User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 7
Wikipedia Ambassador Program
editHi! Thanks for signing the Online Ambassador interest list. We're gearing up for the next term right now, and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program will be supporting considerably more courses, with considerably more student activity... possibly upwards of 500 students who will need mentors.
If you're still interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon. There are no Canadian universities involved yet, but hopefully we'll expand to Canada in the summer or next fall.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 December 2010
edit- News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief
- Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland
- Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: Majestic Titans
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Hello. Last month you contributed to the FAC for Hill 303 massacre. I just wanted to let you know I have reopened the article for FAC, if you wouldn't mind taking another look at the article and seeing if you have more comments. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hill 303 massacre/archive2. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try to pop in in a bit, but since it's the holidays I can't guarantee a prompt response. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review request
editCould you please review the article Silver Reef, Utah? Somebody nominated it, and I've made some major changes. While I'm definitely not done, I think it's time to give a GA a try. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 22:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll take a look, but RL takes priority during the holidays so it might take a while. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like it's been picked up by another editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 December 2010
edit- Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting
- WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Paul Massie (musician)
editSpeedy and AFD can overlap. This is a clear cut A7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Both I and the admin that subsequently responded seem to disagree. The AfD seems likely at this point to end with deletion anyway, just let it run its course. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
SAQ peer review
editHi Nikkimaria. I have finally finished going through the punch list you provided for the Shakespeare authorship question peer review. Would you be so kind as to take another look at it and perhaps venture an opinion on its chances for achieving FA status? There's a lot of controversy on the article's talk pages about neutrality, which always happens when a major improvement of the page is undertaken, but for the most part it always comes from editors who haven't worked much on the page but who champion one or another of the alternative candidates, and I doubt that type of controversy will ever cease on an article about a fringe theory such as the SAQ. And thanks very much for the helpful comments you made at the peer review. Only a few editors made usable comments. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
FAR
editHi Nikki - Are you still working on Rebecca Helferich Clarke at FAR (review page located at WP:Featured article review/Rebecca Helferich Clarke/archive1)? If so, I can leave it in the FAR section a bit longer; if not, I'll move it to the FARC section. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still working on it, but am on holiday until Tuesday and thus have little work time and no access to sources. If you could hold off on moving for a few more days, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Will do. Thanks for the quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
edit- 2010 in review: Review of the year
- In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux
- Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year
- Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Housekeeping vs Censorship
editNikkimaria, please advise as to how to put it in my own comment section, if that's the problem (although how I have my own section I don't know since you've twice collapsed all my comments so that no-one can read them.NinaGreen (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is a section on the page titled "Comments from NinaGreen", is there not? The bottom of that section is the correct place to add additional comments from you. However, instead of cross-posting comments from the talk page, I would suggest that you merely provide a one-sentence summary and a link to the relevant talk section. Furthermore, I should point out that re-iterations of your previous comments will likely be collapsed to save space on what is already a huge page. Might I suggest that you would be better off taking your concerns to one of the noticeboards I pointed you to earlier? The PR process is not really set up to handle concerns of the type you are bringing up, particularly when the person who nominated the article for review does not seem to agree with your points. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to post here again. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, there is such a section, but you have collapsed all my comments, including the one I made today, and you collapsed the one I made today before anyone had even had a chance to see it. When an article is put up for peer review, comments concerning the lack of neutrality of the article are highly relevant, and comments concerning the fact that the submitter of the article for peer review has admitted bias concerning the subject of the article and that he refuses to permit anyone else to edit the article are also highly relevant, and should be seen by all peer editors. To collapse and hide them constitutes censorship. Please uncollapse all my comments. Thanks.NinaGreen (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to do that. Comments regarding the behavior of the nominator or any other editor are not suitable for PR, and should be directed to one of the noticeboards I pointed out to you earlier or discussed with the editor in question on his or her talk page. Comments regarding the article's neutrality or lack thereof, while relevant, a) are unlikely to result in broad changes to the article when the nominator disagrees with them, and thus may be more effective as an RfC or noticeboard post, and b) should not be repeated over and over again - you've made your point, repeating it is unlikely to change either the article or editors' or reviewers' opinions and serves to increase the length of an already large page. Finally, instead of cross-posting large amounts of text, could you please provide a one-sentence summary and relevant diff(s)? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, there is such a section, but you have collapsed all my comments, including the one I made today, and you collapsed the one I made today before anyone had even had a chance to see it. When an article is put up for peer review, comments concerning the lack of neutrality of the article are highly relevant, and comments concerning the fact that the submitter of the article for peer review has admitted bias concerning the subject of the article and that he refuses to permit anyone else to edit the article are also highly relevant, and should be seen by all peer editors. To collapse and hide them constitutes censorship. Please uncollapse all my comments. Thanks.NinaGreen (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Diffs
editHi Nikkimaria. Just my 2c, but I think it's better to refer n00bs to the Simple diff and link guide rather than WP:DIFF. Mainly because I don't understand above half of WP:DIFF myself. (And somewhat because I'm proud of creating the Simple guide. :-)) There's also a Simplest guide and a Complete guide. The Simplest lacks the permanent link stuff (which is actually very important IMO), while the Complete was created to absorb the clever stuff which the computer nerds are always adding to the Simple, without upsetting them. (If I move their edits myself, it works.) Bishonen | talk 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC).
- Cool, hadn't seen those before (and man would they have been helpful a few years ago). Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I've restored it, there was no reason at all to remove it...what's HotCat telling you anyway? Taht "volcanoes of BC" is a subcat? But not all volcanoes are peaks, that's really not the same hierarchy. Gonna have to review your user contributions to see what else you've removed like that. Please use judgement/discernment, and don't rely on automated processes like that, it just doesn't work.Skookum1 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Umm...okay, as you will. HotCat doesn't "tell" me anything, it just lets me press a button to remove a category instead of clicking edit and removing it that way. Feel free to review my user contributions if that's what you'd like to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 January 2011
edit- News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news
- In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project
- WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways
- Features and admins: Featured topic of the year
- Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Fixes have been made to the article in accordance with your notes. Please see if they're satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've responded to your comments in the FAC for the Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) article. Are you now prepared to support the article's promotion to FA level, or do you have further comments? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- My concerns have been addressed; however, as I don't feel able to perform an in-depth review I would prefer to neither support nor oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK fair enough. Thanks for commenting on the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
FAC and FAR
editThanks so much :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Happy to help! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
CSI effect
editHey mate, you left some comments at the FAC for CSI effect a couple weeks back. I believe that your concerns have been addressed. Would you mind having a second look at the article? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you again, but would you mind checking to see if the provisions specified in your provisional support have been met? :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2011
edit- WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket
- Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons
- Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case
- Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news
The Signpost: 24 January 2011
edit- News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more
- Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news
Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011
edit
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2011
edit- The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books
- WikiProject report: WikiWarriors
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Im looking for a mentor, would you possibly consider...
editI'm new to Wikipedia as a student at Montana State University NAS 426 and am looking for an online mentor, who will be availble to offer advice and assistance as I start editing. Thanks Misstbird153.90.170.89 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Online Mentor
editHello,
I am am a student at Montana State University. I am required to find a mentor for a class involved in the US Public Policy Project . Do you have room or time to mentor me? Thanks for you time.
Cheers,
Jackie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiewickens (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
FAR and galleries
editIn Japan, you removed the Gallery with the comment "per FAR". However, nothing in WP:FACR mentions galleries one way or another. What's up with that? Nobody seemed to comment on the gallery bit in WP:FAR, either. I'm more than a little tempted to undo your edit, as there's nothing obvious about galleries in the policies I can find.... --moof (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Online Mentor?
editHello,
I am currently taking a USPP class Federal Indian Law and Policy at Montana State University and am very new to wikipedia. I was hoping to have your help throughout this very confusing process as I get started editing projects for my class??? Please let me know if you would be willing to mentor me! Thank you so much...
Starryright (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Starryright
Now that the dust is begining to settle ...
edit... I want to thank you for having the courage to unblock me earlier. Whether the block was good or bad, there's a substantial body of opinion here that just wants to see me got rid of by whatever pretext. I'm not really sure why that is, but it's just the way it is, so thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, and no worries, Malleus. I waited for some piling-on at ANI, and there's no courage in that - but you didn't need to be blocked, and you certainly didn't need to stay blocked. That's just the way it is. I suppose I'm in your "cabal" now. Oh well, in for a dime, in for a dollar...You're a great writer, Malleus, and whatever the "substantial body of opinion" might say, I think you do good work here and deserve respect for that. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
SAQ ref formatting
editI think it's ready for a perusal if you have the time. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to address the issues you raised; I'd be grateful if you could have a look over the changes I've made. Thanks, wackywace 13:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Galleries
editIt is very misleading to say, as you did in the FAC for Economy of Iran, that galleries are "advised against by the Manual of Style" in general terms. As you may know, many FAs of recent date have them, including virtually all visual arts ones. I have a feeling I have already had to point this out by a counter comment to yours fairly recently at FAC. Perhaps I'm wrong. If not, please be careful to avoid making misleading references to policy & guidelines at FAC, as nothing is more discouraging to nominators than being told to do something & then told that they didn't need to. The article has now had all the galleries removed, & imo looks worse for it. Please read the relevant section, WP:IG, carefully, & avoid making misleading statements in future. If it was not you, apologies. Of course it is fine to say that you don't like a particular gallery, but it should be made clear this is a personal view, not a policy position. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't say that galleries are against MoS, although I can see how you may have read it that way - I said that using so many images (some of which were in galleries) was advised against by MoS, particularly as it disrupted the format of the page and resulted in graphs that were too small to be of much use. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- What part of the MOS do you base that on? I don't recall any advice against necessary images, and economists understandably love graphs, which are a basic tool of their trade. Tables of figures would be worse. He has evidently read your comment the same way I did, and removed the galleries but left all or the great majority of the images. Images in galleries usually have to be clicked on to be seen properly - that is what the feature is for. Now they are still too small to see properly, but large enough to make the layout very messy, far worse than before. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- No part of the MOS advises against necessary images, but not all of the images in that article are necessary. You're welcome to restore the galleries if you so choose. I have clarified my comment about images at the FAC page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- What part of the MOS do you base that on? I don't recall any advice against necessary images, and economists understandably love graphs, which are a basic tool of their trade. Tables of figures would be worse. He has evidently read your comment the same way I did, and removed the galleries but left all or the great majority of the images. Images in galleries usually have to be clicked on to be seen properly - that is what the feature is for. Now they are still too small to see properly, but large enough to make the layout very messy, far worse than before. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thanks for your review of the sources. I have tried to address all the issues you found. Please let me know if there's anything else that needs fixing. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done working on the second round of your comments. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, in case you will be interested to take another look at its FA candidacy, the article underwent a significant expansion following User:Sasata's comments, which helped make it more comprehensive. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, Nikkimaria, for your review leading to the FA status. Your input was much appreciated. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
same here (as above). Thanks. 67.85.17.129 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I have replied to your comments and concerns. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again, since your comments the article has been copyedited by me and two other editors, It would be great to hear what you think of the article now and which problems you still think exists. Check the articles talk page for discussion about the tone of the article. Thanks! Reckless182 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
edit- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
KMFDM FAC
editHi there. I was wondering if you could update your comments on the KMFDM FAC page to let me know if I've addressed your all of your concerns. Thanks for your feedback. —Torchiest talkedits 16:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Morgan dollar
editHi Nikki. Sorry to bother you on your talk page, but I just wanted to let you know that I attempted to address your concerns over at the Morgan dollar FAC. If you don't have time or don't feel like it, there's no rush! Thanks for the comments over there.-RHM22 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Appreciation for participating in an FAC
edit
|
<font=3> Thank you for your comments, suggestions, and support — Battle of Towton is now a featured article of the Wars of the Roses! Jappalang (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | 
|
Pipe Dream
editI've replied at the FAC, but if you have a list of transcription errors that you caught, I'd be grateful. Unhappily, I am increasingly subject to senior moments as I head inexorably in that direction.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Added template for SuggestBot
editHi,
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
All comments have been replied too. Thank you for them.--WillC 05:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied.--WillC 21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I replied to all your comments on the FAC. Would you mind returning? I would love to turn your oppose into a neutral or support.--WillC 06:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied.--WillC 01:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I replied to all your comments on the FAC. Would you mind returning? I would love to turn your oppose into a neutral or support.--WillC 06:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been copyedited.--WillC 05:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011
edit
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Clarke FAR
editHi Nikki - Cirt has left a few more comments at the Clarke FAR, and then appears to be ready to declare a keep without FARC. Are you still working on this? Also, if you wanted to ping any editors who have an interest in this subject - maybe Wehwalt, or Brianboulton? - to get a couple more opinions, that would be great. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
marking mentees' userpages
editHey Nikki! This is just a quick reminder: please be sure to add {{WAP student}} (for an example, see User:Sfofana) the user pages of your mentees. And once they are working on articles, be sure to tag the talk pages with {{WAP assignment}}. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 February 2011
edit- News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Articles for Creation
- Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
- Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
La Stazione FAC
editHey there, hi there, ho there, I think I addressed all your issues on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Stazione/archive1. Just wanted to know if there were any other snags in the article.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Gyrobo. Looks like my comments have been addressed, but I'm not going to support (or oppose) its promotion because I only did a sourcing review and didn't look at the rest of the article or the other FA criteria. I wish you luck with the rest of the review process. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks!
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks!
U2 3D FAC
editI think most of your concerns with the U2 3D FAC have been resolved. Could you please take a look at let us know if the article meets your approval? Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your outstanding issue with the article should be taken care of now. Please review it and let us know what you think. Thank you. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
FAC
edit
|
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
| Thank you so much for all your terrific participation at FAC. Your efforts are very much appreciated! Andy Walsh (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sacagawea dollar
editHi Nikki. I just wanted to leave you a message to let you know that I responded to your concerns on the FAC page for Sacagawea dollar. Thanks for taking the time to leave comments!-RHM22 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't want to reply on the FAC page, but since you were curious, I'll give you my opinion on why Sacagawea was chosen over Liberty. The Mint wanted a real woman on the coins and not a stylized depiction of Liberty, probably to be politically correct. Of course I can't say that in the article, since it's total conjecture, but it seems to be the case from what's written on the subject.-RHM22 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Planet Stories
editHi -- would you mind revisiting Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Planet Stories/archive1 and letting me know if your concerns are addressed? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them
editThis message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.
Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!
If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Wife selling
editThanks for your comments on the feminism project page. This article has been nothing but a PITA since it appeared on the main page last April 1, and I really can't see it keeping its FA status for very much longer in the current climate. Parrot of Doom and I worked very hard on this to present as neutral and balanced an account as we could of what seems to be a very strange (and obviously unacceptable) custom to modern eyes. The suggestion that in doing so we deliberately chose to ignore some important sources is frankly quite insulting. We've tried repeatedly to get others to understand that wife selling in England was a ritualised form of divorce fitting the legal environment of the day rather than a deliberately designed degradation of women, but nobody seems to be listening. Ah well. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
edit- News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
- In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news
- WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
O Canada!
editHey thanks for putting up with me. If you want to take a look at painted turtle to see if there are any boners on covering Canada, much appreciated. I've been to ports on either coast and Toronto, but not that much. Snookum came by and toned down a generalization I had made about BC picta luv. And also capitalized some regions of BC. I haven't been able to find much on the painted turtle in NS and NB, and rely on the N AM field guide by Collins for the range. A few government or other websites just mention it is found there. Seems like more of a big deal in the West and we had a COSEWIC report with a lot of depth. Anyhoo...don't really think I have a gap, but love to have you check. TCO (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll take a look. I've been pretty much everywhere that isn't Arctic or Atlantic - can't help you much with NS and NB, but MB I know very well. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I've taken a look at it and have a couple queries for you. What is "area of harshest winter climate" relative to? It's certainly less harsh than Manitoba's climate, and than some other parts of Ontario. Second, is it worth mentioning Boissevain's turtle derby? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I see a lot of refs to it and prefer to keep it. It's a little quirky but is legit and at the end and allows me to tie in a work of art (sculpture). It's not like "Lion" where the issue is more what to exclude because there's just so much. I would keep it before keeping the last sentence about random businesses named after picta. Would keep it before the comment on the skeleton racer. What bugs you about it? Maybe if I understand...is it politically incorrect...or just not topical enough? (We actually have a whole article on turtle racing, btw.) And obviously crowds were involved in those festivals.
The (Canadian) scientists reporting on that gap, say they think climate is the reason for it being on most of the lake and not other parts. I don't know that you can compare clear across the country as there may be other factors that affect range along with temp. Like I don't know that you can draw an isotemp line across the top of the painted distribution. But it's pretty clear when you go from where they are, to where they aren't (in the north) that temp was the cause (at that spot). May also depend on the exact time-temp experience. Like extremes of cold versus long exposure. Also, if you had an area that was especially optimal for the painted (for other reasons, prey or right kind of water bodies (slow moving, lakes, mud bottoms)), then it's possible that the "line" of northern most extent might be higher in one part than in another. But basically, I'm just going off the science reference.TCO (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, the climate thing could be a bit clearer, but you're probably right in sticking to your sources. As for the culture...I'm not exactly sure what's bugging me, it just seems the whole section is a bit disjointed and trivia-like, particularly towards the end. It might just be a personal preference, but I would like to see it be more coherent and unified. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll add an in article thing on the climate, to give the name of the researchers (think that will take away a little of the discomfort). And a couple more words describing their hypothesis. Let me think on the culture thing. I compiled that whole thing out of straw. There was not even reference to the state reptiles went I started. But there are some, like the children's books and song and all that, that are less notable. I donno...there are also biologist types who don't want any culture included. Let me think about what can be done. We went through this before and round the rosie, (expand versus contract) and then they decided, I had a decent section that just gave a lot of info. What if I slimmed down the Boisevan thing to a sentence vice a para? And slimmed down the skeleton racer to a sentence? Would that scratch your itch? I have to admit, I like some of the non-science content...TCO (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Somerset Levels FAC
editThanks for your comments on Somerset Levels at the FAC. I hope that many of them have been addressed and would be very grateful if you had the time to take another look and see if there are issues you feel are still outstanding. With respect to the "close paraphrasing" you identified I have explained on the FAC how this came about. The climate paragraph, which is all referenced to one source, had been included in many other articles (including some FAs) without this problem being identified. I and others have now rephrased it & I've replaced it on the 40+ articles I can find which duplicated the paragraph. If you need any further information please don't hesitate to contact me.— Rod talk 17:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll probably take a look later today. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for returning to this review. I believe the outstanding issues you identified have been addressed. It would be great if you could indicate whether you feel any of your concerns have been addressed and perhaps consider again the "close paraphrasing" paragraph about climate which has been rewritten.— Rod talk 21:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
My new hero!
editThank you so much for the copy-edit on the SAQ article! The quality of the prose was my biggest concern, based on what has been issues on previous Shakespeare-related articles at FAC, and your excellent work here leaves me much less anxious about this.
Entirely incidentally, some of the word choices that you changed were at least somewhat deliberate. For instance, the fact that anti-Strats take things as evidence rather than as indications is a point in and of itself (if they didn't, mainstream scholarship would take less issue with their methods). Similarly, what I am sure appeared to be non-NPOV/weasel issues (“natural genius”, “profound insight”, etc.) are in fact key points for the anti-Strats (they argue Shakespeare wasn't “good enough” and that, say, Oxford was a much nobler creature fitting the superlatives they've chose that much better). However, it reads so much better now, that it appears fairly obvious to me now, in hindsight, that these things are probably just the kind of unnecessary detail that we who are too close to the subject matter tend to cling to for no good reason, but which only bogs down the reader.
In any case; I just wanted to say thanks, and express how much I appreciate your help! --Xover (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words, but I'm only about halfway through - see what you think when I've gone through the whole thing. As for the "evidence" issue, I didn't want to change too much to avoid messing up the meaning, but it seems to me the article uses the phrase "taken as evidence" or similar way too much, and that's something that'll almost certainly get picked up at FAC. Is there some way to rephrase that while keeping the meaning clear? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree entirely, both that the use of the phrase was excessive and with the changes you've made. I was just slightly embarrassed about it and wanted to explain why it ended up like that, so you wouldn't think us utter rubes. I've been going through your changes as you've made them and while there are a few other instances where you end up subtly changing meaning—but which also fall into the category “too much detail” and the results are much better for the reader—the only thing I've actually taken issue with is your most recent use of “parallel” as a verb in that context. I would suggest either sticking with “compare” as the verb (we don't strictly need to know what method of comparison was used, just that there was a comparison made), or turning “parallel” into a noun by inserting a suitable verb such as “draw”. In any case, I'm somewhat “married” to this text after spending so much time obsessing over it lately, so if there's only one out of all your many changes so far that at all rubs me the wrong way that means you're doing a rather splendid job in my book. My compliments and gratitude to you! --Xover (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Image review
editI was wondering if you might have a moment to revisit the Marojejy National Park image review. The last of the OTRS's have cleared, I've removed the video pending proper OTRS approval (after notifying the uploader), and I had a question about one of your comments. Otherwise, thanks for your time for the review. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Dragon Quest FAC
editI've commented on or corrected all of the issues you pointed out. Some more feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.陣内Jinnai 05:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I have now fixed or otherwise commented on every issue you brought up.陣内Jinnai 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Brining back up as the I have finished adressing every issue brought by the other reviewer and so I'd like to know what outstanding issues there are.陣内Jinnai 17:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
FAC
editHi Nikkimaria! I was wondering if you could spare some time to review Calabozos at its FAC? You are an excellent reviewer and I would greatly appreciate any input! Thanks, ceranthor 02:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the initial review! I implemented and responded to your comments. ceranthor 01:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
edit- News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news
- Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times
- WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases
- Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news
I believe that I've addressed the issues you've raised in the FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James E. Boyd (scientist)/archive1). If you've got time, I'd like you to have another look at the article. Thanks. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Online Ambassador Program
editPlease take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Kennedy half dollar FAC
editHi Nikki. Thanks for the comments! I just wanted to let you know that Wehwalt and I have addressed your concerns over at the FAC for Kennedy half dollar.-RHM22 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again. I addressed your comments on the FAC. Thanks for your patience!-RHM22 (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"Mothers of the Disappeared" FAC
editHi Nikkimaria; thanks for your image review on the FAC for "Mothers of the Disappeared". I've responded to your comments; I hope that you are able to revisit the article and assess whether they have been done so to your satisfaction! Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, do you have time at all to look over this article, and tell me what needs to be fixed before I renominate it for FA? Thanks, CTJF83 19:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- From a quick look, I see a dead link, some overlinking, some MoS issues (hyphens, "In 1803, The United States", spell out "%" outside of tables, etc), some repetitive phrasings (for example, 4 consecutive paragraphs beginning "In year"), a few very short paragraphs, image stacking, and some serious copy-editing needed ("rairoad company"?). Sorry to be so blunt, but it needs a fair bit of work yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Blunt is good! Tired of it failing FAC. Any chance of a through review? CTJF83 19:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Elliott Cutoff
editHi there, I am new to Wikipedia and am wondering if you could rate the article "Elliott Cutoff" - it would give me a feel for how the rating system works. Thanks, Lostwagonman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostwagonman (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Headings
editWould you mind clarifying your SAQ FAC comments about the headings on the SAC talkpage]? I think they sparked an overreaction and we're making things harder for ourselves. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
…not with a bang, but with a whimper.
editI'm beginning to be not a little concerned at the paucity of reviews for the SAQ article: 2 reviews, and granted they're both supports, is a bit low and I would really hate for this to close as no consensus after all the effort (and the drama, omg. the drama!) put into it. Do you think it would be appropriate, and fruitful, to post a plea for reviews at WT:FAC? I watch the page, but only really pay attention when something extra pops up, so I'm not familiar with the proprieties of this. --Xover (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's no need to even think about panicking for at least a week yet ;-). Unfortunately, there's an FAC backlog and a chronic shortage of reviewers wiki-wide, not to mention a current backlog-reduction drive at WP:GAN that takes away some FAC reviewers. If the nom gets moved into the "Older nominations" section on the FAC page without any further reviews being added, you can post a neutrally-worded plea for reviewers at WT:FAC, and potentially at the noticeboards/talk pages of Wikiprojects that might be interested. At this point, though, you're probably better off waiting (and maybe reviewing some other articles in the meantime ;-)). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks; I hadn't considered that as the most likely “point of panic”. It's just that a while back I was helping out another Shakespeare editor on a FAC that ended up closed as no consensus to promote after a much shorter time than I had expected, and so I'm a little sensitive to that possibility.
I do try to review more than I nominate at GAN, but FAC is, I fear, beyond me: every time I start to think I have a handle on the de facto FAC requirements, someone throws a curveball in there and I go back to square one. Sadly, I don't have the time to dedicate to following FAC that seems to be necessary to keep up. --Xover (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks; I hadn't considered that as the most likely “point of panic”. It's just that a while back I was helping out another Shakespeare editor on a FAC that ended up closed as no consensus to promote after a much shorter time than I had expected, and so I'm a little sensitive to that possibility.
The Signpost: 7 March 2011
edit- News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news
- Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Cleveland
editHi, can you start crossing out some of the resolved comments on the Cleveland FAC? Past incidents have made me very...nervous about having too many open comments at once. Also, I have the USGS confirming email in my inbox, I can send it through to you if you don't trust me. Which would hurt my feelings. But whatever :) ResMar 04:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- If I was that suspicious, I'd assume any email you forwarded to me was doctored ;-). Left some comments at the review page for you to reply to at your leisure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil
editThere were replies to your comments in Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil's FAC nomination. Please respond once you have time. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Just checking
editI notice most people seem to call you "Nikki", but I haven't actually seen you weigh in ... do you prefer to go by "Nikki" or "Nikkimaria" (or something else)? - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't make a big difference, either's fine with me. Thanks for asking, though. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've slipped up on this kind of thing before. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
No rush on this, I just want to make sure we addressed all your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed one and couldn't find the other problem you mentioned. And please, if my prose is ever lacking, don't hesitate to tell me ... I'm happy to learn, and I'm also willing to learn the preferences of FAC reviewers. I try not to OWN the language (not always successfully). - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Airbus A330
editHi,
Do you have any more comments on the Airbus A330? Please post them so I can sort everything out. Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 12:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ring ring! Since your last comments, I've done some cleaning up on the article. The Defence Review source was replaced with a Boeing press release. Citations were added to captions. I'm in the final process of copy-editing, preparing it for FA. Like my request above, do you have any more points that need addressing? Are you still opposed to it being a FA article? Looking forward to your comments. All the best ;) --Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 02:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Have I and a number of copy-editors, who I am greatly appreciative of, managed to sway that Neutral to Support? :) Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 08:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, do you have any more opinions on Airbus A330? Looks like it's good now. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, have we satisfactorily addressed all the issues you brought up? The article has garnered three "supports" so far and the comments have dwindled down to almost nothing in the past few days. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think everything has been addressed, now hopefully you can strike your oppose. Thanks for the review. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Steph Cunningham
editI've left you a new message at WP:FAC Steph Cunningham A1. I like to let users know, saves time. :)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the lowculture ref, which no means I've completed all your points made. I look foward to hearing from you.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thankyou for replying. Are you going to do some spot checks soon then, I'm keen to get cracking with this. It's very good of you for taking the first big look at the article during it's FAC. :)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 16:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You might find this amusing
edit[1] Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- *pouty face* How come I don't get to be one of your "admin meatpuppets", Malleus? Maybe because you don't support my FACs after you copyedit them and review them for GAN... Oh well, I guess if working with you to create content is what makes people your meatpuppets, at least they're in good company :) @Nikki, good luck on the FAC! I've skimmed the article and it looks awesome - I keep meaning to stop by and actually post that thought on the review page but just haven't gotten around to it yet... Dana boomer (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's an honorary position; I'll bear you in mind when there's a vacancy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- So since you copy-edited/supported my article, I'm your meatpuppet? Here I thought meatpuppets were supposed to bow to your every whim...oh well, at least I'm being "groomed" and "cultivated" properly now (does that make me a pet or a flower?). @Dana: thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is arse about face I agree, but that's Wikipedia Review for you. I think that maybe you once unblocked me, which makes you public enemy number one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I unblocked you, therefore I outrank you in the enemy standings of the Wiki-RPG. Makes perfect sense. And of course the next logical step is for you to groom me to retroactively be your admin meatpuppet. Right. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is arse about face I agree, but that's Wikipedia Review for you. I think that maybe you once unblocked me, which makes you public enemy number one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- So since you copy-edited/supported my article, I'm your meatpuppet? Here I thought meatpuppets were supposed to bow to your every whim...oh well, at least I'm being "groomed" and "cultivated" properly now (does that make me a pet or a flower?). @Dana: thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's an honorary position; I'll bear you in mind when there's a vacancy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
J. Robert Oppenheimer
editCould I trouble you to do another quick image review of this article? I know you already did it once, but in the process of the FAC, some pictures have been removed and others added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Wonder World Tour
editI have anwered back to the comment syou left on the FAC of the artcile, Please respond. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but can you please cross out the comments you feel were taken care of. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please answer back to comments left. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 March 2011
edit- News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
- Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news
Kathy Dunderdale
editI was wondering when you were going look at the Kathy Dunderdale GA review again? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Was waiting for you to be finished working on it. If you're done now I can check it in the morning - getting quite late here now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If you could spare me a minute
edit...I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at Mike Jackson whisky-drinking, cigar-smoking British general for me and perhaps offer some constructive criticism at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Mike Jackson. I'm aiming for FA eventually, but I don't want any nasty surprises at FAC! Thanks a lot, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your comments! Better to get that kind of thing out of the way in a PR rather than have it come up later. I think I've got all your concerns, but if there's anything else that might hold up an eventual FAC, by all means, be brutal in picking it up. :) Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Marking articles students are working on
editHowdy, Online Ambassador!
This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:
- Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
- If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
- Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.
And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.
Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Frost Bank FAC
editHey Nikkimaria!
I have resolved your concerns and comments about the article Frost Bank Tower. I left a {{hidden/FC}} on the Featured Article nomination page for the article, so you could see what I did with your concerns, so please check that. Also, if you see any other concerns about the article, please post to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frost Bank Tower/archive2 ASAP so I can resolve the issue.
Thanks, TheAustinMan (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Please come before one of the delegates closes the nomination!
Changes made
editThank you for your review of Conservation of slow lorises. I have made changes per your requests. If there are any other issues, please let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe everything has been corrected or i have written a response. Hopefully we can change your oppose now =] - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sac dollar
editHi Nikki. Thanks for the image review on the FAC for Sacagawea dollar! I answered your comments there. Though it might not be your specialty, you're a lot better with copyright stuff than me. The dashes and hyphens still confound me the most though. By the way, not to clutter up your talk page, but I wanted to let you know about this template I made since you do a lot of work at FAC. I'm not sure if something like it already existed, but the purpose is to link to FACs easier than typing out the whole thing. The template goes like this: {{subst:FAClink|Name of article|Archive number}}. Thought you might be interested!-RHM22 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cool beans! Editors who post to my talk and don't give a link or a pet peeve, and it takes a lot of my time. Could you mention this at WT:FAC? I will try to add it to the edit intro on my talk page, if I can figure out how and where to do that. Test: FAC for Sacagawea dollar SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure! Let me know if you want me to help you add something to your talk page. I'm not great with super complicated stuff, but I can usually figure it out if I don't know already.-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Shakespeare
editNikkimaria, thank you so much for the amount of work you have contributed recently at FAC, including but not limited to the Shakespeare FAC-- your oversight there has been most helpful. See User talk:EdJohnston#General query on Shakespeare authorship question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy. Bishonen and Ruhrfisch have also been helping, but that FAC is becoming a honeypot for those with a battleground mentality. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't yet read it, but I imagined that was the case-- so when I do get around to reading it (trying to finish everything else first), I'll need to determine if we are truly getting good review or if there are knee-jerk supports to offset the disruptive opposes. I do have the sense that the Overview should be the Lead, and the lead is overly defensive, as a result of the long-standing disruption. And I want to get the arb enforcers on board if necessary to maintain the integrity of the FAC. By the way, I think I should barnstar the shit outta you for taking care of business everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Nikkimaria. You were mentioned in my response at User talk:EdJohnston#General query on Shakespeare authorship question. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't yet read it, but I imagined that was the case-- so when I do get around to reading it (trying to finish everything else first), I'll need to determine if we are truly getting good review or if there are knee-jerk supports to offset the disruptive opposes. I do have the sense that the Overview should be the Lead, and the lead is overly defensive, as a result of the long-standing disruption. And I want to get the arb enforcers on board if necessary to maintain the integrity of the FAC. By the way, I think I should barnstar the shit outta you for taking care of business everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)