Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles:Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review:Hawkeye7 looks at works on a female astronaut and a senior US Navy officer Op-ed:Adam Cuerden on his experiences with a recent featured picture Timeline:This month in military history

I have been working on this article for some time and I am wondering if the images are fine to use for a featured article? I tried to tidy up the information on Commons but I'm not used to editing pictures so I'm asking you since I see you a lot at FAC. Basically would the article pass an image review and if not what needs to be done?Velayinosu (talk)23:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiVelayinosu, licensing looks fine but File:NOAA_Nino.jpg is going to present issues aroundMOS:COLOUR. (I'd also suggest having a run through for otherMOS issues before hitting FAC).Nikkimaria (talk)00:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the original NOAA image with another that I think is better for this article. It's focused on North America, has fewer colors, and the labels for the colors are in the image rather than in a legend. I also added two more images. They're the three bottom-most images. Are they fine? (I also went through the MOS as you said and made other changes.)Velayinosu (talk)23:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are fine, though you might want to consider archiving all of their source links as US federal websites have been less stable lately.Nikkimaria (talk)00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You keep reverting my edits ofElvis Presley where i change a line from "known mononymously as Elvis" to "Also known mononymously as Elvis". Your reason for the reverts is that "the original is sufficient". But i disagree. Saying he is "known mononymously as Elvis", just implies he is only ever called Elvis and not ever refered to by his surname, likeAdele,Drake orPrince. Most people don't know those people's surnames. So saying that Elvis is "known mononymously as Elvis", makes it seem like his surname is also not well known, when in reality it's what most people know him by. Most news articles, social media posts and people in general, all usually call him by his full name. So i don't understand why you're so hellbent on not letting my edit through.Cherryblossomgirly (talk)00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that your edit is necessary, but you'd be welcome to take the issue to the article's talk page to see if others feel as you do.Nikkimaria (talk)00:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try being more substantive than "I don't agree." Surely if you spend enough time on this website, you can be bothered to make a point with substance. Wishing you the best of luck in improving yourself!Royal2Real (talk)12:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 67, January – February 2025

• East View Press and The Africa Report join the library
• Spotlight: Wikimedia+Libraries International Convention and WikiCredCon
• Tech tip: Suggest page

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --18:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mPlumber. I noticed that you recentlyremoved content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thanks. --Plumber (talk)02:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiPlumber, if you'd like to gain consensus for additions likethis one, I'd suggest opening a discussion at the article's talk page.Nikkimaria (talk)02:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Users cannot removeentireinfoboxes from Wikipedia without any consensus. This is highly improper. --Plumber (talk)02:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiPlumber, again, I'd suggest taking your concern to the talk page.Nikkimaria (talk)02:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did atAbraham Lincoln, without giving a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please useyour sandbox for that. Thank you. --Plumber (talk)19:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiPlumber, please understand that policies and essays are not the same thing.Policies are like rules that all editors are generally expected to abide by.Essays are more like opinion pieces - they are not generally enforceable, and trying to enforce an essayover a policy as you are doing is only going to get you into trouble.Nikkimaria (talk)23:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you toWP:Avoid personal remarks and abide byWP:Content removal. There is no explanation any editor could give to justify removing Abraham Lincoln's children from his infobox, especially when they have their own Wikipedia pages. --Plumber (talk)00:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiPlumber, Content Removal is not something you can require anyone to abide by. I have already explained the edit you mention at the article's talk page and invite you to join the discussion there.Nikkimaria (talk)00:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Elvis Presley § Birthplace in lead section.Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)14:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are interested, there's an ongoing discussion atTalk:Goldman Band#Where is my template section for Goldman Band Cornet Soloists?.Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many FAC with your comments about image review: some of the images needs US tag, or where and when was the image published? Now, I am curious. Are there any criteria of images in FAC? What other criterias after I have mentioned them?Dedhert.Jr (talk)10:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiDedhert.Jr,here are the FA criteria; #3 is the main one dealing with images specifically.Nikkimaria (talk)14:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red|April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336 Online events: New:Alphabet run G & H|Business Continuing, year-long initiatives:#1day1woman|Music Announcements (Events facilitated by others): The European Destubathon – a stub improvement contest/editathon from 1–30 April 2025 Tip of the month: When creating biographies, don't forget to useTemplate:DEFAULTSORT. Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited, it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name. Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool) 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women) 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can alwaysopt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram|Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk)13:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria

Would you be available to be a FAC mentor for me to getByzantine Empire across the line? Or can you recommend someone else that would be interested? It's an exhausting effort and never-ending, but I think we can get there. It just may take some more time. I don't have the competence yet to do this alone, but I've learned a lot this last year, so I don't think it will demand much time other than an investment initially for the visibility.Biz (talk)00:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiBiz, I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you anticipating the FAR close with removal and seeking help with a future re-FAC? Or are you looking for help with the FAR? If the latter, I wouldn't be able to help since I'm the coordinator, but you might have success with Milhist editors.Nikkimaria (talk)00:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I plan to keep working on it; I'm not sure how that translates in the review process. If it gets delisted, it removes any sense of urgency, and I have a lot of competing priorities. I will take your suggestion and look around.Biz (talk)00:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nikkimaria, as you know the article is now delisted, but with a list of quality issues. I am evaluating if I have it in me to keep working on the article until all those issues are addressed. Some are easy (a few hours of work), others will take months (assuming I spend 1-2 hours a day). Assuming I do this, and to help me decide -- would the next step be to submit the article for GA assessment, re-FAC or something else?

FWIW two editors, who downvoted, have explicitly said I should not work on the article. I've had no luck finding a mentor. (I've learned a lot in the review process but need to improve my ability to write in summary style and have better attention to detail.)Biz (talk)22:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiBiz, it's notrequired to go through GA before FA, so it's your choice whether to go GA,PR, or FA. If you're not confident, going through all three will get your more progressive feedback.Nikkimaria (talk)00:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've had a discussion with this editor before about these historical charts that are non-legible and only shows a few degrees of change... I just don't recall whereThere being added all over again... I removed this one. Do you recall where this conversation took place?Moxy🍁17:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking ofWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Archive_13#Chart_spam or a different one?Nikkimaria (talk)23:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be it...... I'm completely wrong about who was involved in this conversation before.Moxy🍁23:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also possible there's another conversation somewhere - just a matter of tracking it down. Maybe try checkinginteractions for the users you think were involved?Nikkimaria (talk)23:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omg... use that tool all time for socks.... Never thought about using it in this manner thank you.Moxy🍁23:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedEverett Fox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBible studies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mGisbert K. I noticed that you recentlyremoved content fromClarinet without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thanks. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !  18:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had already started a conversation on the talk page before you posted this; I'd suggest we continue things there.Nikkimaria (talk)23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I just wanted to say thank you for correcting my mistakes on the information about Ridhima Pandey without removing much and if you have any advice for me feel free to give it as I'll work on them.Ecopalampur (talk)18:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and I have a request also can you please add information about her parents on the page you removed it earlier so I am assuming I did something slightly wrong.Ecopalampur (talk)18:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiEcopalampur, I'd suggest taking a look at sourcing - IMDb isnot generally considered reliable. The parents are included in the article but since they are notnotable not in the lead.Nikkimaria (talk)18:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou for the response. In near future if i need your help regarding something could you please just guide and help me as I am just a beginner.Ecopalampur (talk)18:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your help with gettingVeiqia to FALajmmoore (talk)09:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I was hoping to get some guidance before nominatingwhite chocolate for FA. My last FA nomination,history of chocolate failed asthere were concerns the article was not comprehensive and that the prose was choppy. I've tried to ensure those issues didn't persist in this article, although I'm a little shaky on whether I've succeeded, particularly in the market section. I hoped to see if you were interested in taking a look over, as you are the only FA mentor I can see who has promoted a food article.Rollinginhisgrave (talk |contributions)06:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look later this week. In the interim, do you think all of the other concerns that came up for history of chocolate have been addressed in this article (even those that did not result in an oppose)?Nikkimaria (talk)00:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much. I believe so, I'm not a good writer so there were a fair few times where clarification was needed, but part of those issues came from representing shifting scholarly opinion which isn't really relevant here. I've also given this article many more revisions than history of chocolate, including leaving it for a month before returning for an edit and lead rewrite, which helped.Rollinginhisgrave (talk |contributions)01:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XV, Issue III, March 2025 Headlines Albania report: WikiGap in Albania 2025, and essential initiatives for free knowledge Argentina report: Archives and Human Rights activities Belgium report: International Women's Day, Wikipedia officially recognised as Digital Public Good and invitation for the General Assembly Brazil report: Every Book Its Reader is coming Czech Republic report: New Horizons of Czech GLAM Partnerships in 2025 France report: Archivist Forum 2025 Italy report: Ten winners of Wikimedia Italia 2025 GLAM call Netherlands report: International Womensday; New Wikimedian in Residence at Maastricht University New Zealand report: What's on at Auckland Museum, and International Women's Day at University of Otago Nigeria report: GLAM in Africa, a Nigerian narrative in knowledge decolonization a case study of Benin City Poland report: What's up in GLAM in Poland Switzerland report: Switzerland report UK report: Gold in Bengali and Diversity in Arabic USA report: Women's History month Biodiversity Heritage Library report: BHL-Wiki Working Group March monthly highlights Memory of the World report: Manuscripts of Mali Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Creating an OpenRefine Wikimedia Group Calendar: April's GLAM events Read this edition in full •Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit thenewsroom. Past editions may be viewedhere.

Absolutely understand your argument re:Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. The problem has been that whenever I've tried to implement any of them, they've been reversed. See, for examplethis edit. The point is that theWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 isn't practical given the length of the 11 long articled that one is trying to cram into an already long article.Klbrain (talk)22:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is trying to cram the entire article - a merge doesn't have to involve every word from the source article. The poster at the target article's talk page proposed two sentences, which is too far the other way, but something in between would be more manageable.Nikkimaria (talk)22:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, but the problem I found when attempting this was that the articles are long, detailed and referenced, without as much overlap with the target as one might expect.Klbrain (talk)22:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)14:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although coordinates are usually displayed in the title, for the resting places people they are only given in the infobox. This can be seem inOtto von Bismarck,Margaret Thatcher,Josip Broz Tito, andEnver Hoxha, just to name a few famous heads of state. There are reasons not to put coordinates inline, first, it isjarring for the readers, since the vast majority of cases articles on people don't have any coordinates. Second, mobile readers don't get to see coordinates at all.Abductive (reasoning)18:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it can be both jarring and not seen at all, but if it's problematic to have it in the title the next best option is to omit entirely.Nikkimaria (talk)18:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would have to be discussed on the talk page of the infobox officeholder template, since the template has the field |resting_place_coordinates.Abductive (reasoning)18:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. There is currently no requirement in the template to either use the parameter or limit use of the parameter to inline.Nikkimaria (talk)18:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you look attemplate:Infobox person, the parent template for infobox officeholder, you will see that it just calls for the coordinates to be inline.Abductive (reasoning)19:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Officeholder isn't a child of person, and person also doesn't require use of the parameter or forbid title.Nikkimaria (talk)19:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus wants it in the infobox, and not the title. Look at other examples. And of course templates have "parents". In the very creation of person the creator says,New code to centralize all similar templates.Abductive (reasoning)20:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples aren't consensus for this article, seeWP:OTHERCONTENT. Some templates do have parents, but these two particular templates aren't in a parent-child relationship, and even if they were no requirement exists.Nikkimaria (talk)20:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, I hope you’re keeping well. A couple of years ago you were good enough to do the image review on theSt Scholastica Day riot FAC. Would you be able to do the honours onits second attempt? No problems if you’d rather not, of course. Cheers -SchroCat (talk)04:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles:Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review:Nick-D looks at the Borneo campaign of 1945 and warfare the South African way Timeline:This month in military history

Wishing you peace, joy, and renewal this Easter season.Thank you for all you do to keep Wikipedia growing and thriving.

Stay well, and happy editing!MSincccc (talk)18:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RegardingSilent Parade you wrote "..., and consistency in citation formatting." I'm looking at the cites, and I cannot find any inconsistencies, but I maybe I'm ind to them. Was there a particular citation issue/inconsistency that you saw?

Regarding prose, I'll re-list at Peer Review, but keep working the article myself. I'll resubmit at FAC after Peer Review is done, or I'm certain the prose is great.Noleander (talk)Noleander (talk)01:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the citation formats: the algorithm used in the article is: major sources use sfn template, and minor sources (e.g. newspaper articles used for only 1 or 2 cites) use plain ref (instead of sfn). That is the same algorithm I used forMargaret Sanger article which recently passed FAC a couple of months ago (and that algorithm was discussed & approved during that FAC review).Noleander (talk)01:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiNoleander, some examples: some citations include locations and others don't; most use dmy dates but look at footnote 64; some magazines have publishers, others don't; 61 is incomplete; CNN is italicized in 64 but not 69.Nikkimaria (talk)01:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thanks.Noleander (talk)01:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you commented on this article's Talk page. Subsequently, an IP added a huge amount of non-neutral info (only positive reviews) and tried to delete all the less favorable reviews cited from the critical reaction section. Seethis. I reverted it, but there may be some reviews there that ought to be mentioned. Would you kindly take a look and see if you think there is anything there worth preserving.This andthis andthis may be helpful. --Ssilvers (talk)02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't think I'm best positioned to take that on.Nikkimaria (talk)02:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Ssilvers (talk)02:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After Ivanector completely changed my edit, I went back in and incorporated his edit into a neutral one--as suggested by Wikipedia. Some people are adamant Rebel News is far-right, but I read the far-right politics page on Wikipedia and I do not know of any publication or Party that is like that in Canada. Many people deem the spectrum outdated as many Parties are syncretic today. That's my point. I've reached out to both Ghost of Dan Gurney and Ivanector. "Far-right" "Far-left" --- I think these are subjective and not based on traditional characteristics from 80 years ago. Anyway, I am reaching out and trying to work with editors but they seem rigid. I would like the David Cochrane CBC News interview and Michel Cormier's statement included, at least. The youtube links were added because they contained the interview and the disturbance and CBC's point of view. Thank you.JayElk33 (talk)18:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I sent this to the wrong person!JayElk33 (talk)18:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Miami has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very useful landing page for people who want to learn more about Mayor McCheese.Tom Hubbard (talk)14:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiTom Hubbard, external linksshouldn't appear in the body of articles, and that site in particular isnot considered a reliable source.Nikkimaria (talk)23:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing you ruining the page?DarkHorseMayhem (talk)00:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't.Nikkimaria (talk)00:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted infobox that is showing information about inmate it was importantDarkHorseMayhem (talk)00:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't - that shouldn't be there, since the inmate is notnotable.Nikkimaria (talk)00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He isDarkHorseMayhem (talk)00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?Nikkimaria (talk)00:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of police, high sources are put there inmate was involved with famous Trevor Mcdonald etcDarkHorseMayhem (talk)00:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:BLP1E - sources covering someone only in relation to a high-profile event do not make that person notable.Nikkimaria (talk)00:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It nowhere states you should delete whole freaking infbox full of info that is good for reader to readDarkHorseMayhem (talk)00:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the person isn't notable, then we shouldn't have a biography of them.Nikkimaria (talk)00:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come to that conclusion that he isnt notable?DarkHorseMayhem (talk)00:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article isn't about him and all of the sourcing provided discusses him only in relation to the event that the article is about. That's fairly textbookWP:1E.Nikkimaria (talk)00:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No.DarkHorseMayhem (talk)00:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? If you really believe the inmate is notable and you have evidence for that, you could write a separate article about him.Nikkimaria (talk)00:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its article about crime he committed, it includes him and police officer he killedDarkHorseMayhem (talk)00:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which, again, would support a determination thathe's not notable.Nikkimaria (talk)01:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not one event anywayDarkHorseMayhem (talk)01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the crime that he committed. Everything else, and all coverage, follows from that.Nikkimaria (talk)01:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.DarkHorseMayhem (talk)01:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To what book review do you refer? Is Dirck 2009 a book review? Please see the comment I posted today atTalk:Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia under the heading "Citation help"?

Another question: On what basis do you consider book reviews poor sources? I can think of none. Leading scholars write book reviews and sometimes use what they've written in them in books. Or vice versa. I do not believe that their words become better sources in one forum than in the other. I've never seen anyone disparage book reviews as sources.Maurice Magnus (talk)00:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a book review. Book reviews generally are not subject to the peer-review process.Nikkimaria (talk)00:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either are books. Only journal articles are.Maurice Magnus (talk)01:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books can be, particularly from scholarly presses, and/or can be subject to editorial review. Book reviews are typically treated more as opinion pieces.Nikkimaria (talk)01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit you made at 14:21, there is something odd. Footnote 178 is missing the citation to Jonathan White's book. I thought that you inadvertently removed it, so I went to "Edit source" to put it back, but it's still there. So why doesn't it show in footnote 178? I tried deleting "{{" from the front of the citation. That put it back, but not in the right format. ANOTHER EDITOR FIXED IT.

On another matter, I think that the fact that the Suspension Clause is Article I, section 9, will be of interest to readers who are curious about what the Constitution actually says about suspending habeas corpus. But since you don't want it in the text, I've created a footnote for it.Maurice Magnus (talk)15:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the citation of the final paragraph of the second inaugural from the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln to as it appears on the Lincoln Memorial. This involved no change in Lincoln's words. But the final paragraph is different in the two sources. The reason that your edit involved no change in Lincoln's words was that the version cited to the Collected Works was actually the version on the Lincoln Memorial. The Collected Works has "a just, and a lasting peace," whereas the Lincoln Memorial has "a just and lasting peace," which removes the comma and the second "a." I believe that we should consider the Collected Works as definitive, but I wanted to get your thoughts on this before I edit it. I can cite no authority for my belief that the Collected Works should be viewed as definitive, so I would not insist on changing it if you prefer to let it be. I also thought of adding a footnote stating the difference between the two versions, but I think that would be going overboard.Maurice Magnus (talk)20:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One reason to take the Collected Works, if not as definitive, at least as taking precedence over the Lincoln Memorial version, is that the Collected Works came later and, I presume, were edited by scholars, whereas the Lincoln Memorial version might not have been. For your convenience, here is the Collected Works' second inaugural:https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln8/1:711?rgn=div1;sort=occur;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=with+malice

By the way, The Library of America version is in accord with the Collected Works.Maurice Magnus (talk)21:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that "a just and lasting peace" is more frequently reported than "a just, and a lasting peace", so I'd advocate for keeping the former.Nikkimaria (talk)21:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Keeping the former turns your change of the citation into an unwitting correction.Maurice Magnus (talk)21:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you do a lot of edits which simply delete references to self-published peerage websites. Rather than simple deletion, I think it would be helpful to replace each deleted ref-tag with a{{cn}}. This would be almost no extra work for you as editor, and would improve the article by avoiding the danger of readers thinking the relevant assertion was supported by one of the article's remaining references.jnestorius^(talk)07:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red|May 2025, Vol 11, Issue 5, Nos. 326, 327, 337, 338 Online events: New:Revolutionary women|Alphabet run I & J Continuing, year-long initiatives:#1day1woman|Music Announcements (events facilitated by others): WikiProject Women in Green - aGood Article editathon from 1-31 May 2025 Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available viaHumaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,269 articles during this period! 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,061,363; 414,126 women) 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% (2,057,083 bios; 412,857 women) Tip of the month: Those of you who experience harassment while trying to create or improve articles about women are welcome to bring your problems to our attention on theWomen in Red talk page. Other ways to participate: Becomea member. You can alwaysopt-out of notifications. Join the conversations onour talkpage. Help usplan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media:Instagram|Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk09:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi, This is not a thank you, but a plea. Some of us spend a great deal of our time trying to establish facts about those we are documenting. Then a chunk of it disappears; it's gone for good, and before the article is even given a rating. If there was some Wikipedia rule broken or some other reasonable objection, I would always try to do the right thing. Why not discuss your issues first on the article Talk page? It's somewhat demotivating to waste time and effort, especially when all the information provided for the edit is 'cull'. Ponder that.TrimmerinWiki (talk)06:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this material isoriginal research.Nikkimaria (talk)23:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...this,[1] I'd like a detailed explanation of why you have an issue with it. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→02:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is already an image of the grave in the article, it provides no clear value.Nikkimaria (talk)02:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It confirms that it's real and where it is, reinforcing the rebuking of the urban legend about Disney's remains. So, are you on a crusade to rid Wikipedia of external links to Findagrave? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It generally shouldn't be used to try to verify article content. If someone isn't convinced by what's there already, this ain't gonna do it.Nikkimaria (talk)02:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question about your being on a crusade. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→02:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in cleaning up misuse.Nikkimaria (talk)02:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering how you found it so fast. I figure any Findagrave additions must be on your radar somehow. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→02:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, the article is on my watchlist.Nikkimaria (talk)02:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it wasn't magic, just luck. And your primary argument is that it's redundant. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→04:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My primary argument is it doesn't add value.Nikkimaria (talk)04:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Kris Kristofferson § Potential revamp?.Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)02:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A tag was put in thePresidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Could you please join the discussion in the article's talk page, why the article is too long, and navigation issue(s). Thank you.Cmguy777 (talk)03:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have significantly reduced the article. Can you please review? I believe the article length tag should be removed. Also, theBackground section has been removed. Thank you.Cmguy777 (talk)00:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is a source where Louis Theroux is specifically pointed out to be pronouncing his surname as "ther-oo" instead of as "ther-oh" unreliable? Not to mention how Louis himself very obviously doesn't use the "ther-oh" pronunciation that that so-called "reliable" source (Library of Congress) promotes as heard in this YouTube video titled "Louis Theroux Answers Your Questions | Actually Me" at the 0:10 timestamp where the man himself pronounces his surname as "ther-oo".GinormousBuildings (talk)09:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source has beendeprecated by the community.Nikkimaria (talk)23:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source being deprecated notwithstanding, it still very much is correct in stating that Louis Theroux's surname is pronounced by Louis Theroux himself as "ther-oo", not "ther-oh", contrary to what that Library of Congress website says.

I'd say this part of the "Deprecated sources" page should apply in this case:

"In particular,reliability alwaysdepends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately."GinormousBuildings (talk)14:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to deprecated sources are appropriate in some circumstances, for example ABOUTSELF cases - but that doesn't apply here.Nikkimaria (talk)14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, let us stick with the definitely reliable source that is definitely not wrong in saying that Louis Theroux's surname is pronounced as "ther-oh", not "ther-oo".GinormousBuildings (talk)08:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup—appreciate the sourcing heads-up! ~~~~Fixthisbs (talk)15:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the recent edits atJenny Lind. Can you do anything about this? --Ssilvers (talk)17:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'verequested protection.Nikkimaria (talk)17:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Ssilvers (talk)18:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted your edit together with a bunch of other edits. Would you please hold off on removing it again until the current edit wars stop? BTW, why don't you want to say the name of the artist? --Ssilvers (talk)04:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; seeMOS. I think this is a misguided class assignment - I've posted to the Education Noticeboard.Nikkimaria (talk)04:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looking atWP:CAP, I am not sure what language you are focusing on in the guideline, but it looks to me like it encourages the identification of the artist. Also, I have often seen artist names included if notable, and if the caption is still pretty concise. Please let me know. That edit summary by the student is weird: "class assignment to make article more concise". Can you imagine that a professor told the students to hack away encyclopedic content without knowing anything about the MOS or our usual biography conventions? Someone should discuss the "assignment" with the prof. and suggest that "Be Bold" also includes "Be careful" with referenced content. --Ssilvers (talk)04:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the last body sentence. And unfortunately yes, I can imagine that!Nikkimaria (talk)04:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean inMOS:CREDITS. OK, let's take it out when this dies down. Yet another reason why infoboxes actually limit the usefulness of Wikipedia articles. --Ssilvers (talk)15:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Canada Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for your decades of service related to the improvement and creation of Canadian content. You're a National asset!Moxy🍁13:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!Nikkimaria (talk)23:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki,

Under history inEngland, under ancient history, the images seem cluttered on desktop. I think the image of the fort could be moved on the left or removed to clear space. Requesting this to you as I know you're good at editing.2A0A:EF40:E78:FC01:59B7:763E:2145:1944 (talk)15:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the fort image could be changed to the Roman Baths, which is a more bigger Roman attraction in England. Thisimage could work, with the caption: TheRoman Baths in Bath, Somerset; a temple was constructed on the site between 60–70CE in the first few decades of Roman Britain.2A0A:EF40:E78:FC01:59B7:763E:2145:1944 (talk)16:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, sorry Nikki! Forgive me. This seems a bit rude to suggest you to edit something. I'm sorry! I'm new and just want to help.2A0A:EF40:E78:FC01:59B7:763E:2145:1944 (talk)17:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, not a problem. I think though that moving an image left would create more of asandwiching problem than the current arrangement - that would result in text squished between two images. I don't oppose changing the fort image to the Baths image you suggest, but wouldn't that have the same problem of too many images for the section?Nikkimaria (talk)23:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On8 May 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleEin feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that the only surviving autograph pages ofone of Bach's chorale cantatas ended up in three libraries on two continents? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk)00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don'tadd blank lines before and after your comments. It makes somescreen reader software think your comment is a completely separate list, which means that it gets announced separately ("A list of one item: All else being equal, as much as adding one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC). A list of 37 items: [next comment starts here]").

If you want to know more about it, there's an explanation inWP:LISTGAP, but the easy rule of thumb is that if there's a bullet/asterisk anywhere in the indentation, then there shouldn't be blank lines.WhatamIdoing (talk)02:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adding them - unfortunately it's a longstanding wikEd bug.Nikkimaria (talk)02:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't save what you can see in the editing window? I'm familiar with its page-wide &nbsp replacements, but I've not heard of it inserting new blank lines. Unfortunately, it seems like very little maintenance is done on WikEd (no updates for almost eight years – unfortunately, that suggests that some day, there will be a web browser upgrade that it can't handle, and it'll just disappear on you).

On talk pages, have you considered using one of the discussion scripts instead? I like theReply tool inSpecial:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion but other people preferWikipedia:Convenient Discussions. They're both particularly handy for replying in the middle of long discussions.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I see no blank lines in the editing window, and suddenly they appear in the saved version. Maybe I'll look at the discussion script options.Nikkimaria (talk)03:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How frustrating that must be, to have unwanted and unannounced transformations done. I'm sorry you're having to put up with that.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember who said it when, but: that the reply feature adds the blank lines. I never use that so can't tell but it may be worth investigating and go for change. --Gerda Arendt (talk)05:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reply tool never breaks list formatting by adding blank lines. If you are replying to an un-indented comment, it will add a blank line before your indented comment, but this is (a) explicitly compliant withMOS:ACCESS – read the first paragraph inWP:LISTGAP – and (b) requested by editors.WhatamIdoing (talk)16:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles:Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review:Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at aspects of World War II Review essay:Nick-D on Osprey Publishing Timeline:This month in military history

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCees Houtman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBible studies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content I added to the article aboutIran is actually suitable for this article. What is your reason? If you think there is a minor issue, please correct it rather than completely removing the content!Kanetyuii (talk)17:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiKanetyuii, I don't think there is a minor issue, I think the content should be completely removed, and it looks like I'm not alone in thinking that - you've now restored the material despite multiple different editors removing it. Please go tothe article's talk page and make your case for why you feel the content should be included and buildconsensus for that position.Nikkimaria (talk)17:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria Could you please do the tasks you mentioned? I don’t know how to do them. If you ask ChatGPT about this book, you'll definitely be amazed by its positive descriptions.Kanetyuii (talk)17:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanetyuii It sounds like you're more interested in promoting this book than in improving an article about Iran. Hrm... —C.Fred (talk)17:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanetyuii, click onthis link and type why you think this content should be added. Then wait to see if other editors agree.Nikkimaria (talk)17:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KanetyuiiMoxy🍁17:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist correcting the Sir John Drughorn page. I have just located his family archivist so may be able to document my edit you reverted if I have better knowledge of what to reference. Thanks.StewyOnIsle (talk)19:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiStewyOnIsle,user-generated genealogy sites and unpublished materials generally cannot be referenced, andprimary sources can be referenced only with extreme caution.This page summarizes the status of many common sources.Nikkimaria (talk)19:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2025 Headlines Albania report: Wikipedia Event for International Roma Day 2025 Australia report: Highlighting Feminist and women's histories and a Wiki Day at the South Australian Museum Catalan areas report: Campaign to document the 2025 Falla monuments in Valencia Italy report: Wikidata and Research Netherlands report: Open Collection Highlights New Zealand report: Women in Architecture, BHL, and the Commons Workflow Nigeria report: Strengthening Cultural Heritage through Partnerships and Knowledge Sharing: Insights from World Heritage Day in Nigeria North Macedonia report: Wikimedia MKD's new GLAM collaborations and activities Poland report: What's up in GLAM in Poland Portugal report: Scholarships and Call for Sessions Proposals for GLAM Wiki 2025 will open soon: Stay tuned! Serbia report: GLAM Highlights from Serbia Switzerland report: FemNetzCon 2025; GLAM Meeting Biel/Bienne; Digi Archive UK report: Mapping Museums / Art in Arabic USA report: April meetings Biodiversity Heritage Library report: BHL-Wiki Working Group April monthly highlights Memory of the World report: Surging forward in Spanish and Arabic Calendar: May's GLAM events Read this edition in full •Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit thenewsroom. Past editions may be viewedhere.

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 68, March–April 2025

In this issue we highlight two resource renewals, #EveryBookItsReader, a note about Phabricator, and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSBIO has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on thediscussion page. Thank you.MWFwiki (talk)00:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these two editors are the same, and even so, they are both edit-warring on the article, People's Socialist Republic of Albania. Maybe you can start a sockpuppet investigation?TheUzbek (talk)06:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough evidence at this point to conclusively link that account to any particular editor.Nikkimaria (talk)00:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why change 'Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist state under a totalitarian dictatorship' to simply 'communist state' as I feel like my description was much more detailed and gives a better idea of the form of government that the country actually had, whereas 'communist state' is too vagueWikipeidiaEditor (talk)09:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist state under a totalitarian dictatorship" is original research. Theiris no academic that defines the form of government if these states in such a convoluted manner. It also does not make sense. The whole point of totalitarianism is that adages like Nazism, Fascism and Communism is wasteful because they have more in common than what differentiates them.TheUzbek (talk)10:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure why you consider my description as 'convoluted' but I am okay with simplifying it a bit. However, the country obviously followed Marxism-Leninism and was definitely a dictatorship. For example, there was only one party to vote for, and the government introduced extreme laws such as completely banning religion in 1967. I don't really understand your last point.WikipeidiaEditor (talk)11:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist state under a totalitarian dictatorship": no academic uses such a convoluted expression. They simply say "totalitarian" or "communist state". The term " Marxist-Leninist state is less used than "communist state". Which Marxist-Leninist state was not a one-party state? From what liberal democratic perspective can a one-party state not be a dictatorship? Isn't totalitarianism synonymous with dictatorship, so why have "totalitarian dictatorship" when totalitarian as a term is synonymous with dictatorship? Simply call it a "Communist state": state power is monoplised by a communist party, and the state is organised on the lines ofunified power. And from a liberal democratic perspective, such a system is a dictatorship. You won't persuade editors who believe communism is democratic with that convoluted sentence that barely makes any sense. Most scholars simply refer to these states as "communist states", and if it suffices for them, it should suffice for Wikipedia!TheUzbek (talk)08:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Calm down. I specified dictatorship because the country was much more of a dictatorship than many other communist or socialist countries. Saying that every communist country were equally totalitarian is like saying that Yugoslavia was as bad as Democratic Kampuchea, even tho Democratic Kampuchea was a million times worse. Also, many other Wikipedia pages specify the form of government the way I did. For example:Democratic Kampuchea,Socialist Republic of Romania, andPeople's Republic of Bulgaria just to name a few. Also, you need to stop being so aggressive for no reason.WikipeidiaEditor (talk)14:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarianism is a controversial academic scholars. Read the talk page at the Socialist People's Republic of Albania. Comparative communism as an academic school was established as an anti-totalitarian way to comprehend these states academically. From a totalitarian perspective Yugoslavia is indeed totalitarian. I have never read an academic "totalitarianist" (an adherent of the totalitarian school) who has made a table or an article about the degree of totalitarianism.. i don't believe anyone has made that paper since the whole point of totalitarianism is that it's total; you cannot be more or less totalitarian. Either you are or you're not.TheUzbek (talk)22:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia was more authoritarian rather than totalitarian. I understand that my description might not be very scholarly, but I still think that simply called it a communist state doesn't to justice to showing just how bad of a dictatorship the country had. Many other wikipedia pages include descriptions like mine.WikipeidiaEditor (talk)06:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"doesn't to justice to showing just how bad of a dictatorship the country had". This is POV-pushing. It is not WP's work to showcase how bad anything was... It is to showcase neutrality, objectivity and what the sources say.TheUzbek (talk)07:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand what I mean. I am talking about objectivity. Communist Albania was objectively more of a dictatorship than most communist countries. In fact, it is considered one of the most brutal communist regimes in history. That's not me pushing my views, I'm just trying not to oversimplify things. My earlier description is based on how the country objectively functioned, and not all communist countries can be considered totalitarian dictatorships as was Albania.WikipeidiaEditor (talk)15:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist Albania was objectively more of a dictatorship than most communist countries." That is you're opinion. I don't think it was "more of a dictatorship", and I doubt any academic would say that either. I will also add that form of government does not necessarily have anything to do with how brutal a system is (or how well functioning it is). As for oppressive, yes, it was oppressive from a liberal perspective. I agree with that respective, but you are entering a whole different level of discussion here. I, as a firm believer in liberal democratic capitalism believe that American capitalism is brutal, and I believe that most Western Europeans believe the same thing. However, the infobox (and the form of government) should not be changed to clarify what type of capitalism the US has. That is simply not the point.

Albania was acommunist state. While it might have gone further than other communist states, everyone can agree that is what it was. All its policies emanate from that fact.TheUzbek (talk)05:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the other wikipedia pages with descriptions like mine?WikipeidiaEditor (talk)15:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So your last arguement is because other people do foolish things so should I? Actually, if you check articles on liberal democratic states, the form of government is listed neutrally (the United States, United Kingdom, France et cetra)... However, there are many editors who, like you, try to enforce POV on non-liberal states. But whySaudi Arabia has a neutral government description and notAfghanistan has little to do with WP policy and more to do with the editors editing that article.TheUzbek (talk)21:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

idk why you get so mad lmao. I just think you should go around changing everyone else's edits as well 😂WikipeidiaEditor (talk)06:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, but if that is how you read me, sorry. I am, however, blunt and direct. I am also trying to explain the errors of your thinking.

Notice that this was discussed - the form of government of SPR of Albania - on the article's talk page. You can always start a discussion there again.TheUzbek (talk)07:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

its alr 👍WikipeidiaEditor (talk)15:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete find-a-grave? Plenty of wiki bios have it as a reference. If there is an official wiki policy against it, then please disclose that to me, because it is not followed.

Babhla (talk)04:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiBabhla, see its entry atWP:RSP.Nikkimaria (talk)04:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an explanation for your removal of the paragraph I added on the colour-blind casting controversy sparked by the Wolf Hall TV series.2607:FEA8:BF03:F900:DE72:F13B:1521:6886 (talk)07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's sourced to the Daily Mail, an unreliable source that is not accepted on WP. -SchroCat (talk)07:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I will replace the paragraph using acceptable sources such as Radio times, the Telegraph, Commentary magazine etc.2607:FEA8:BF03:F900:774F:B644:8D2E:7599 (talk)15:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red|June 2025, Vol 11, Issue 6, Nos. 326, 327, 339, 340 Online events: New:LGBTQ+|Alphabet run K & L Continuing, year-long initiatives:#1day1woman|Music Announcements: Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea, but we're putting together ourlist of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red. We are creating the list to celebrate10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania. We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider? Can you suggest a DYK style hook? If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on thetalk page. The World Destubathon, 16 June - 13 July, 2025 Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available viaHumaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,492 articles during this period! 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% (2,061,363 bios; 414,126 women) Tip of the month: Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regardingnotability andreliable sources. Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements. Other ways to participate: Becomea member. You can alwaysopt-out of notifications. Join the conversations onour talkpage. Help usplan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media:Instagram|Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk06:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I understand that you're trying to avoid consecutive links onAmtrak Susquehanna River Bridge, but removing any link toAmtrak is not helpful. I believe this is a case where the downside of consecutive links is smaller than the downside of not linking to the owner of the rail line and bridge.Pi.1415926535 (talk)02:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiPi.1415926535, why not actually say that Amtrak is the owner of the bridge, if that's the case? It would solve the issue and be clearer to boot.Nikkimaria (talk)02:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to fix it in the prose. I would have preferred that you'd done that originally rather than simply removing it. I've restored the hard-coded image size for now untilModule:InfoboxImage or{{Infobox bridge}} is fixed so that the upright parameter works properly.Pi.1415926535 (talk)03:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535, I can't do that if I don't know that - the article doesn't say who owns the bridge(Adding: I do see now that it says so deep in the body - would suggest making this clear). As for the sizing, why not just call upright directly, if you feel it's needed?Nikkimaria (talk)04:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox and lede already specified that Amtrak owns the rail line. Because of a bug in the module (seeModule talk:InfoboxImage#Other size parameters cause upright to be ignored), the upright parameter doesn't currently work if certain other parameters are used in the infobox template. I've filed an edit requesthere to remove those other parameters from{{infobox bridge}} (as they shouldn't be there anyway) so that upright can be used.Pi.1415926535 (talk)04:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, Amtrak owns the bridge itself - the subject of the article - is there a reason not to just say that?Nikkimaria (talk)04:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to say that, but I do think it's important to indicate that Amtrak owns the whole rail line - including the bridge.Pi.1415926535 (talk)21:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you you remove the recording of Olaudah Equiano?Sunriseshore (talk)00:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other media files present, and this one is less directly relevant.Nikkimaria (talk)00:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed the speech concerning reconstruction.

I would like an explanation as to how the excerpts the middle passage, and reconstruction efforts to secure Black voting rights after the Civil are are not 'directly relevant' to the article.

Got my popcorn for this one.Sunriseshore (talk)01:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:DETAIL - there are more specific articles in which this level of detail is appropriate.Nikkimaria (talk)01:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that convincing, especially since scholarship on Southern History has made a clear line to bring the truth out in these subjects. The American South is at the center of the story.

Will be in touch!Sunriseshore (talk)02:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds if not thousands of media files that could conceivably be added to this article; it cannot accommodate them. What mechanism would you propose for deciding which to include?Nikkimaria (talk)02:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above articles have been scheduled astoday's featured article for July 2025. Please check that the articles needs no amendment. Feel free to amend the draft blurbs, which can be found atWikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article atWikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2025. Please keep an eye on those pages, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there byuser:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlistWikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work!SchroCat (talk)13:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article introduces the subject using his military rank before his name. Should the rank be used at the outset like that? Thanks for your help.Hoppyh (talk)13:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I don't believe so, although it is pretty common.Nikkimaria (talk)01:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "rivals" to "opponents." One reason is that it was Goodwin's choice, and her use of "rivals" appears later in the paragraph. A more important reason is that "rivals" is more accurate. An opponent opposes, but Seward et al. did not oppose Lincoln -- they supported him after he won the nomination -- they merely preferred themselves over him. "Opponent" suggests that Lincoln and Seward et al. were on opposing sides in an election or a contest. But there were no sides, as there are in a general election, when Republican and a Democrat run against ("oppose") each other. There were merely rivals for the nomination.Maurice Magnus (talk)00:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the use of "rivals" later in the paragraph is a reason to prefer "opponents", to avoid repetitive phrasing.Nikkimaria (talk)00:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I agreed that we should not use "rivals" because it is used later in the paragraph, I would not think that it outweighed the fact that "opponent" is less accurate than "rival." Accuracy is more important than style (not that I agree with you on the style question).Maurice Magnus (talk)00:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "opponents" is any less accurate. But you'd be welcome to take this to article talk to get more views?Nikkimaria (talk)00:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I offered reasons why I think that "rivals" is more accurate, I think that it would be appropriate for you to say why you disagree with those reasons, but, if you don't wish to, I'll drop it. I don't find the question sufficiently important to raise on the article talk page.Maurice Magnus (talk)00:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Rivals" and "opponents" are synonymous; "opponents" is a term commonly applied in primary contests among members of the same party, not only those involving multiple parties.Nikkimaria (talk)00:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my edits have made this article too long and uncomfortable to read, sorry! I will stop editing it for a while. Can you help me make it more concise again? Thanks!RobertX7 (talk)15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the coordinates from this article, the data was referenced, I've stood their myself & find a Grave is a very reliable source.

Or are you confusing your atempt to be a gate keeper with vandalisim. It take hours to research & seconds to revert, hence the distorted ratio of editors to admin & why editors are leaving in droves...— Precedingunsigned comment added by2A04:4A43:8D5F:F64D:922D:B8D4:40A7:167E (talk)17:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Because Find a Grave is deemed an unreliable site. SeeWP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Find a Grave. -SchroCat (talk)17:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, others think its fine & it lined up to what was there. I'll put the coordinates back but not the ref then you can revert for OR 😉2A04:4A43:8D5F:F64D:922D:B8D4:40A7:167E (talk)17:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it will be reverted if it's unsourced... -SchroCat (talk)17:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Republic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —GoldRingChip21:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XV, Issue V, May 2025 Headlines Albania report: Enhancing the LGBTQ+ content in Albanian Wikipedia Belgium report: Belgium Public Domain Day and Dance Heritage Brazil report: Video resource on Wikimedia Brasil and Casa de Oswaldo Cruz Partnership Released Croatia report: SPRINGing back activities Czech Republic report: National Library of the CR events and important guests Europe report: DARIAH DHwiki WG coming activity India report: GLAM project starts with Nanda Talukdar Foundation at Jorhat, Assam Indonesia report: GLAM Wiki Month 2025 in Indonesia Italy report: From charts to concrete Kosovo report: Traditional Albanian Food Photography Competition 2025 New Zealand report: Update from Auckland Museum; Let the Wikifying Commence; Listful Thinking Nigeria report: Architectural Folklore Campaign Series Poland report: What's up in GLAM in Poland Serbia report: Celebrating Museums and strengthening #1Lib1Ref connections Spain report: Some news from Spain Switzerland report: International Museum Day 2025; CoCreation PTT-Archive; Scoring Girls UK report: The 18th language Ukraine report: Spring GLAM news from Ukraine – first major survey for GLAM institutions & yet another successful #1Lib1Ref USA report: May meetings Biodiversity Heritage Library report: BHL-Wiki Working Group May monthly highlights Memory of the World report: Preparing the data upload Calendar: June's GLAM events Read this edition in full •Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit thenewsroom. Past editions may be viewedhere.

Two items recently I wanted to bring to your attention.

First, on2010 NFC Championship Game, you edited the articlehere, so you had seen the lead fairly clearly. The article is then on the Main Page, and a user makes a poor edithere to the lead three hours later. You then come in7 minutes later and tag the article with{{Lead}}here. Why? It's on the Main Page, you saw the previous state of the article, why not revert? I know you are an experienced editor so I am struggling to understand the mindset here to let a user make an unhelpful edit and then 7 minutes later tag the article, instead of just reverting to its previous state.

Second, regarding your addition of "United States" into the lead.WP:USPLACE is clear that using "City, Country" or "City, State, Country" is contrary to general American usage. Furthermore, the overriding consensus on these types of articles, across many sports, including those outside of the US, is that a country distinguisher in the body of the text is not necessary. All that considered, includingWP:BRD, which as a longtime editor, I know you are familiar with, I respectfully request you find somewhere to start a discussion and try to gain consensus before continuing these edits. The impetus is on you to establish new consensus, not the other way around. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @15:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will open a discussion on the talk page to address the substantive concerns, but request that you leave the tag in place pending resolution.Nikkimaria (talk)17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this. As I said on the talk page, this isn't how content disputes work. Per{{MOS}}, it saysThis template should be used when the article appears to use styles that may be confusing to the layman, or even to everyone and additionallyPlace at the top of the article to alert editors that the article needs one or more kinds of non-trivial style cleanup throughout. You're abusing tagging to make a point. The addition of "United States" does not justify a full, top of the article tag. The infobox, which is in the lead and adjacent to the sentence, also clearly states "US". « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @18:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"styles that may be confusing to the layman" is exactly the issue.Nikkimaria (talk)18:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet clearly an extraordinarily minor MOS dispute for an otherwise very well-formatted article. Not worthy of a tag, not the least of whichin response to a content dispute. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @18:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On another topic, is it possible for you to archive this page? Its length is making responding difficult. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @18:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007::"cleanup templates are used to inform readers and editors of ongoing discussions and attempts to fix the problems on the page". Suggesting that tagging in response to a dispute is inappropriate is exactly backwards.Nikkimaria (talk)18:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for archiving. Can we focus the conversation to the talk page, so it is not split between there and here? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @18:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a second comment from Nick dealing with Reconstruction here:[2]. Should a second source be cited.ErnestKrause (talk)14:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of that comment was that he felt the quoting was excessive; I've shortened it.Nikkimaria (talk)14:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from HF for you on the review page for Lincoln.ErnestKrause (talk)14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added material from HF tonight.ErnestKrause (talk)00:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiErnestKrause, looks like both of the pending comments are about additions you've made recently - do you have the sources for those?Nikkimaria (talk)00:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both answered; you might want to check it there.ErnestKrause (talk)14:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the direction of comments taken on the nomination page regarding my correction to the Rhea 2002 book which I corrected here[3], and which has since been removed and replaced by your well-chosen alternative webcite source also for Rhea. It appears on the basis on that one source correction during the review, that therefore the entire sourcing for the article is being challenged, which sounds a little disproportional as its 1 source out of about 450 sources of very high quality. I've made what I thought was a generous offer to amend this view on the nomination page, though it appears to not be of useful effect with him. Its possible for me to invite other editors to see if they would like to comment with opinions about the nomination. I'm sort of leaning towards going forwards with the article nomination based on the 2-3 supports and what looks like a single oppose; what do you think?ErnestKrause (talk)00:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to withdraw at this point. The concern is that where other material has been copied from other articles, it may have similar problems with not being supported by the sources given. Your offer regardsmoving forward, but doesn't impact that copying which has already happened. HF asked if you could specify what in the article was brought in via CWW already.Nikkimaria (talk)00:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comment to him about the 2 CWWs which I did during the FAC in responses to edit requests was to state: "The list of battles I had added during FAC was removed by Nikkimaria which was originally taken from another Wikipedia article under rules for copying within Wikipedia; Nikkimaria has now removed it. Also, the list of death statistics for the Overland Campaign was copied from another Wikipedia article under the rules for copying within Wikipedia, for which Nikkimaria has now substituted another source." HF appeared to see this without useful effect. Possibly you might sharpen the wording of that statement from me to HF on the review page in a constructive way, and I'll support it.ErnestKrause (talk)00:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there were earlier instances, eg the Sand Creek material, now removed? Are there others?Nikkimaria (talk)01:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to last February then both of those adjacent sections for Native Americans and Foreign Policy included splits from their main articles which may no longer be visible due to many re-edits since then. The Native Americans section has been updated, expanded and re-formatted at least five or six times since then.ErnestKrause (talk)15:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has been a somewhat quite week at the Lincoln article responses. It seems like there are about 6-7 supports for the article, and the image review and the source reviews still need to be done. Any thoughts of who might be invited to look at the image review and the source review for the article.ErnestKrause (talk)14:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request.Nikkimaria (talk)23:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like more comments from UC on the review page. Source review and Image review appear to have passed.ErnestKrause (talk)16:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going on those closing economics section edits last week-end. Congratulations on the completed promotion.ErnestKrause (talk)17:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.Nikkimaria (talk)23:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4&diff=prev&oldid=1295570820

If you don't want this on the FAR page I don't really care if it's deleted. I do ask that you use a different template because I don't see how it is a personal attack. (t ·c)buidhe16:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done.Nikkimaria (talk)17:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles:Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review:Hawkeye7 looks at the Antonine Plague and cryptographic security Timeline:This month in military history

In case you're looking for another article to trim, theGettysburg Address needs it badly. I started and will return to it when I can.Maurice Magnus (talk)00:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick :-)Maurice Magnus (talk)00:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,You have reverted my contribution about the Joker appearing in The Simpsons TV Series.Please let me know what was wrong.Thank you.Alexanderansilva (talk)04:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiAlexanderansilva, the source you cited is notreliable - seethis list for more information.Nikkimaria (talk)04:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll do it.Alexanderansilva (talk)04:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is simpsonswiki.com a reliable source?Alexanderansilva (talk)05:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No,user-generated sources like open wikis are generally not considered reliable.Nikkimaria (talk)05:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Alexanderansilva (talk)05:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to bother you, but what about screenrant.com/simpsons-best-batman-jokes-references/?Alexanderansilva (talk)05:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I found the same website mentioned in other sources I concluded it is a reliable one. Thank you.Alexanderansilva (talk)05:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's fine.Nikkimaria (talk)23:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍Alexanderansilva (talk)19:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the period that I inserted after footnote 329? Every other such footnote has a period at the end.Maurice Magnus (talk)19:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every other footnote which includes a reference places the period before the reference. This footnote already has a period before the reference.Nikkimaria (talk)19:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "before the reference," do you mean in the note? If so, what does that have to do with whether to place a period at the end of the footnote? Also, if you hold your cursor over each of the footnotes in the notes, you'll see that they are inconsistent as to whether they have a period at the end. If you wish to make them consistent, I suggest including periods, because that way they will look the same as the footnotes that are in the text of the article, as opposed to in the notes.Maurice Magnus (talk)20:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Nikkimaria (talk)20:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the notability template? I don't feel the subject is notable, as there doesn't seem to be anyWP:SIGCOV.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}01:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - she's been the subject of numerous major newspaper articles, and is discussed in many sources on the history of Canadian women in the Second World War.Nikkimaria (talk)01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis and race is an important and misunderstood issues in U.S. history. Why delete some context that fleshes it out a bit? And why not leave an explanation?Jbench55555!! (talk)06:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe additional context is needed, I'd suggest creating a standalonechild article - the main article is already very long and detailed.Nikkimaria (talk)00:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me which provisions of ELNO you invoked to delete my addition of a link to what I believe is the most detailed website about that game series.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Railroad_Tycoon&diff=0&oldid=1297555153

The site is maintained not by "a fan" but by a group of people who have played one or more of the games in the series and have written material that is of interest to other players though not "notable" enough to be in a Wikipedia article. The site is over 9 years old and hosted by a stable wikifarm.

QuotingWP:ELYES, #What can normally be linked

1. .....
2. .....
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

"Links to be considered" includes "Sites that fail to meet criteria forreliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

Robin Patterson (talk)09:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) QuotingWP:ELNO:

"Blogs,personal web pages, and mostfansites..." seems to be applicable to me. -SchroCat (talk)09:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A "fansite" is by "a fan", not a group.Robin Patterson (talk)13:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Says who? A "fansite" is a site "for fans". -SchroCat (talk)14:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Says Wikipedia. Read it.Robin Patterson (talk)22:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:CIRC for the dangers of relying on Wikipedia for sourcing (and, by extension) of definitions. However you look at it, it's a fansite, which is how you first described it. Most fans are knowledgeable to some extent, but that doesn't make them reliable. -SchroCat (talk)07:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself labelled it a fansite. This is an open wiki with a very small userbase, not something that would warrant inclusion.Nikkimaria (talk)00:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not label it afansite. It is clearly written by people who are "knowledgeable sources". "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" "can normally be linked". Can you tell me which provisions of ELNO you invoked?Robin Patterson (talk)03:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree it would qualify under that provision of ELYES, and believe it would be excluded per 11/12 of ELNO.Nikkimaria (talk)03:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Robin, but I agree with Nikki—ELNO #11 very clearly applies here. And yes, youcalled it a fan site in your edit summary. This is the sort of thing I'd expect any admin, even a legacy one, to recognize when it's been pointed out (assuming they had forgotten the guideline).Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}06:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nikkimaria, I saw that you were recommended as one of the most prolific and experienced geography-related featured article contributors. I am working on bringingEast Island (Hawaii) through the Featured Article process and was wondering if you might be willing to help mentor me or offer guidance through the candidacy. I would really appreciate any advice or feedback you could give. Thank you!MallardTV^{Talk to me!}15:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiMallardTV, as a starting point, have you addressed the comments from the previous FAC?Nikkimaria (talk)15:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria Indeed I have, as was the subject of my 16-hour editathon of sorts.MallardTV^{Talk to me!}15:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected asEditor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions!(courtesy of theWikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Noleander submitted the following nomination forEditor of the Week:

I nominate Nikkimaria to be Editor of the Week for her outstanding and reliable work in theWP:Featured Article process. And so much more. For many years, they've always been there, helping out, answering questions. One of her chosen jobs is validating the images within FA-nominated articles to ensure they meet theWikipedia:Image use policy requirements; a difficult, painstaking, and often thankless, task. FAC would fall apart without her - 4,500+ reviews!! Stop and think about that for a moment. She is second to none for knowledge of copyright, and is always generous with her time. Speaking personally: about a month ago, I prematurely nominated an article for FA, and Nikkimaria quickly and discreetly let me know it was not quite ready ... so I was able to gracefully withdraw it before any public humiliation. In sum, they've been working hard, behind the scenes providing invaluable contributions in corners of the project that would be markedly worse off without Nikkimaria's constant, seemingly-unending vigilance. Without her,Today's Featured Article on WP's front page would not be the same. This nomination was seconded byGog the Mild,theleekycauldron,Dracophyllum,TompaDompa,Eddie891,TechnoSquirrel69,Vacant0,QuicoleJR,Abo Yemen,Mr Serjeant Buzfuz andUndercoverClassicist

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Nikkimaria

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 29, 2025

For many years, Nikkimaria has been in theWP:Featured Article process, helping out and answering questions. One of her chosen jobs is validating the images within FA-nominated articles to ensure they meet theWikipedia:Image use policy requirements; a difficult, painstaking and thankless task. FAC would fall apart without her - 4,500+ reviews!! In sum, they've been working hard, behind the scenes providing invaluable contributions in corners of the project that would be markedly worse off without Nikkimaria's constant, seemingly-unending vigilance. Without her,Today's Featured Article on WP's front page would not be the same.

Recognized for

decades of service related to the improvement and creation of Canadian content

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts!Buster7^Chat03:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! And thanksNoleander as well :-)Nikkimaria (talk)04:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, well deserved! --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Very well deserved! -SchroCat (talk)15:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hear hear. And thanks for all your help over the years.Dudley Miles (talk)16:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree long overdue. Congratulations..... I like the Canadian version of this award.Moxy🍁19:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor of most weeks surely.CMD (talk)00:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• So deserved. Thank you for all the leadership.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)13:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red|July 2025, Vol 11, Issue 7, Nos. 326, 327, 341, 342, 343 Online events: New:Alphabet run M & N|Women in Red turns 10|Kenya Continuing, year-long initiatives:#1day1woman|Music Announcements: The World Destubathon, 16 June - 13 July 2025 Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available viaHumaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period! 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women) 23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women) Tip of the month: A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements, but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations. Other ways to participate: Becomea member. You can alwaysopt-out of notifications. Join the conversations onour talkpage. Help usplan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media:Instagram|Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk09:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Pancakes!

Thanks for bringingMaple syrup to FA! I thought it would be appropriate to award you some pancakes with syrup on them to represent the fruit of your labours, unless you prefer waffles or French toast? Either way, thank you, along with being a regular contributor on FAC. I hope to see you one day on FAC.Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2).Please ping me so that I get notified of your response01:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.Nikkimaria (talk)01:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story ·music ·places

Thank you today forMaple syrup, "Introducing the syrup of Sunday mornings, the sweet topping on everything from waffles to ice cream, and the best thing to combine with snow in spring!"! --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today forGeorge Washington, "about the founding father George Washington", co-nomination, "the sixth time that this page has been nominated. A previous GA nomination of the article from a decade ago was successful though subsequent FAC nominations did not move forward. The current nomination is a significantly trimmed and condensed version of the Washington biography"! Quite an achievement! --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today forManitoba, introduced (in 2010): "this year is Manitoba's 140th birthday! What better way to celebrate than with a great article honouring the province?"! - I havea singer on the same page, and there'sa question on the talk page, regarding the wording of the sentence about her death. I'd be interested in your view, if you have the time to look. --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked before I asked you, - what I found strange was reverted. Two other questions though. --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the user was blocked. - Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning,RD andDYK, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 69, May–June 2025

In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team –13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please let me know which link you consider is unreliable onRobert Kerr Chisholm?20m00 (talk)18:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi20m00, it's the site I removed withthis edit - see its entry atthis list of sources for more details.Nikkimaria (talk)18:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying!20m00 (talk)18:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloUser:Nikkimaria,

I noticed that you recently removed all the images from the articlePrajnanananda Saraswati without providing a clear edit summary or initiating any discussion on the talk page. This kind of unilateral removal of properly sourced and relevant media has a severe impact on the quality and integrity of the article, and contradicts Wikipedia’s collaborative editing principles.

If there were licensing or content-related concerns with specific images, the proper course of action would have been to raise the issue on the article’s talk page or tag the images with appropriate rationale — not to delete them outright without consensus.

Please refrain from such disruptive edits in the future. I request that you either restore the removed images or engage in discussion to justify your actions, perWP:CONSENSUS andWP:EDITWAR.(talk)18:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiEshaan the writer, I did not remove all the images - there are still many present. Wikipedia articles are not intended to berepositories of images. Additionally{{photomontage}} should not be used outside of templates.Nikkimaria (talk)04:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I am sorry I re edited them. Thank you for the information.Eshaan the writer (talk)08:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Flag of Winnipeg fair.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "one White, one Black" that you added is not there. The white man is Horace Greeley.Maurice Magnus (talk)11:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "his party," whatever that meant, to "Horace Greeley."Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC) That eliminates the need to say that one is white and one is Black.Maurice Magnus (talk)11:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be visible - it'salt text.Nikkimaria (talk)22:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2025 Headlines Australia report: Celebrating Communication History and Women Artists through Wikipedia Belgium report: Public Domain Day in Europe 2026 Brazil report: Expanding Data on Maranhão's Heritage Czech Republic report: First call of Science Month at Wikipedia in the Czech Republic wrapped-up France report: WiR and science&GLAM tour in France Indonesia report: Another publication from Grant for GLAM Indonesia program & Minangkabau Wikisource Competition upadates Italy report: Isoseismals & Icons Kosovo report: Celebrating Albanian Cuisine Through Photography: Winners of the 2025 Contest Announced! Mexico report: Open Cultural Data Hackathon in Puebla New Zealand report: Wikifying the International Congress of History of Science and Technology; Librarians and Wikipedia; NZ species edit-a-thons Nigeria report: Mapping Heritage Buildings on Wikidata and Wiki Heritage Fellowship North Macedonia report: Wikimedia MKD Strengthens Ties with Academic Institutions: A Wikimedian-in-Residence at the Institute of Macedonian Literature Poland report: What's up in GLAM in Poland Portugal report: Registration is now open for GLAM WikiCon 2025! Serbia report: June highlights from Wikimedia Serbia and beginning of new accredited seminar Switzerland report: International Archives Week 2025; SAPA Performing Arts; GLAM Meeting Biel/Bienne UK report: New Featured Pictures USA report: June meetings Biodiversity Heritage Library report: BHL Transition update, LivingData2025 and Women Genera paper Memory of the World report: Data upload achieved Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 report: Celebrating Heritage and Faith: Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 Calendar: July's GLAM events Read this edition in full •Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit thenewsroom. Past editions may be viewedhere.

Please be aware that undoing all of a person's edits when you only disagree with part of them is problematic. I can only guess that you disagree with the change to the coordinates. If so, please consider where the coordinates point, and the sourcing. Your coordinates point to thelegislature building of Manitoba, which, by the way, had disgracefully bad coordinates untilI fixed them just now. I assume, but have not checked, that the source is a primary government database that is riddled with errors, errors that I am continuously correcting. Moreover, the article on on the city of Winnipeg, which has its own center, its own identify separate from the province. Thus I used the corner of Portage and Main, which OSM, Google Maps, and Bing Maps all agree is the center. It's rare that all three agree, so I am confident that this represents the consensus of secondary sources.Abductive (reasoning)03:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiAbductive, I didnot undo all of your edits, and in particular I did not touch your changes to the coordinates. Please actually look at the changes you're reverting, particularly before you start edit-warring over them.Nikkimaria (talk)03:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes even less sense, given that all that other changes are only visible to editors (and therefore consideredWP:Cosmetic), and the only substantive change I made was to the coordinates. Also, you previously did revert my attempts to improve the coordinates. I only make the other minor changes to enhance the readability of the infobox for my fellow editors, and most of the other edits are made by scripts (and I thought that they were the consensus formatting). So I fail to see why anybody would object. Personally, I want my fellow editors to be happy, so I am sorry for jumping to conclusions about your reversions. But I wonder if your happiness wouldn't be achieved through not worrying about, you know, changing |access-date= to |accessdate= ? I hope we can reach an understanding about what is important to each of us.Abductive (reasoning)03:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiAbductive, my happiness would be achieved by you not making these edits - they don't enhance readability, they don't have consensus, and all they do is, it would seem, make it harder for you to understand what changes are being made.Nikkimaria (talk)03:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am really only making changes to the coordinates, so I suppose my efforts to improve the formatting are less important. Going forward, please try to remember to put in the edit summary that you aren't undoing my coordinates and I will try to not be so hasty (and discombobulated).Abductive (reasoning)04:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - and to be fair, I used exactly the summary you did :-PNikkimaria (talk)04:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that on the pages for executed death row inmates, you are switching the infobox to use "Criminal status" instead of "Death cause". I guess it's confusing for me. Doesn't the fact that the person was a death row inmate who was executed for their crimes perfectly fit the criteria for the Death cause? The criteria is "Should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability." You've also sometimes been using "disappeared status" for some of them, which doesn't make sense at all since they never went missing.Lightiggy (talk)03:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiLightiggy, perMOS:IBP we shouldn't include executed in two separate parameters, and criminal_status is more specific for this use-case.Nikkimaria (talk)03:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You addedoverly detailed to this article. Have a look at similarly high-ranked universities in the US and UK. In particular,Harvard University has a much more detailed entry.BBCLCD (talk)09:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Harvard article is in need of editing.Nikkimaria (talk)00:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both edits by[4] used ChatGPT to find sources, probably need reverting?Doug Wellertalk19:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably need checking, to make sure the sources exist and actually say what they've been claimed to say.Nikkimaria (talk)21:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop undo my recent edits. As I told you and you probably should know since you´re way longer at wikipedia than me, shortend footnotes need a date to identify them correctly. Otherwise there is no way to tell apart another author with the same name. So i ask you the last time to refrain this or i must report you.Mr.Lovecraft (talk)11:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same here. There are some certain points that had to be included as you can see hereWikipedia:Citing_sources#What information to include So please stop it or i will report you due to vandalism...Mr.Lovecraft (talk)11:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiMr.Lovecraft, regardingGreat Fire of London, there is no requirement for shortened footnotes to include dates - the citations as-is are sufficient to identify to which References entry they refer. Similarly regardingEconomy of England in the Middle Ages, each chapter citation points to a full book reference with all necessary bibliographic details, no changes required. Whatis required is that if you wish to change the established citation style, you first gain consensus for that on the talk page, perWP:CITEVAR - please do that rather than edit-warring.Nikkimaria (talk)23:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok we had a bad start. So lets begin anew. There is however the problem in the inline citations when there are two authors with the same name, how will the reader know which one is meant if there is no such thing as a date or something similiar to identify them correctly?Mr.Lovecraft (talk)09:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any problem right now - all of the entries in References have unique authors. If at some point in future a duplicate is added then disambiguation will be needed.Nikkimaria (talk)23:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On the comment you left on the FA review forJudy Garland, you suggested taking it toWP:GOCE, so what do I do to make that happen? Cheers,Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk)20:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a requestJorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk)20:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing this article for GA. The image licensing seems fine overall, though one lists the author as "unknown". Is there any further info on that, or anything else I may have missed? Many thanks,MSincccc (talk)09:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:雍亲王题书堂深居图屏•观书沉吟轴_(cropped).jpg is missing a US tag. For the rest, all except the lead image appear to be 3D works located in places withoutfreedom of panorama, so they all need explicit tagging for the bottles themselves, not just the photos.Nikkimaria (talk)14:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently reviewing the articleArne Furumark for GA. I have checked the licensing, but could you please let me know if I’ve overlooked anything? I would really appreciate it. Many thanks.MSincccc (talk)09:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically File:Amphoroid_krater_with_chariot_scene,_1300-1250_BC,_AM_of_Nafplio,_202188.jpg and File:Horses_manger_Louvre_A513.jpg should both include tags for the original work - should be straightforward as both are well out of copyright.Nikkimaria (talk)23:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m currently reviewing the articleMorris Park Aerodrome for GA. I’m satisfied with the images and their licensing, but I’d welcome a second opinion from you. Thank you.MSincccc (talk)17:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources for File:J._Lawrence_Lesh_in_the_Air_at_the_Morris_Park_Meet,_November_1908.jpg , File:William_H._Martin_Glider_1909.png , and File:Riggs-Rice_airship_American_Eagle,_Morris_Park_Aerodrome,_1909.jpg , I'm not sure any of them indicate these werepublished before 1930? Also File:The_American_turf-_an_historical_account_of_racing_in_the_United_States_-_with_biographical_sketches_of_turf_celebrities._1898_(1898)_(17975359990).jpg should use a more specific tag if available.Nikkimaria (talk)00:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed thatyou added the pronunciation of Aosta as a footnote, while inthis article it's stated explicitly. Could I ask why you chose this format? Also, by placing it in a footnote, the French co-official name of the city (Aoste) is no longer visible in the lead section, even though it should be present there. Thanks in advance for your reply!Simoncik84 (talk)14:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Simoncik84: perMOS:LEADPRON "It is preferable to move pronunciation guides to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence". Given the number of different pronunciations involved here that seems appropriate.Nikkimaria (talk)22:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the explanation. What about the French official name? Does it need to go in the footnote too?Simoncik84 (talk)13:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That one could go either way, IMO.Nikkimaria (talk)00:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just comparingAosta withBolzano, and I think we need a clearer decision from Wikipedia on whether to put official names in a footnote, as the link you provided specifically addresses pronunciation. For now, I'll leave the official toponyms in the intro and the pronunciations in the footnote.Simoncik84 (talk)11:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Nikkimaria! The article you nominated,Abraham Lincoln, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,David Fuchs (talk) viaFACBot (talk)01:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I am going through and condensing some of the wording. I kinda have been building the page up with things I felt where missing nobody has responded to the talk page yet, and am looking for some pointers if you could. I did review the too long article/article on shortening etc, and am gonna think of ways to shorten this but theres still quite a bit missing from the article with it being human behavior, how could I continue to add stuff without making it too long or hard to navigate? I was using sub headings/headings to categorize but I can see how it can become too much. I appreciate any help thank you!!Eloquentverse (talk)04:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiEloquentverse, what I'd suggest is using this article as a high-level overview of the various subtopics, and defer details about those topics to their dedicated articles - seeWP:DETAIL.Nikkimaria (talk)04:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - I will look at it at a high-level and see how I can gut this. I appreciate your help seriouslyEloquentverse (talk)04:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I gutted a lot out of it and took apart everything I added, let me know if this looks better. I kept the most important stuffEloquentverse (talk)04:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much better!Nikkimaria (talk)05:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bringAbraham Lincoln (estimated annual readership:5,200,000) tofeatured article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! —ImaginesTigers11:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A towering achievement, Nikki. Thank you for this monumental undertaking of a vital article. I'veadded this to the FA Hall of Fame. —ImaginesTigers11:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!Nikkimaria (talk)00:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles:Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review:Hawkeye7 looks at an overview of war history and the biography of a war historian Review essay:Simon Harley critiques a work from Osprey Publishing Timeline:This month in military history

Well that's a disappointing outcome....have a closer with less than 400 main space edits siding with two editors that didn't point to a single policy. For god sakes the closer thinks the Canadian flag is copyrighted like the coat of arms.... they are unaware of the differences in the legal framework surrounding the copyrights. RFCs open to random editors unfamiliar with the basics of topics has been a detriment overall for our community. I remember a time when there was only a few rfcs a week..... Nowadays we see a few rfcs an hour.Moxy🍁02:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeeUser_talk:Coleisforeditor#Canada.Nikkimaria (talk)02:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm surprised we didn't attract more RFC hoppers with random I like it votes. But still the outcome would be the same as I stated months ago...an RRC would probably result in us misleading our readers and or ignoring Canadian copyright laws.... that's not surprising.Moxy🍁02:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red|August 2025, Vol 11, Issue 8, Nos. 326, 327, 344, 345, 346 Online events: New:Alphabet run O & P|Indigenous women|Film and stage Continuing, year-long initiatives:#1day1woman|Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the month: Read the essayDetermining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for status asNative American orIndigenous Canadian Other ways to participate: Becomea member. You can alwaysopt-out of notifications. Join the conversations onour talkpage. Help usplan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media:Instagram|Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk)14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi. Did you have a reason for deciding that the title of the piece by Britten was not needed? I believe that when a piece is referred to as explicitly as a "final tenor and piano cycle a quarter of a century later," it ought to be identified. You may feel otherwise, but unless you have a reason beyond a difference in taste, I think that we editors ought, as a courtesy, to respect one another's minor edits.Maurice Magnus (talk)19:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that edit as minor, but I have reworked the sentence to avoid the issue.Nikkimaria (talk)19:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deleting the reference to the tenor and piano cycle certainly removes the need to identify it. I found the reference of interest, and, as a Britten fan, I'd like to know what work it refers to.

I've just figured it out. A quarter of a century afterThe Holy Sonnets of John Donne would be 1970, andList of compositions by Benjamin Britten indicates that, in 1969, Britten publishedWho Are These Children?, a song cycle for tenor and piano. No subsequent one is listed, so that has to be it.

Would you object if I put back "final tenor and piano cycle a quarter of a century later," and, instead of saying that the title is needed, state that it isWho Are These Children?? Actually, I can think of a reason to object, which is that the comparative bleakness ofThe Holy Sonnets of John Donne andWho Are These Children? is not supported by a scholarly opinion. If that was your reason for removing the assessment of their comparative bleakness, then that would not be minor. But, if it remained, then my edit of asking for the name of the latter piece still seems minor to me.Maurice Magnus (talk)21:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can say that with certainty without source support, no.Nikkimaria (talk)00:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Britney Spears § GA plans.Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)01:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are a user that has a pattern of removing various contributors' editions while being either unwilling to or unable to explain your reasoning for them. I suggest you try to be a more collaborative editor and to actually rework passage you don't like. Erasing contributions constantly, especially with no true reasoning, is not productive to Wikipedia's mission of letting anyone contribute to a freely accessible encyclopedia.Safyrr16:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safyrr, Idid make an effort to rework your passage, but you reverted that effort - that doesn't seem to contribute to being collaborative. I'll restore the last stable revision and invite you to provide your reasoning on article talk.Nikkimaria (talk)23:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been working on expanding and improving both theSouth Padre Island andSouth Padre Island, Texas articles with additional sources and various facts and details. I noticed that theSouth Padre Island, Texas article was recently tagged as containing promotional content.

To help bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia’s standards, could you let me know which sections or phrasing you believe are too promotional? I’d be happy to revise or remove anything that crosses the line. I think I see some of the edits you've already made and understand the general concern, but I’d appreciate your perspective directly.

Thanks in advance for your input. I’ve really enjoyed researching the island and learning about its fascinating history, obscure details, and natural environment. One of the most interesting discoveries was theKarankawa people, who inhabited the island prior to modern history.162.198.97.65 (talk)02:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the Industry and Recreation sections are particularly problematic, but in general much of the article reads like a tourism brochure. I think the problem is not just the phrasing but also the sourcing - there's a lot of citations to recreation providers (eg tour operators) and other sources with an interest in promoting tourism.Nikkimaria (talk)02:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, especially regarding the “Recreation” section. I think removing it entirely is a good start. It doesn’t offer much in the way of encyclopedic value, just a list of past events and content that reads more like promotion. I’ll also clean up the “Industry” section to ensure it’s more neutral and better sourced. I appreciate your input. I wouldn’t have noticed this without the additional perspective eh?.162.198.97.65 (talk)02:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up. I’ve created this account (Surface Interval) so I can contribute with a consistent identity instead of editing anonymously. Looking forward to continuing the work on this article with more clarity around contributions.

Surface Interval (talk)03:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I've left you a welcome message.Nikkimaria (talk)03:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]