User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 6

I think I've addressed all of your issues - thanks. Connormah 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt 2 at fixing your issues is done - is it a bit better? Connormah 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think (and hope) that it's fixed now :) Connormah 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Connormah 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria has been made a member of the Order of the Mop, for their work as an admin and is entitled to display this award for being such a great admin, Kind regards and happy editing, MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a userbox version go here.

Thanks for all your hard work and enjoy the cookies! To our newest admins, good luck with all the requests enjoy your shiny buttons and do us proud!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom at 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've no doubt you'll make great use of your tools. Your review of George Washington was superb and although I should've requested Peer review (sorry) it helped greatly in getting the article to where it is now. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 23:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. An editor suggested that I would be good at reviewing good articles, as I've worked with AfC for a while- I understand that the standards are much higher though! As such, the unilateral way good articles are reviewed makes me rather nervous. I don't really want to pass something on my own in case I do something wrong or overlook something, being that I'm still getting my head around all the criteria and instructions for reviewing. Would you mind double-checking my first few reviews when I do them? I understand if you don't have time, being a new admin and all (congrats, by the way!), but I couldn't think of a better person to ask. Thanks, sonia♫ 06:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to! GAN is perpetually backlogged, so we're always happy to have new reviewers. I'd suggest making your first reviews be about things you either know about or are interested in - that tends to make beginning the process much easier. I can either take a look at the end of the process and critique your review, or I can offer a second opinion while the review is ongoing - which would you prefer? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where this fits into the two options, but I was thinking that I'd do a review, then hand it over to you to approve and expand/fix if necessary. Would that work? sonia♫ 12:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds good. Let me know when you've done your first review! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of GAs, thanks for your speedy and perceptive review of Brian Twyne. I see that I was half-asleep when I added the references, since I left out the url for the Gibson article upon which much of the detail was based! I think I've now weaved in all of your ideas for improvement. Regards, and thanks once more. Bencherlite^Talk 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki. On re-read, you're absolutely correct. I'll try to be more careful when I'm on patrol. Thanks for the note. Regards, --Manway (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd drop a note about WP:NOTNAS. It seemed appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I think I've fixed most of them, would you mind stopping by to check? ceranthor 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed. ceranthor 17:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. I think I've fixed everything I can, correct me if I'm wrong. I can't seem to find a DOI for that last article, though. ceranthor 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now it seems to have been found. Thanks for putting up with my constant nagging. ceranthor 02:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any more suggestions? ceranthor 14:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support; I asked a question at my talk page. ceranthor 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since the review was closed by bot, I never got the chance to heard the rest of your concerns about the article. I think I managed to close the loops on the issues you pointed out, I would like to follow-up on the rest of the issues and resolve them properly before we nominate the article again. Would you care to list them out here (or at the article's talk page)? Thanks, Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 00:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at article's talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your rather meticulous listing of issues with the references. I have now dealt with most of them. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help! This will really help the involving editors improve the article. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 01:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help with Armero tragedy; the FAC was promoted earlier today. Hope to see you around in the future, maybe with an article of yours. ceranthor 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Lorne Kidd Smith at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Canada Development Investment Corporation List of provincial and territorial nicknames in Canada Hamon de Massey Merger (politics) Freeway Management System – COMPASS Santa Elena Province Aníron Federal judge Vital-Justin Grandin Province of Buffalo Wellington Province Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures London District Catholic School Board Frontenac County, Ontario CCM (ice hockey) Hawke's Bay Province Nelson Province Kazuo Yamada Nonsuch (ship)

Cleanup Bill Bruford Kelowna 2010 Canadian federal budget Merge Wazn Municipality Cliffjumper (other incarnations) Add Sources Ottawa Vancouver Local-express lanes Wikify Aru, Democratic Republic of Congo Equalization payments in Canada Blood Bath and Beyond Expand List of Iranian cities and towns by province Lao Cai Anselm Hüttenbrenner

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) 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lorne Kidd Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your comments on the Abe Lincoln article. We're still fixing the issues, even though the FAC is closed. You have a good eye for prose issues. I hope it didn't feel like a waste of time to you; it wasn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add my word of thanks to you as well, for your very helpful suggestions on the Lincoln article. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review of my ancient computer. I think I got all your points, but if I missed something please let me know. It'll probably be back to weird after this one; I've got a great story about two children who accidentally arrived in 12th-century England after a matter transporter malfunctioned on their home planet. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to support. Can't wait to read that one! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time for the review. Could you please explain what you mean about "20th Century" not being in chronological order? Racepacket (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today?
☠  Because we  ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠
	With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' {{User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699!  Cap'nChzz  ►  00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy ITLAPD Capn' slappy and Ol Chumbucket Problems playing this file? See media help.	*How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like *Official website *Auto-translate to pirate speak
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again.

while talking with someone , you should be polite and you are not..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuhasDCamper (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

( thats saddddd —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuhasDCamper (talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While having talk with others be polite.... that is to be followed by you(Mandatory)

About my Page : Suhas D Camper Let me know how can I place this page as compiled with policies ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuhasDCamper (talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the message was with good humour, then its ok......

Messages from you

"Hello there. Just as a note, if you want to engage in constructive discussion with another user, the best place to do that is at their talk page - in my case, User talk:Nikkimaria. Your article was deleted because the subject did not seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Please restrict biographies of yourself to User:SuhasDCamper (see WP:USERPAGE for some guidelines on what is and is not appropriate for userpages). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

   That's better! However, deleting an article because it doesn't meet our notability guidelines is not impolite. It's also not impolite to tell a contributor - that would be you - how to engage discussion and what he or she can do to prevent "their" material from being deleted. Since you only started editing under this name today, I assume that you would appreciate being informed of how things work around here. If I'm wrong...then just follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines and I shouldn't have to bother you again. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

       If the article meets notability guidelines, then provide sources that prove it. If not, then keep the page as your userpage, instead of as an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

" Hey there, I was in the middle of creating an article on Forgotten Technology and you decided to delete it before I had the chance to enter the rest of my work, including all of my citations. I would appreciate it if you could give me more than thirty seconds to complete my work and validate it before you delete it.

THATS RUDE  :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuhasDCamper (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Actually Yesterday I was just kidding around.... Got sad when you guys deleted my page and its OK as I know that it wasn't compile with the Wiki guidelines Thanks for providing info... and SORRY

In guidelines its stated that we cant create page with autobiography... So my query is that I want to create a page which provides details of a particular person and in my case its about myself.... general info

So other then having UserPage, will it be possible for me to create one which has a general/personal info ? If possible please in short can you let me know how it can be done.

And once again SORRY if you feel bad or I hurt you by any mean as I was just kidding and I dont meant o HURT you...

One more thing.... this editing tool sucks (The options are less for editing or might be everything need to be done by brackets) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuhasDCamper (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am stuck on the History article...Not sure what more i can do all that fast...You think if you closed it ..we could work on it and try again in a few months. My main problem is with "The article needs some general copy-editing for grammar and clarity" and "Avoid passive voice and indirect constructions" as i am not sure were this needs to be done and could take lots of time back and forth. I have not given up...but i edit for fun ..and i am a little discouraged with my progress thus far. I have no problems with a GA fail...as i will keep at it regardless if its still undergoing the GA review or not . Moxy (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Nikki —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuhasDCamper (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I would like to know why you deleted my file on the ramen assassins I know it's not a big hot topic but my friends were looking foward to that article this really isn't cool I thought wikipedia was supposed to be fun well right now it's not fun at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchRassassins (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikkimaria has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nikkimaria's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Nikkimaria! Peace, Rlevse 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In honour of this great day i have made 2 pages to highlight Nikkimaria's most recent work -> Portal:Food/Selected article/24 and Portal:Canada/Selected article/44. Moxy (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with Teaching to the test; it is refreshing to see a DYK nomination that's both non-trivial and well-written. Enjoy your day! rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page is archived, I'll reply here. Strasbourg - the one it is is linked to. Strasbourg. I can't access the book because I reached my limit. Thanks for the review, but it was nowhere near ready (and probably never will be). Aiken (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice and criticism which you provided following the (somewhat premature) featured article candidacy of Razer (robot). May I ask you to expand on a few points in order that, even if the article cannot reach FA status, it can still be as watertight as possible?

1. "Too many one-paragraph subsections, which break up the flow of text": in the case of Construction section, do you feel it would read better without the subsection headings? Later, for the Retirement/Legacy/Merchandise sections, what sort of information would you like to see added? Finally, the article is already 7kb too long - what, if anything, should we remove to pull it back?
2. You asked us to make sure we maintain an encyclopaedic tone at all times - which sections of the article struck you as fancruft, if indeed this was your concern? It's a trait of Robot Wars articles I have tried very hard to remove in this one, but I'm happy to concede to anything that I might have missed (or even added myself).
3. How should we link the infobox stats (sourced from Razer's last TV appearance) to the appropriate section in the body of the article?
4. You've asked us to ensure references are consistently formatted - is this in response to an error I've made with the cite templates, or something else? Moreover, apparently we should combine identical references. I've read WP:NAMEDREFS as requested, but am unsure how it applies here. In the case of, say, our primary references—sourced from many pages within the archived Razer website—is there a way to list the website name/homepage in a bibliography, and thereafter refer back to it?

Thank you for your time yesterday, and again for your time in reading and responding to this message. Best regards, CountdownCrispy 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be doing the GA review for this article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still there? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thanks for the GA review at Barry (dog), I think I've addressed the points you raised but if there are any more, let me know and I'll go through them.

Cheers,

Miyagawa (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for picking up this article. It's a bit of a meaty one so thank you for your initial review which has given our project a clear path in several areas that need help. I'm personally impressed that you are watching our progress rather than the "I'll be back in a week to see how you have done." It's really appreciated. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, we think that the Wales article could now go through a resubmit for GA status. We have made the corrections as best we can to your observations, added some areas that were not requested but appeared lacking (drama, dance and mythology). And have also found some information which after a good look was found to be incorrect and needed actioning. New sections you requested (and added) were 'Literature of Wales', 'Museums and libraries' and 'Festivals'. Do we need to now add this back to the GA list or just give you a nod. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, just a friendly bump incase my message got lost in your other mailings. Could you advise the project team on what we need to next for a re-submit. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we will relist. Thank you very much for your invaluable help, I will drop you a line after the next review. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for doing the GA review of this article. I went over your suggestions and tried to implement them the best I could. Please take another look. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you passed this article for GA. Thanks a lot for doing the GA review and for doing the final clean-up as well! Your suggestions and your help are much appreciated. Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Teaching to the test, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a GA reassessment at Talk:Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China. Please feel free to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria - just wanted you to know that I've cleared the issues you raised at the FAC and wanted to thank you for your review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Good luck, hope it ends well. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been archived, but I'm not unhappy. It was a big page to take on and quite stressful. Thanks for your good review - very much appreciated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I think the article Hong Kong is ready for another FACR, and there were many changes to the sources since the last FACR including the fixes from your list. Before I submit another request, would you mind taking another look at the references in the article? It would be great if you could add to the current peer review or the article talk page.

Thanks, Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 04:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help by commenting in the Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong/archive1, I tried to address all of the issues you pointed out, but I'm still not sure on how to proceed properly on 2 of problems. I marked them with the "Not Done" tag at the peer review page. Would you mind taking another quick look at it?

Thanks, Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 21:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your message on my talk page regarding the two-month rollbacker notice. I'd assumed I'd have to keep checking the page there, so it's good to know. Do you have suggestions of any problem areas that might be a good place to get a feel for it? I've been mainly a basic editor, mostly because I'm an older Wikipedian, and not familiar with the assistance that both computer knowledge and wiki-software can provide. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to strike issues as they are resolved so I can understand my progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance please update your strikes so I can see where I stand.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Merger (politics) District of Ungava Santa Elena Province Province of Buffalo Quebec law Auckland Province Freeway Management System – COMPASS Wellington Province Hamon de Massey Hawke's Bay Province Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures Vital-Justin Grandin List of provincial and territorial nicknames in Canada Nonsuch (ship) Canada Development Investment Corporation Federal judge Nelson Province CCM (ice hockey) Frontenac County, Ontario

Cleanup Law enforcement in Canada Westland District List of National Historic Sites of Canada Merge Wazn Canada East Cliffjumper (other incarnations) Add Sources Ottawa Crime in Canada History of immigration to Canada Wikify Aru, Democratic Republic of Congo Colomac Mine Victory Banner Expand Anselm Hüttenbrenner History of the Northwest Territories Kelowna

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) 13:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated EFF for another FAC, and as you commented last time, I would like you to look her over again. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eastbourne manslaughter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Ormulum, when you add refs, can you please add the year of publication after the last name? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been a tower of strength, and I am most grateful. Thank you so much. If you can ever use an extra pair of eyes for a review, please don't hesitate to call on me. Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, i have added a few sources for 2 of the sentences, i have no idea if any of the sources are appropriate or not so ive just linked to the Googlebooks page which is how im searching for things, sadly i dont have access to any of the books and several of the main books are not available for freeview on there. If you have a chance could you take a look and see if any of them are any use? i have no idea what is considered a reliable source or not, especially for a FA, if none of them are any good please feel free to delete, i will carry on looking over the weekend for some. Thanks for finding many of the sources already, i dont now how you find them so quickly. Thanks again. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have changed to "Keep", at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1, see [1].

Nikkimaria, I wanted to thank you very much for the polite, professional, and kind demeanor in which you have conducted yourself whilst working to improve the quality of this article. You kept right along researching and making improvements, and focusing on the content issues involved. That is most appreciated. Once again, thank you very much for that positive attitude and behavior, -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Nikkimaria, thank you very much for the polite and professional demeanor and the manner in which you have conducted yourself, in discussion at WP:FAR page Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1 during your excellent improvements to the article Ormulum. There, and at the article's talk page as well, your matter-of-fact responses and ability to stay focused on issues of content is truly quite admirable. Much appreciated. The community is well-served by editors such as yourself that can contribute in such a fine and upstanding manner. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have plans to review the article about Pedro Álvares Cabral again? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Empire on which the sun never sets Barnstar
		To recognise the legwork you do with the addition of offline sources, mosst recently at British Empire, I present you with this spectacular vista of the sun having set everywhere! Thank you for your help. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Pretty! Thanks! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm helping my boss do an article on Michael Colina (composer, musician, etc.). We are done with the editing and can't figure out how to submit to Wiki. Must it first go through peer review?? Can't figure out the steps for peer review. Can you help????? Booklover4 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your feedback was very helpful to the article. Because it passed GA review, should I update the talk page assessment from B to GA, or should I wait for another editor as I was the nominator? KimChee (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What remains to be done on images and how can I help? Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have a 1922 atlas with a huge plate showing the empire. The copyright is Bartholomews rather than any individual artist. Does that make it useable? (If I can find a big enough scanner). Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been over to wikimedia to RedHats pages and found the blank map he used to make his empire map. I think Jappalang was saying he needed to confirm the source of the blank on the image page and not just put "wikipedia". Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the source of the blank map to the source field. Hopefully that will satisdfy Jappalong. It's "Blank map source=Derived from svg map en:Image:BlankMap-World3.svg" Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now I look at the atlas, it doesn't mention copyright. It's published by the Times. prepared at the Edinburgh Geographical Institute under the direction of J.G.Bartholemew, Cartographer to the King. Each map has "John Bartholemew & Son Ltd" printed in the bottom right hand corner. I kind of assumed that was the ownership/copyright bit. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Now all I have to do is find a 2 1/2 foot wide colour copier. It would be better though if you could clear the current 1897 map as this one goes over two pages.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pinged Jappalang but I think he's off-line at the moment.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang's happy with the infobox map. Now it's just the mystery, circularly sourced 1897 job. Funny really that's it's so difficult to get one. When I was a kid, these maps and globes were a standing joke and evoked shrieks of "all the red bits are ours!" (Ironically of course). Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! It also says a lot more than mere geography ever could. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the Africa map is resolved too as I think I found the original wikimedia blank. God bless the Empire and all who sail in her.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa map now sorted and OKay'd by Jappalang!! Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like all the image issues and Fifelfoos now sorted. Who decides now? Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of the article. A fellow Wikipedian had put a large effort in giving that article a face lift and I am pleased to see he has some feedback to consider moving forward. He's a new user of Wikipedia and I am hoping to demonstrate to him the power of collaboration. Your thorough review of his contribution will aid in demonstrating this point and provide guidance for his future efforts. Alan.ca (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You kindly gave me a good deal of help with images in the FAC for William Walton recently (now promoted, I am happy to say). I am plotting to get another composer, Edward Elgar, up to FA standard, and I am wondering if I should seek to get the images checked in advance by an expert? Grateful for any advice you can give me. Regards. - Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is so kind of you! I'll follow up all the points you have set out. Thank you very much. - Tim riley (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now put the article up for FAC and if you are available to comment I shall be very grateful. Tim riley (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for your help with my English. Your name got lost when our Cold Turkey Press article was moved from my subpage (there had already been a CTP entry, which I forgot about. But I think you can add your name on the page somewhere.--Radh (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should know better as an admin to turn up at an article you've never edited before for the sole purpose of repeatedly removing links to references. If someone asked you to do this, please be aware that there's a backstory of people being asked to do various things there, and other editors being criticized. I was asked for help by email too before I became the bad guy there.

Rather than joining in that situation, please explain your objections to the links on the talk page. Perhaps some compromise can be hammered out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should know better as an admin than to assume bad faith of other editors, especially since to my knowledge we have never interacted before (have we?). I was not asked to come to that article, and no one contacted me by email. My sole purpose of being there is not to remove links, although that seems to have become a big point of contention. I'm sorry you feel you've been made the bad guy in this situation - I agree that compromise, if possible, would be preferable. I have explained my objection to the links, at length, on the article talk page, and welcome your response. However, I should point out that your reverting here is more disruptive than mine - could you respond to TK's point about why many of her formatting/MoS fixes were reverted? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TK made formatting changes while removing the links. She did that so that restoring the links would be awkward. There has been a lot of trouble at that article, NM, and people being emailed and criticized, people being turned against each other, lots of drama, threats to retire. I was one of the people who was emailed for help, so I know what has gone on. It has been very unpleasant indeed, and you are inadvertently feeding it now.

I am quite sure that if you have strong objections to the links, and I have strong views about keeping them, that you and I could work out a compromise. But in the current atmosphere it is difficult. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I have posted a suggestion for a temporary compromise here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future replies will likely be there. To close out the thread here: compromise is great. Drama is not so great. My intention is not to cause drama, but to do what is best for the article; I trust you feel the same way. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. I would very much like the drama to stop so we can focus on content. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really aren't helping the situation at Pound with the forest fire. You also inadvertently removed one of my posts, which I'd appreciate if you'd restore. [2] Please deal with one issue at a time, so that if we can't resolve it at the page, we can draft an RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your review of De Iniusta Vexacione Willelmi Episcopi Primi! Sorry it took me a bit to reply, Real Life has been intruding quite a bit lately. I did do the suggested fixes you left! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's a nice little article. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long time overdue, but I'd like to thank you for your brilliant GA review of Malaysia. It was amazingly comprehensive, especially in terms of all things to do with citations. The bullet layout allowed me to address all the points specifically, and I commend you for taking the time to do such a review. So Thank You, and I apologise for the lateness of this response, hope its okay!

As a side note, I'd also like to commend your work on British Empire, very quick and efficient. You know what you're doing! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I believe the article would now be ready for a GA nomination, and is on the way to FA. However, that is of course an inexperienced opinion. I realise that having reviewed it the first time you probably couldn't review it again, but I'd appreciate it greatly if you just gave it a quick look over and see if there are any outstanding issues you can see. The only part of your previous review I perhaps did not do was the restructuring of the main and subsections, mainly due to lack of precedent. My reasoning can be seen here Thanks again for the review, helped greatly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved! The only problems I see on a quick read-through are some remaining inconsistencies with references - for example, ref 59 is a bare URL. I'll leave it to another reviewer, though - it would be good to get another opinion on the article anyways. If you end up passing GA and want to aim for FAC, ping me and I'll offer an extended review. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work so far. I just searched your page for the phrase "thank", and it appears 84 times! Well, here's a couple more instances. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to everything :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for putting the appropriate template on the article; I'm not familiar with all deletion processes here. regards, – Alensha ^talk 05:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reviewed Shroud of Turin recently. I am not an expert on WP:MOS, so could you please comment there about the new referencing style as of 2 weeks ago which just says "Rogers 2005" and then has that in the references. It seems strange to me within Wikipedia, and it may be causing confusion. Or was that done based on your suggestion. In any case, your comments on that talk page Talk:Shroud_of_Turin#Comment_to_Thucyd will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm new here to the Wikipedia community but would like to request that the page Rosie Teideman you deleted earlier today be put back up temporarily so that work can continue on the article. Unfortunately I had not yet finished work on the article and due to the Time Difference you may have deleted the article when I could not possibly continue work on it. I have sources and more information for the page but if you see another reason that the page remain closed then that seems fine. Thank you. Darkdweller (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Srlancelot39 and a new member of Wikipedia. I would just like to ask about the deletion of my first page, 'Grail Quest (game)'. I am not completely finished the page, as I intend to add detail, formatting and additional sources. I know I'm no pro at creating pages, but I am just curious as to what I can do/change to avoid having pages deleted in the future, or the Grail Quest page if it is recreated. I have read the article about creating a page as well as the dos and donts of creating pages, but I did not see any obvious violations that my page may have made. Your feedback is greatly appreciated! Thank you! Srlancelot39 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you just deleted Park Vale F.C.. Could you also go and delete Park Vale F.C? It's the same article, just without the final period. Also, I've warned the creating editor about continually recreating pages that have already been deleted, removing CSD tags, etc. I don't know that it will actually matter, but an admin warning might help as well; alternatively, it may be that the editor needs a temporary involuntary wikibreak to prevent the creation of more articles for others to delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your feedback, I probably get credit because I posted the article's main details, the article never would have been promoted had I not created it, but what to do? –BuickCenturyDriver 04:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said here, they're essentially talk pages to pages that only exist to take you to another page. Just blanking them should be enough, then? HalfShadow 05:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't seem to be working, but unless they're obviously deletable for another reason (for example, the only history is an attack or nonsense), just leave them or blank them as you will. Some redirects have very useful discussion pages, some have no discussion pages at all, but it's not a big deal. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea... ed g2s • talk 11:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs London District Catholic School Board Hamon de Massey Kazuo Yamada Canada Development Investment Corporation Hawke's Bay Province Montmagny, Quebec Province of Buffalo Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures CJKR-FM Merger (politics) Wellington Province Radiation-induced lung injury Freeway Management System – COMPASS Student television station Colonel Talbot Road Frontenac County, Ontario Donald Ethell Guadalcanal Province List of provincial and territorial nicknames in Canada

Cleanup Westland District Weslaco High School List of Governors of Tripura Merge Terri Schiavo case Cliffjumper (other incarnations) Canada East Add Sources Canadian provinces without major sports teams Union of Upper and Lower Canada Ottawa Wikify National team appearances in the World Men's Handball Championship Ray Raphael Aru, Democratic Republic of Congo Expand List of Iranian cities and towns by province Kelowna Lao Cai

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) 22:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had fixed this, but apparently I incorrectly used the mdash(—), when I should have been using ndash (–). I am sure learning this the hard way. I had never heard of the two. Please verify. (For future ref, you may want to specify in case you're dealing with a novice like myself.) Thanks again for all your time on Lincoln. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Let me know if any other points are unclear. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that despite the explanation I posted you have deleted my Replicar Hellas article. As I had written, Replicar Hellas is a legitimate Car Manufacturer. Car manufacturers are included in relevant encyclopedias, even if they are much smaller and less significant than Replicar Hellas. I have written two books on the subject, please allow me to know it very well.

Wikipedia has chosen to include encyclopedia of car manufacturers (see e.g. List of car brands), which continuously requires such input (actually it is one of the most complete available today). If we choose to stop such contributions, then we must erase entire categories, such as car manufacturers, motorcycle manufacturers, truck manufacturers, and many-many other groups of manufacturers that include such small companies. Such a case is obviously not our decision, but would require a serious discussion (about reducing the content of Wikipedia).

In case you still insist, I think it is more fair to start a discussion on the article discussion page, and see what the consensus is. Skartsis (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer may or may not be notable enough to include. However, the article as written did not demonstrate that it should be included - it did not assert the notability of the company, nor did it provide reliable sources to allow us to ascertain its notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. OK, I might attempt to re-create it in the future, putting some effort in its presentation. Usually the company website is considered a reliable source, but I'll add more. Skartsis (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company websites generally promote the company - that's why articles about companies should have reliable third-party sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) This article was blanked for evaluation at WP:CP and given the undoubted duplication, you understandably deleted it under WP:CSD#G12. However, servinghistory.com, like other pages of discoverymedia.net, is actually a mirror of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Def#Discovery Media. We run into this website all the time at WP:CP. Sometimes they announce the Wikipedia copying on the page itself; sometimes they do not. Their main page at least acknowledges us: "Serving History features mashed data about world history from a variety of sources, including Wikipedia, Twitter, Bing, major newswires and blog consolidators." Since it isn't actually a G12, I'll go ahead and restore the article, but most of the content is going to be swept away anyway as flatly unencyclopedic. :/ I'm not sure if she's notable and may PROD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Chuck Slavin's page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrewster1944 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was tagged for speedy deletion due to lack of assertion of notability - "infamous for committing professional suicide" is not really notable. It's been recreated, although the new version is also tagged for speedy deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your commentary! I think I've gotten to it all. ceranthor 20:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to a few of your comments. Could you provide specific phrases that are troublesome, and other examples so that I know what you want changed? ceranthor 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have gotten to all provided examples. If you have any more changes to suggest, could you list them on the FAC, my talk page, or the article's talk page? ceranthor 19:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have renominated Albert Stanley again. Karanacs acknowledged that the last closure was probably premature, so hopefully it will attract sufficient attention this time around.

As you supported it last time, might I ask you to repeat your support this time around. --DavidCane (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additional comments on 25 November. Did my answers and amendments to the article fully address all the issues?--DavidCane (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

)

Thanks for sharing. Go do something productive. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who commented on the previous FAC, perhaps you'd be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/.hack (video game series)/archive2? Thank you in advance, Axem Titanium (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A retrospective thank you from WikiProject Wales team. Wales has now passed GA status but we were reliant on your first GA review. Thank you again. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Daicaregos (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the header; nothing extremely urgent. Courcelles 10:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, and agree. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking through William Cragh, and especially for checking that I hadn't followed the sources too closely, and picking me up where I maybe had. Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's an interesting little article (about the hanged man this time, instead of the hangman ;)). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One day I might try writing something on a "important" topic, maybe, but until then you'll have to make do with the inconsequential and quirky. Quirky especially. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Make do"? Quirky is more fun anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I remember you listed, a couple of months ago, some items that might help make Razer (robot) into an FA. Well I feel I have created a paragraph which I feel could sort out the battlebots issue you mentioned. I would normally just stick it in but I felt a but concerned that if i've made a right mess of it, the article may lose it's GA status so I thought it's best to check first before adding it. The paragraph is here at this page. Please note that where the missing link is it is to link to this when in the article. Please let me know if this would rectify the issues or any way I could improve it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad; needs a bit of copy-editing, but I see no reason not to insert it, it certainly wouldn't make the article lose its GA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've done that, which I think fulfils all but one of the issues you brought up. The last one that's being a right pain is finding a direct reliable source that explains why Vincent Blood left the team. I've been able to find an indirect one but not one that directly says there was a split. Other than that, do you think it might be in a better position for another FA nom currently and/or if it even has a chance of passing this time? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per SandyGeorgia you also need to get CountdownCrispy's approval before renominating. However, considering only my personal opinion, here are some other things to fix to give you a better chance at FAC:

• Make sure footnotes come immediately after punctuation, no spaces in between
• Double-check that you've avoided close paraphrasing or plagiarism - I haven't checked, and I'm certainly not accusing you, but that's been an important point of review at FAC recently
• Fair-use images are also a common problem - you may wish to consider removing one or two, and check that the rest have strong FURs and complete source information
• What is Robo Challenge? "Retirement" needs a slight expansion for explanations
• WP:HYPHEN
• Give it a final run-through for grammar, tone and flow, and a final check for reference consistency

Once you're satisfied that everything above has been addressed and the article is ready, feel free to give it another go at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although, there is one issue i've just noticed. CountdownCrispy hasn't edited since the 7th of November so getting his consent for an FA nom may be a bit hard as he appears to be busy so might there be any way to circumvent that to get an earlier FA nom? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I recommend you double-check with Sandy, given her statement at the last nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. I wonder if you might take a look at the Shakespeare authorship question peer review? It has been completely rewritten using only WP:RS sources and striving for WP:NPOV. If not, I understand, but I'm planning to take it to FA soon in hopes to stabilise the page and halt the incessant edit-warring it has been subjected to since it was created, and your assessment—even a cursory one—would be most welcome. Thanks much. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's more what I was looking for! Thanks very much! Cheeers. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple months ago, you created this Good article nomination page. I was wondering if you could take a look at the improvements that have been made and decide whether or not the article should be listed as a Good article? Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]