missed some other relevant policy page where it indicates that PS Misuse is both applicable to reality TV shows and supercedes PSTS, can you point it out, perhaps specify the page and/or quote the passage in which it says this? Nightscream (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PSTS directs editors to refer to WP:BLPPRIMARY when dealing with BLP material. As you assert, the TV show is in this case a primary source, which can be misused; simply because the page does not mention every possible example of misuse of a primary source, but only the most common, does not mean that a less common misuse is correct. Furthermore, your assertion that everything removed from the article can be sourced to the TV show is incorrect, according to the constraints imposed by both PSTS and NOR in general. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Romances FA source review

A couple of months ago, I started a FAC for Romances and I left comments and questions on your spotchecks. Right here. Thanks. Erick (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that review is closed now. Did you need something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Two queries about recent Richard III FA review

Dear Nikkimaria,

Question 1) Although the article Richard III (1956 film) has been on my watchlist for a while, I did not know about the FA review until the delisting notice today. How could I have known about it?

Question 2) While I agree with several of the reasons for the delisting, I strenuously and mightily object to the claim that the cited sources fail the WP requirements for reliability, and think the provenance of the sources was insufficiently investigated. (Had I known of the FA review I could have chimed in?) Where do I post my objections? I am going currently to post them on the R3 movie talk page, and post notices on the reviewers talk page.

Cordially,--WickerGuy (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi WickerGuy, notification of the FAR was posted on the article talk page prior to the review being initiated. I'm not sure why you didn't see that, but generally only the top contributors by number of edits are notified directly - those just watching the page usually follow the FAR notice. As to your second point: talking directly to the reviewers who raised the sourcing questions is a good idea. If you cannot agree on this point, a post to WP:RSN might be helpful. Given that you agree with the other reasons for delisting, the article probably should not be brought up at FAC or FAR so soon. If you feel inadequate source reviewing is a widespread problem at FAR, feel free to post at WT:FAR, but if it's just this article, article talk is probably the best venue. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West

Thanks for your helpful comments in the FAC. Much appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of "Mark Satin" biography

Dear Nikkimania, Dank, Ed, and Ealdgyth:

This is to thank you for providing useful critiques of my Mark Satin article at one point or another over the last four months. It is also to apologize - to the first two of you, anyway - for my being initially so resistant to your critiques. After I became more knowledgeable about what was going on, I changed the article in response to all your critiques, as you'll see if you look at the current article and its "history" page from 18 August to the present.

The article has just completed a peer review. Next week, right after Satin's 65th birthday (November 16), I'll want to put it up for another FA review. I hope you will look at it at that time - I'll remind you - and, if you like what I've done, I hope you will consider supporting it. If you'd like to communicate with me before then, please do so here or on my Babel talk page. - Babel41 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Because you all appear to be incredibly busy with Wikipedia projects, I thought it might be helpful to remind you of the main concerns each of you had with my article:

Nikkimania - poor organization, use of contractions, questionable copyright on a photo, repetitious phrasings (all gone now except for my two extended parallelisms), use of journalese, no ISBN links, newspaper references needing page numbers when w/o weblinks (I've found page numbers for all but six now, and I'm working on those);

Dank - poor organization (my second warning), failure to rigorously adhere to MOS, and literally dozens of instances of faulty grammar (the only one I'm still dragging my feet on is the en-dash you want me to put in "anti-Vietnam War movement," fourth paragraph down. Doesn't Wikipedia itself use a hyphen in similar passages (e.g., in the title of the article "Anti-war movement")?;

Ed - failure to convert curly quotes to straight quotes and, by extension, failure to commit to other "hidden" Wikipedia conventions such as inclusion of non-breaking spaces;

Ealdgyth - poor organization (my third warning, finally heeded), citations to facts in the lead that are cited in the body of the text, overlinking, overciting, and too many quotations from sources.

Please look at what I've done to the article since you expressed your concerns. I think you will like what you see. - Babel41 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

PP.S. I am happy to report that the bio recently received a "B-class" rating from Wikipedia's Biography project, putting it in the top 3% of all Wiki bios, if I read the statistics there right. - Babel41 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

• Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

• News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

• In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

• Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

• WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

• Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

• Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

• Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

With my apologies...

...please see Template:Did you know nominations/Learning to read. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize, you're right. I'll see what I can do to help them out. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's always hard to tell unpleasant truths. You should know: with that list of FAs of yours, I'm sure you hear them all the time! Thanks, and thanks for working with new editors, Drmies (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Longtime no speak, I'm sure you noticed, I just accidently rollbacked your edit. My mouse and brower are lagging a little and keep clicking wrong links. Sorry about that Nikkimaria.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Status on "Ban"

In a message dated 2 April 2011 I was informed that I was banned from editing any pages concerning Shakespeare,the Shakespearean authorship question, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (three subjects which I teach at the University level, on which I have published in over fifteen peer reviewed journal articles, and have completed an as yet unpublished book on). I did not contest this ban because at that time I had no active interesting in further offering my professional expertise on these matters. I am writing now to inquire into the status of this ban.The ban states that it is "To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block," but offers no indication of the length of the ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BenJonson&redirect=no#Topic_ban

What is my current status? Thank you.--BenJonson (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi BenJonson. That's an Arbitration Enforcement topic ban, which are generally of indefinite length. Therefore, you are currently topic-banned from the listed topic areas, and will remain so unless you choose to appeal for unbanning. Directions on how to do this are at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. If you choose not to appeal the topic ban, you may edit freely in other areas, but not those under the topic ban. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Where do I discover what "misconduct" I am accused of? Thanks--BenJonson (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This was the discussion that led to the ban. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I informed him of his continuing ban earlier today, but neither my message nor yours has made any kind of impact. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I've left him a very clear warning on his talk page; any further edits and it's time for another WP:AE thread, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I did not read Tom Reedy's previous comment until now. Second, I frankly don't take most of what Tom Reedy says very seriously. I will say no more in this context. However, please understand that I do appreciate the clarification offered by you, Nikkimaria, even though I find the charges essentially trumped. I will refrain from further edits on these pages until this matter is resolved. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I would respectfully suggest, on other other hand, that until independent Wikipedia editors learn something -- and I'm talking about doing something like starting to actually understand the history of this debate and some of the reasons why Tom Reedy and Nishidani could not be more wrong in their approach, then in the end it is Wikipedia that is going to be hurt. Having said that, I will pursue appeal without further edits on the banned pages. Can you please offer me some further guidance on what kind of appeal process is appropriate in this circumstance? I invite you personally to engage further dialogue in any context you deem appropriate. I would like to share with you in a context without interference what I know on this topic and give you the opportunity to cross examine me to heart's content thanks. Here is a link to my publications. http://shake-speares-bible.com/publications/ --BenJonson (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Favour

Hi Nikki. Can you do me a favour? Can you merge the histories of User:Novice7/Sandbox4 and "One of Those Days"? Thanks in advance. Novice7 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Wasn't sure if you wanted the history of your sandbox kept; let me know if you do and I'll restore it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)