User talk:Nikkimaria

Women in Red - January 2026

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Questionable photo

Hi Nikki. See File:Seung-hui cho- postmortem.jpg

• Deleted source
• No author known
• Morbid photo
• I don't see how the person is claiming PD.

This is the body of the Korean guy who mass murdered people at Virginia Tech in 2007, after he killed himself. MisawaSakura (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - I've tagged it on Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

TY. MisawaSakura (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Joseph Higginson

Hi, I recently noticed your recent edit on the article for Joseph Higginson, and whilst most of the edits I would agree with, I don't quite understand why you removed the 'cause of death' and 'parents' parameters in the Infobox. Henry HRowntree (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have no further reasoning I will revert the changes to cause of death and parents HRowntree (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HRowntree: per the template documentation, these parameters should be excluded: the parents are not notable and the cause of death is routine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand these reasons now and shall remove them. Thanks HRowntree (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Questions

What does "ce" mean, which you sometimes use to explain edits? Is there a page with a list of Wikipedia abbreviations? Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

There is: WP:ABC. "ce" means "copy-edit". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Then, to help users, you could use WP:CE. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) I doubt anyone is going to take up that advice. Any user confused by the terminology can always ask, just as has happened here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 236, December 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm and Hawkeye7 review five recent releases Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Washington page

Hi Nikkimaria; I'm sort of getting the feeling that the edit being discussed on the Washington page should follow your comment and be more or less retained. I'm thinking that, for the sentence being discussed, that adding the prefacing word "Anecdotally....", followed by the related footnote from the George Washington and slavery article about the paternity issue, would likely meet the needs of most of the editors on the Talk page there. And also, Greeting of the New Year. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the existing text and the footnote you mention overlap? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The current existing text is cited to Chernow accurately, and the footnote from the sibling article just linked gives the more complete history of the criticism of alleged paternity. Footnote c in the George Washington and slavery FA states: "There is an oral tradition among the descendants of the freedman West Ford that he was the son of Washington and Venus, an enslaved woman belonging to Washington's brother John Augustine Washington. A case made by the historian Henry Wiencek is, according to the historian Philip Morgan, 'so circumstantial as to be fanciful', and there is no evidence that Washington ever met Venus, let alone fathered a child by her." This footnote gives further citations to support this view as being anecdotal. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Just came here to say that West Ford was excised from the GW article... and that action was then reverted. Again. I'm about ready to take GW off of my Watchlist - too many people here to suddenly right great wrongs... - Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Saw that. We'll see whether it sticks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Back to Washington. I'm noticing the edits from Realcosmix whom you have seen on that page. He has now created a page for one of the Gilbert Stuart portraits (currently at the MET in NYC), and started the page with the alt title occassionally used to designate the list of successive owners of the portrait over the years. Even the MET recognized the title as 'George Washington' rather than the aka. Now Realcosmix has removed the 'George Washington' name of the protrait in the First Presidency section and changed it to the aka title. Is all of this known to you? ErnestKrause (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I saw the lead caption change and revert, missed the one later in the article.

Do you think the article title for the Met one ought to be changed? Or just the link label? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Changing back to the previous version and calling it 'George Washington' is easy to correct; but what to do with the page created using the aka title which Realcosmix seems to like so much? The MET calls it by its title as 'George Washington'. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably would warrant a move request. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like an impressive 70K daily page count spike for GW on the 4th of July yesterday. Your schedule for getting back to the FDR article is still for a week or so from now? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like I'm not going to be able to get hold of the Beito title in a timely way - any chance you'd be able to take that on? I have some other sources to work with. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

That Beito volume you mention is generally taken as the second volume of his two volume critical study of FDR. The first volume was titled "The New Deal's War on the Bill of Rights" and was published by a relatively minor press. It was seen as a general indictment of FDR's general sensibilities. The volume you mention, the second volume in this series, from 2025 continues this negative appraisal and is published Carus books; it ends with the concluding chapter called "The Culmination of a Failed Presidency", which seems to finalize Beito's general indictment of FDR. Is there a particular part of this critique which you are finding useful for the purposes of the Wikipedia article? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

For FA level it's necessary to have a representative survey of the literature, which would include critical studies - unless you think this one in particular doesn't warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

In comparison to the 'major' biographies of FDR by Robert Dalleck (2017) and then another by Doris Goodwin (2018), and Arthur Schlesinger's 3-volume study of the New Deal, then its difficult for me to think of Beito as quite reaching that sphere of influence. Criticism of FDR for an overly active libido is already part of the general literature on FDR and already known to Dallek, Goodwin and Schlesinger. I've also brought in the edit into the Wikipedia article for FDR of the Hollywood film starring Bill Murray in which FDR is taken to task for his dalliances. I'm not sure what weight you are general ascribing to Beito since the culminating chapter in his two-volume study of FDR seems to want to say that even though FDR won WWII that therefore FDR still had a failed presidency. That's a little difficult to place as an opinion with respect to Dallek, Goodwin and Schlesinger. What are your thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be assigned the same weight as the major biographies, certainly. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking that you can make this as a judgement call. Wikipedia already has an article about Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt which mentions Beito several times with a link to this article by him here: . The Criticism article I've just previously linked already appears in the closing paragraph of the Historical reception section of the current Wikipedia FDR article. It seems the question might be related to how much of the Wikipedia article for Criticism should be added into the main FDR article, or if that closing paragraph already in the Historical reception section of the FDR article is sufficient. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

My copy of the Beito book is now in my hands if you would like to add something from it into the current criticism paragraph in the FDR main article; or possibly to have other sections of the main FDR article which should be looked at before nomination? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Since it's in your hands, see what you think might be appropriate wrt that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are committed to Beito then possibly something like this in the Japanese internment discussion: David T. Beito argues Roosevelt could've possibly have significantly reduced anti-Japanese sentiment by leveraging his charisma and even invoking his own Four Freedoms vision: “Had Roosevelt deployed his famous charm and eloquence, perhaps citing the four freedoms, he might have prevented much suffering. He did not behave like a president who was trapped by conditions or distracted by other issues … but rather like a man who really did not care”.

I'd suggest one of the summary or the quote rather than both, but either seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

As you've noticed, then its already added there. What's next on the list of things to do, or which other authors and sources seem useful to add to the current FDR main page? ErnestKrause (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Goodwin certainly, and more Schlesinger. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added a short expansion on Goodwin's account of leadership in FDR in the History reception section this morning; its followed by the added Schlesinger material I previously added to the next paragraph there. More on Schlesinger needed? By the way, I've separately noticed that I appear to have something missing in my tool kit; when you did the double revert on Geo Washington for my edit and the edit of Drdpw, then you did it in one step rather than two separate reverts. Can you tell me how you did it in one step rather than two? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Not a toolkit, quite the opposite - edit and save an old revision. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Even more Goodwin and Schlesinger, or on to other enhancements and improvements? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a bit more would be warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added a bit more since yesterday for Goodwin and for Schlesinger. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately in addition to adding references it looks like we will need to devote some time to verifying the ones already there - some don't quite line up with the content. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If you have the list of problem cites then you can list them here and I'll start in on them. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a complete list - just will take a while to go through the text.

Where do you think might work best to mention his religious views? See St. James Episcopal Church (Hyde Park, New York). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Both of those questions deserve at least a short answer. The first question about including his affiliation with St. James would be useful to include, possibly in a short form in the Early life section (Note that footnote one in the Wikipedia article for St. James does not link for me). The second question about his religious views would be a larger domain to cover; on the GW article this was done with a separate subsection in the Philosophical views section of that article with good effect. One good source on this would be: A Christian and a Democrat: A Religious Biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt by John F. Woolverton and James D. Bratt from 2019, and other books. Which direction to take looks better to you. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If it's to be a larger domain, a new subsection under views would make more sense (and encompass all religion content). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Something added; change and modify as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Any thoughts about all the deletions over the week-end here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's any reason to be concerned - was there something in particular troubling you about it? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The previous discussion between yourself and myself was whether the current article had enough coverage of the criticism of the president; previously the article was linked to the criticism page which now has gone through AFD. I'm fine either way as long as you know about it. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I think we'd need to have some summary of criticism whether that article exists or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria; Is it useful to make an addition of his friends and colleagues speaking to him using the first name vernacular 'Frank'? Separately, is it useful to consider mentioning that actual footage of his home and estate at Springwood is included in the Campabello film currently listed in Legacy? ErnestKrause (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say no on both, unless there's significant sourcing on the former? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is a link and article on the former which uses the vernacular name about 36 times here: . ErnestKrause (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Would you propose just "Friends called him Frank"? Or something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

After writing to you, I then checked to see if "Dick" Nixon appears on his FA article, and it appears largely absent. If Wikipedia preference is not to deal with vernacular names, then that should be taken into consideration. I've not had a chance to examine closely private correspondence from FDR's wife and friends to see if they wrote to him as "Franklin" or as "Frank". What is your take on what Wikipedia would prefer based on other president's articles on Wikipedia? ErnestKrause (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Generally alternative names must be frequently used by RS in order to be included, and from what I've seen so far I'm not sure this would meet that bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

FDR sources don't seem to make this a central theme. After assuming the presidency he tends to be remebered as Mr. President. Your point seems appropriate. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Any thoughts for completing trims in the article by end of September, or end of October? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

End of September will be too ambitious - working on the sourcing now but it's pretty slow going. Will see about October. Once sourcing is sorted, there's still formatting, image licensing, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. While you are condensing some of the prose, then the following citation might speed things if its available to you: "Franklin D. Roosevelt, his life and times: an encyclopedic view". Edited by Otis L. Graham, Jr. and Meghan Robinson Wander. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Unrelated: I've done an article merge at 2026 Iran War which another editor has decided to label as AI generated here: . Its not AI and I've done the merge without objection from the top editors of the 2026 Iran War article after consensus was reached by the participating editors. Could you look at the link I've just provided? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I am confused by the tag, since your edit seems to be almost entirely the content that was previously at the other article (though I would recommend a different edit summary with a link to the specific article per WP:CWW). Unless they think the original article was itself AI-generated? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm also confused by the tag. I've contacted him on his Talk page and he keeps repeating that its LLM and AI generated here: . It was written by myself with no LLM nor AI at all. Could you look at it (and he's not removing the article tag). ErnestKrause (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Back to FDR and the judiciary; are you sure about removing all 4 of FDR's appointments to the Supreme Court. It makes sense to remove all the embellishments around their names, however, if the names are deleted then they will be fully unmentioned in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Why mention those four and not the other four? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Much of the Supreme Court inherited by FDR as the Hughes Court was appointed by previous administrations; FDR does not make his first appointment until 1937. FDR did attach significance to the four-of-nine appointments which he made starting in 1937 according to Noah Feldman's book about this subject. None of this is mentioned in the current FDR article. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

That he did not make his first appointment until 1937 is mentioned. Does Feldman specify what significance was attached to those four? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The book in question is titled: Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices (2010) which focuses on four of Roosevelt's Supreme Court appointees and "how the backgrounds, personalities, and experiences of the four justices shaped their philosophies and how those philosophies changed the Court from a conservative one resisting America's liberal turn under FDR into the liberal one that helped remake the nation." This group biography demonstrates that their competing judicial philosophies "are the ones that continue to preoccupy lawyers, law professors and judges". Does this sound useful to the FDR Wikipedia article? ErnestKrause (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Potentially, although we'd want to focus specifically on the FDR angle rather than the justices themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The FDR angle would likely orient itself to stressing the importance FDR placed upon transforming the court from a predominantly conservative court into a more liberal court, more closely aligned to FDR's views on America's liberal turn. ErnestKrause (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Just checking in before the end of year holidays. Any thoughts about if the article might be ready by the end of November or the end of December? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

It's been pretty slow going, so November doesn't seem likely. December may be possible yet, TBD. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 11 reviews between October and December 2025. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Queries

I am presently conducting the image review for the article History of penicillin and have the following queries:

• Are the images File:Synthetic Production of Penicillin TR1468.jpg, File:Penicillin Past, Present and Future – the Development and Production of Penicillin, England, 1944 D17803.jpg, File:The Synthetic Production of Penicillin during the Second World War TR1458.jpg, File:Penicillin Past, Present and Future – the Development and Production of Penicillin, England, 1943 D16965.jpg, and File:Penicillin Production at the Royal Navy Medical School, Clevedon, Somerset, 1944 A25174.jpg missing a US public-domain tag?

• For File:Penicillin fermentation vessel, England Wellcome L0059171.jpg, is the source URL now dead?

• For File:Every Minute Lost on this Job May Mean... and File:Mould being strained at the harvest table.jpg – NARA – 514228 (edited).jpg, is the author being listed as unknown an issue?

Also, is there anything else I may have missed? Many thanks. MSincccc (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding alt texts and scaling up the diagrams. But for the licensing, note that both UK and Australian Crown copyright expiration applies worldwide, so additional US tagging isn't required for images with those statuses, and an organizational author within scope of a PD tag is still valid. I'd agree with you on the dead link - File:Ar-infographic-950px.jpg has the same problem. Would also suggest checking whether File:Nobel_prize_medal_for_medicine,_Sweden,_1945,_to_Sir_Alexander_Fleming_(1881-1955)_who_discovered_Penicillin._On_display_at_the_National_Museum_of_Scotland.jpg meets the UK requirements for freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I have come across users who have told me that alternative text is not mandatory at GA level. Is it so?

Also, how do you treat an image with its source listed as "Own work". I look forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Correct, alt text is not mandatory at GA, but can be suggested as best practice.

With regards to own work, there are three questions to consider:

• Is it plausibly own work? A photo of a contemporary building could be something the uploader created themselves; a photo of a 19th-century politician, not so much.
• Is it wholly own work? If that contemporary building is somewhere without freedom of panorama, that image would need additional tagging.
• Is there any reason to believe it's not own work? Typically if the first two answers are yes, we would assume good faith, but indicators like previous copyvios on the part of the uploader, or finding the image published elsewhere, should raise flags.

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I recently conducted an image review for Tatannuaq. Could you please let me know whether I missed anything?

Additionally, a user pointed me to an FAC discussion on alt text when I suggested adding alternative text. That discussion notes that there is no consensus to require editors to add separate alt text to all non-decorative images, mandate it at FAC, or recommend elaborate alt text detailing facial expressions or hairstyles.

I look forward to your response. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Per this more recent RfC, alt text is encouraged.

Regarding Tatannuaq, the red/green dots on the map are a MOS:COLOUR concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you please assist me with the licensing of the following two images-

• File:Caer Beris Manor.jpg-This one is tagged as "No restrictions".
• File:Lord John Swansea 1966.jpg-The author is unknown but the image is tagged as "Fair use".

I look forward to your response. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

For the first, the Flickr tag indicates that more specific tagging is preferred if possible. The 'more information' link isn't working for me so I can't tell whether there is information at that site to support a particular tag.

For the second, if no free image of the subject can be identified, a fair-use image is reasonable. Here again the source link is dead - it would be good to see if more information is available there about provenance. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Britney Spears § Shall we remove the 2019-2021 personal life section?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Britney Spears § Shall we remove the 2019-2021 personal life section?. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 16, 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

On image use

Artistic depictions of real people are allowed. For instance, the image for the Titica page is used on the French, Spanish, and Portuguese versions of that Wikipedia page. If you have an issue with any particular image, please provide a reason other than "rm cartoon." Urchincrawler (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Image reversion

I decided to put details regarding the repeated image reversion onto the talk page of the LGBTQ wikiproject talk page. Hoping this will resolve the dispute. Urchincrawler (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I've been exploring around Wikipedia's country articles especially Italy, but I've noticed on your removal/change of infoboxes (e.g. History of the Philippines (1946-1965) and Portugal in the Middle Ages). Do you think we should use the infobox historical era layout on our article on Fascist Italy instead of the current infobox country layout since that article was a sub-article of the Kingdom of Italy, and also a historical period of the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 to 1943 or we should just keep it that way? ..Thanks.. RatMan7108 (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a reasonable approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh Thanks RatMan7108 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

History Channel non-reliable source?

Why is the article from History Channel that lists vice-presidents who became presidents a non-reliable source? It seems reliable to me?And1987 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:RSPHISTORY and the discussions linked from there. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Could we use this one? And1987 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

That source is more reliable, but I'm not sure it demonstrates that the claim warrants inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

What about this one? If not I can use one from Pew Research Center or NPR? And1987 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

One of those last two would be much better. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2025

This Month in GLAM – Volume XV, Issue XII, December 2025 Headlines From the team: Global GLAM Calls Continue in 2026 Albania report: Wikimedian in Residence, 2025, in Elbasan Albania Argentina report: Resume of the year Australia report: AMaGA partnership, signing the Open Heritage Statement and South Australian Museum Partner Project Belgium report: Public Domain Day 2026, Circus Heritage and Fosdem Colombia report: Preparándonos para celebrar el día del dominio público - Getting ready for the Public Domain Day celebration Italy report: Exploring Italy and Unlocking Its Heritage: Touring Club Italiano and GLAM Call 2026–2028 New Zealand report: ASBS 2025 Conference follow-up Wiki webinar & Auckland Museum student update Poland report: Public Domain, Conferences, and Conversations on Open Culture Switzerland report: GLAM on Tour Bellinzona, Xmas Event, GLAM Wiki Group UK report: 2025 in review USA report: December meetings Public Domain Day report: Public Domain Day 2026 Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Updates on work by BHLWiki Working Group members Memory of the World report: 2025 in review Calendar: January's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 12:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

• News and notes: Wikipedia's 25th anniversary is here!
  Where does the time go?

• Special report: Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call
  The internet is booming. We are not.

• Serendipity: The WMF wants to buy you books!
  Really! A major triumph.

• WikiProject report: Time for a health check: the Vital Signs 2026 campaign
  The campaign to get all of our top-importance medical articles up to B-class or above.

• In the media: Fake Acting President Trump and a Wikipedia infobox
  D.J.T. assumes a new position.

• Community view: The inbox behind Wikipedia
  What the Volunteer Response Team actually does!

• Recent research: Art museums on Wikidata; comparing three comparisons of Grokipedia and Wikipedia
  And other research.

• Traffic report: Tonight I'm gonna rock you tonight
  A world in white gets underway.

• Comix: Oh come on man.
  Really?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Katz page

Hi, that was requested in GA review on talk there, and that Find a grave seems to be (so far) the only location that has that information. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't include linkvio. Have you checked for other obituaries? They will often carry that detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll make another sweep this weekend, probably on newspapers.com. It seemed almost all the NYT one or abridged everywhere. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Soviet Civil Administration

Could you explain why you deleted it? Hanyang.study (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

As I said, it's misplaced - this is an article about a government, not a state. Please stop adding it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The Soviet Civil Administration was the governing authority of North Korea. Stop distorting history and present evidence. Hanyang.study (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The Soviet Civil Administration was the governing authority of North Korea is exactly what I'm saying. It was the governing authority, ie the government. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Present a proper basis for why you are trying to delete the inbox. I do not understand your logic that a government and a state are different. Hanyang.study (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

They are different things. For example, the Cabinet of North Korea is the body that currently governs North Korea, but they are separate entities. If you prefer, this article could follow the model of Cabinet of North Korea? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

What is the reason for keeping the inbox of the U.S. Military Government in Korea? Hanyang.study (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

And the inbox is literally labeled as a ‘country inbox,’ isn’t it? Hanyang.study (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The Soviet Civil Administration was neither an illegal government, nor a self-proclaimed government, nor a provisional government. It was a government endowed with legitimate authority under international law through military power, and it was the predecessor of North Korea (DPRK). Hanyang.study (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not arguing that it was or wasn't a legal government - either way it was a government, not a country. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you think it is then? A colony? British Raj was labeled as a country. Hanyang.study (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

As I said: a government. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

As i said: it is a government. And i don't understand why you are deleting it. Hanyang.study (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Glad we agree! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

you agree that you won't delete it? Hanyang.study (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I've instead substituted the government format. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria @Hanyang.study The country infobox is always used because it's a post-WWII military occupation. See Allied-occupied Germany, Occupation of Japan for reference. I invite you to discuss it in the article's talk page. -- ~2026-97428-2 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Occupation of Japan, U.S. Army Military Government in Korea, British Raj etc. They have inbox. Should you delete them all? Hanyang.study (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyright for Shaw photograph

Regarding your removals of this photograph on the basis that it "is lacking evidence of being out of copyright", I want to explain myself. As you have cited on WP:IUPC, images may be uploaded if they are in the "public domain". The photograph in question was taken by an unknown person in 1919, per the NPG source data. Accordingly, it falls under the first of these criteria as a public domain work in the United Kingdom: i.e., it was a photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public [it was in the stock of a defunct company] and which was taken more than 70 years ago. Therefore, it is out of copyright in the United Kingdom. It is also unknown who could claim copyright for the photograph itself, because the firm wherefor the photographer worked dissolved without a known heir. You can see this discussion for a similar case, as I had requested you to do.

As for the copyright of the file I uploaded, the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Commons have been in a protracted copyright dispute, and I am in much the same position as the Commons's party, as an American who uploaded to the American site, in which country exact scans of out-of-copyright works are unoriginal. Mr. Coetzee's scans of out-of-copyright works were permitted to remain on Wikimedia Commons. Now, I have used the NPG's own scan, 'tis true, even though, as said, in the United States, exact scans of out-of-copyright works are not themselves copyrighteable. But it is also true that even those scans are out of copyright in the United Kingdom per a recent ruling. Therefore, my upload is out of copyright, so it suits WP:IUPC.

This has been my operating logic so far. Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything, for I am not an expert in these matters. JJLiu112 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe a similar logic may apply for this photograph as well which you deleted in September. JJLiu112 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that, regardless of the image's status in the UK, there's no indication that it is in the public domain in the US, and that's the jurisdiction that matters per IUPC. I see you've removed the US tag from the Britten image, but that leaves that one too with no indication of its US status. (To be clear here, I'm referring to the status of the photo itself, not of the scan which I would agree does not garner a new copyright). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships/archive2

Hello! My FAC – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships/archive2 – has been gathering dust in the queue since early December. If you have a free minute and are so inclined, any help would be appreciated! Thank you in advance! Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

FDR

Hi Nikkimaria, I've made several dozens edits on the FDR page to try to enhance the article and its starting to look a little better. My thoughts were to ask if you might be interested in looking at the FDR page with the possibility of doing further condense and trim edits for its enhancement. The FDR page is currently approaching 190Kb in system size, and maybe you might think about doing it as a co-nomination for promotion. Does it sound of interest? ErnestKrause (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I can take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

From the Ronald Reagan page, it looks like GoodDay has opened Talk page for you there. It seems to be about his sequence of edits on multiple Presidents pages including: Washington, Adams, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR, Kennedy and Nixon. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw that. It seems like consensus there is in favour of his sequence, which is fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

That sort of looks like the end of the article in your review and I'm thinking of what a good timeline would be for putting in a co-nomination for FAC; are there any items you might like to review further in the article before moving forward? The condense edits you've made over the past month look very good. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was only the first step; I haven't dug into sources yet. I also think the section labelled as "political philosophy" really isn't that - it needs some serious reworking, in my view. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

There are significant differences in the approaches taken by the article for Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the article for Franklin D. Roosevelt and civil rights; the latter seems to be the one summarized for the current FDR section which you refer to above. My own inclination in thought is that the former Wikipedia article about Criticism is more on the mark; let me know what you think. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

No objection, but IMO the "criticism" piece is the one that actually is covered by the present section - what's missing is more the philosophy side. Compare Abraham_Lincoln#Philosophy_and_views. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Getting on the late side tonight though maybe you could tell me more about this for tomorrow. Moral Philosophy? Economics Philosophy? Geopolitical Philosophy? Humanitarian Philosophy? It seems like it could be a long list of interesting subjects for the 'philosophy side'. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Political philosophy is the section's current title, which could encompass both economics and geopolitics. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Possibly something like this...

I don't think we need to move detailed actions out of other sections - more provide a summary of his position. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I've cut both sections by half; my impression was that you might prefer leaving the previous outline for this section, Mexico-Lynching-Japanese-Holocaust, to one side, while looking more closely at Economics philosophy and Geopolitical philosophy as providing a new center for the section. Let me know if its on track for this at half the previous length? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Definitely better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Anything missing in those new subsections, or, is it ready to switch over the old subsections in that section for the new ones? ErnestKrause (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this is good enough for a start for new content, but we might need to figure out a solution for the old content - any ideas on that? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd given some ideas to possibly moving the Mexican/Japanese subsections together which have some similarities; if the two new subsections below are added then the total goes up to 5-6 subsections which seems a little bit too much. How many subsections is best for the "Philosophy and views" section? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The existing sections are all linked by racism/racial views and civil rights; what would you think of combining all of them under some theme like that? Not sure the best title for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like the 'Philosophy and views' section would be the two new subsections on Geopolitics and Economics, followed by a third subsection titled "Racial views and civil rights" with 4 subheadings? Would you like to do the honors? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I've reorganized the existing content, if you want to add the new content in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Its added now; I'll delete the mark-up version here on Talk at this time. Any thoughts for more enhancements tomorrow? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Major next step is to dive into sources, but that's unlikely to be tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Next major step? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Separate note. By some surprise I’ve had a 30Kb ANI filed against me by an editor (the Editor has a total of 5000 Wikipedia edits and no FAC experience) who has not previously contacted me on either my Talk page or on his Talk page over a 12-month period for Talk page discussion. Apparently he has been maintaining a private Sandbox page in his user account for the purpose of listing all of the times when he has disagreed with me over a 12-month period on the Trump Talk page, and now he has suddenly published them all together calling them misconduct. I’ve answered him at ANI and it seems I’ve dispelled the larger bulk of his misrepresentations, though I’m wondering if you could tell me if I’ve overlooked anything that needs to be done. I’ve nearly no experience at ANI and possibly you could let me know if I’ve overlooked anything in my responses there. He seems to be also hinting that my long Talk page discussions with you and others about planning biography article page improvements on User Talk pages are also some type of pejorative “Tag-team” editing against Wikipedia policy (although he does not mention you by name). ErnestKrause (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Generally planning article improvements is fine - the objection seems to be using user talk pages to circumvent or coordinate responses to article-talk discussions. But it looks to be headed for a closure with a warning rather than anything more restrictive, so it'll just be something to keep in mind for the future. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Following your response, the filer is now apparently deciding to change his claim into complete fabrication and fiction, and seeming to change the entire set of accusations into a new focus on fabricated 'personal attacks' here . Apparently his previous misrepresentations and exaggerations were dispelled, and now he is changing over to a new set of fabrications. Is there a Wikipedia policy for addressing ANI reports which appear to be submitted with intentional fabrication? ErnestKrause (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Technically speaking casting aspersions is itself considered a personal attack, but personally I would advise against pursuing that angle. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

If his edit conduct is moving in the direction of appropriate/inappropiate editing and reporting, then based on your experience what are the better Wikipedia policy options for dealing with it? ErnestKrause (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

At this point it would be most beneficial for the thread to come to a conclusion rather than be prolonged, in my opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The ANI has been open since April 19 for over 5 days now, and the last editor responding has stated an 'oppose' to warnings or sanctions being issued for what he sees as a content dispute; based on your reading of the direction that it is going at this point, then could you do an equitable close of it at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Given the context, I don't think I would be seen as uninvolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can think of anyone who would be more neutral in evaluating it. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Someone who had neither collaborated nor conflicted with you previously. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Source repairs should be up to date, and I've added the pay-walls which are active. Mostly its Washinton Post and NY Times, though some of the older Times articles are not pay-walled and I've left them untagged. What's next on the FDR things to do? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Still need to get some dedicated time to dig into the scholarly literature. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The article currently goes strongly with the biography by Burns and the biography by Smith, with a lesser emphasis on Leuchtenburg. The strong FDR books by Schlesinger are not central to the article as written. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed - we'd want to make sure the strongest scholarship is reflected. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria; Just to orient my own calendar, are you thinking of returning to FDR for refinements later in this month, or maybe next month sometime? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Next month is more likely. I'm also crossing my fingers that ANB access will be restored in the interim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have any particular transitions in FDR's life which are of special interest for you, though I'm tempted to mention the following short monograph from Oxford which is highly accessible and most readers can finish it over a long week-end here: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction. Book 48 of 406: Oxford Very Short Introductions, by Rauchway, Eric. Possibly you can find a copy at your local library if the topic is of interest. Otherwise, I'll wait to hear from you after you take a look at some of the other supportive scholarly literature. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Its not certain to me if you were able to look at that citation on the New Deal with any interest. The article currently looks much enhanced since several weeks ago and in general seems ready for a possible co-nomiantion at this time. All of the formatted cites were checked by me two weeks ago and they all appear to have been linking at that time. Ready to move forward on the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I really need some dedicated time to dig into the source material, which likely won't be until mid-June at the earliest. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Cite 10, Brinkley, is listing a red flag. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

By the source material you mentioned above, then is the plan to cross-verify the FDR article using Brinkley as one of the selected sources? Sometime in June or July? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

One of, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Any update as to whether further enhancements are planned for July? Or August? ErnestKrause (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Currently anticipating July, but will let you know. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Separate note

hi, you are doing great job. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I appreciate your contribution to Chinubhai Baronate family. I am not well versed for Wikipedia so you can connect with me on WhatsApp number +91 9869437259. ~2026-28189-33 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Removing about Peary

Hello, Why did You remove my editions about descendants of Robert Peary? It has a relevant source, Daily Mail . Don't You find it interesting, or what? Yours --Höyhens (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Höyhens, the Daily Mail is a deprecated source, so should not be used to support any information on WP. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. --Höyhens (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Removing sources

Hi, when you remove sources (which I agree this one should have, at Malaga Airport can you please leave behind some form of maintenance template like {{Citation needed}}, to indicate that the content is now unsourced? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Opinion

I recently reviewed the images used in the article Manhattan Project feed materials program, which is listed at FAC. I found a few dead links, which I pointed out, and a few images where the author is unknown, even though each has a US-PD tag. Also, I do not intend to pursue alternative text further, since the nominator prefers not to add it. I look forward to your responses.MSincccc (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

PD-URAA, which several of that article's images use, includes this statement: "there must be a statement on this page explaining why the work is in the public domain in the U.S. (for the first case) or why it was PD on the URAA date in its source country (second case). Additionally, there must be verifiable information about previous publications of the work." These are not clearly present in all cases. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not find a clear US public domain rationale for three images tagged "PD-URAA"; I have indicated this in my image review. MSincccc (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 237, January 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 review four books Op-ed: Nick-D on the Stanley Military Cemetery in Hong Kong Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2026

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2025
  Everybody had a hard year, everybody had a good time.

• News and notes: Good news... but also bad news for the Public Domain
  Benvenuto Betty Boop, arrivederci Italian Photos.

• News from Diff: Solving puzzles together
  Maryana Iskander says farewell.

• In the media: Every view on the 25th anniversary of everything
  Media about hard-core nerds, a place with paragraphs, baby globes, and wikipedes.

• Comix: Perspectives
  Everybody has one.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 72

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Nikkimaria and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Women in Red February 2026

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

William Walton

Why has the infobox been repeatedly removed from the article William Walton? The infobox provides a concise summary of key biographical information, such as birth and death dates, nationality, occupation, notable works, and honours, which is essential for readers seeking a quick overview. Removing it reduces the article’s usability and accessibility.

Infoboxes are standard for biographies of notable figures, particularly composers of Walton’s stature, as they allow readers to see critical details at a glance without scanning the full article.

Additionally, the previous edit notes referenced “see notes,” but no corresponding notes appear on the page; this should be clarified to avoid confusion. For these reasons, retaining the infobox is appropriate and in line with Wikipedia’s manual of style for biographies.

Themusicofbelgravia (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Themusicofbelgravia, previous discussions on the matter have not arrived at consensus for inclusion. You're welcome to open a discussion on the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

(watching) Can you please point me at these previous discussions, because I seem to be unable to find them on the article talk and the one archive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

See the note at the top of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw the (hidden) note. It takes to a discussion on the article talk named Infobox. That discussion was archived. In the archive we read as a response: "This has been very thoroughly discussed, and reviewed and confirmed, already." but without an indication where that would be. If we are strict and say that the community consensus for Mozart (which is the most thorough discussion of the subject I know) means nothing for Verdi, we should be as strict for Mr. Wilson. Or at least indicate for a reader who may never have heard of any dispute over infoboxes (and I guess there are many), where to find that "thorough" discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

McKinley assassination articles

Do you think you can help with the Leon Czolgosz and James Parker articles? They need cleaning up. ~2026-73056-2 (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there something in particular you're hoping for me to do with those? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you look up what I wrote on the Parker article talk page? There is a book I linked which looks into the question of his role being attacked and whether he was the first to attack LC.~2026-75126-8 (talk)

Unfortunately I don't have access to that book - if you do, I'd suggest editing the article directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Query re. mentorship

I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to thank you again — I owe much of what I know about image reviewing to your guidance on image licensing.

I recently consulted Gog regarding my next FAC nomination and finding a mentor, and he suggested I approach you. I’ll be occupied with school exams until mid-March (and again briefly in May), but if possible I wanted to ask whether you would be willing to mentor me with the article Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales, which passed GA last year. Many thanks for considering this. MSincccc (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Fashion isn't really my area of interest - I can give some general pointers, but not subject expertise. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

That's fine. I would appreciate any help you can extend to me. MSincccc (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article relies quite heavily on news and magazine sources, but it appears that additional scholarly and book sources exist - I'd suggest as a first step considering whether any are appropriate to incorporate. Also Insider is of questionable reliability - suggest replacing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response. I have replaced the Insider citation with one from People. The article currently cites books by Marcia Moody and Bethan Holt of The Daily Telegraph, and I will continue to incorporate additional scholarly and book sources. Thank you for your comments; I look forward to any further suggestions. MSincccc (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Historiography

Hi. When I saw that you'd deleted the Historiography section because the books listed were not cited, my first inclination was to put them back under the heading "Further Reading," because they seem like worthwhile books. But then I noticed that every one of them is listed in the Historiography and memory section of Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln. So I didn't edit Abraham Lincoln but just tinkered with the books as they were listed in Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln, making the same edits that I had made earlier today when they were under Abraham Lincoln. I just thought that you might be interested; for once I'm not writing to argue with you ☺ Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article by Pizzetti that had been under Historiography in Abraham Lincoln was not in Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln. I just put it there, under Historiography and memory.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue I, January 2026 Headlines From the team: Wikipedia at 25 Aruba report: Pap-Wikipedia Turns 20: A Milestone for Papiamento/u Knowledge Colombia report: Celebrando el día del dominio público 2026/Celebrating the public domain day 2026 France report: Wikipedia's Birthday in France Germany report: Gifted by our friends: Loads of presents for Wikipedia25 by German and Austrian GLAMs Indonesia report: Activities in December-January Italy report: Knowledge in action: Barindelli collection and Wikipedia 25 Netherlands report: Image donation Dutch Book History New Zealand report: Auckland Museum Student Edit-a-thon, the NZBSI Wikimedian in Residence project, and other residencies North Macedonia report: GLAM Program of Wikimedia MKD – 2026 Overview Poland report: Explore Historic Portraits from the Museum of Photography in Kraków Serbia report: January in Wikimedia Serbia Switzerland report: Museum in Chiasso, Alpine Museum, Women Monuments UK report: Sharing more of the Enamels of the World Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Updates on work by BHLWiki Working Group members Map the GLAM report: Wiki and GLAM: Harnessing Knowledge to Foster Gender Equality Memory of the World report: Manuscripts on Arabic Wikipedia Wikidata report: Two key Wikidata Requests for Comments, relevant for future GLAM-Wiki work Calendar: February's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 08:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

FA mentor request

I'm looking to get Genshin Impact to FAC and saw your name on the list of people willing to be FA mentors. I got it to GA last month, but I'd like a mentor to get it to FAC since it'd be my first one. Let me know if you're interested. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 20:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not my area of interest so I can't give much in the way of subject expertise on that one, unfortunately. As a general pointer, I'd suggest your first step would be to consider, for each source used, what makes it a high-quality reliable source, and to replace any for which you can't give a strong defence. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Apology for rise in edits to Beiyang government

I am the one responsible for proposing a significant change to the Republic of China (1912–1949) page, specifically because of your concerns on the scope of the Beiyang government page. I have not done any major edits to the Beiyang government page but my merge proposal has attracted attention to it and there have been multiple edits from other users to replace the government infobox, forcing you to revert these changes. While I do believe that a country infobox is the ultimate goal if a merge is agreed upon, the current infobox should be left alone until the merge discussion is closed. I apologize for the extra workload that you have had to deal with. Wasting-time-is-my-passion (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

You had a look over Manhattan Project and I was wondering if you would consider looking at Douglas MacArthur with a view to whether it would be reasonable to trim anything. No issue if you are bust. I quite understand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Will take a look this weekend. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the recommendation for spinoffs on the Korea War and the Occupation both seem feasible. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Trashlight Vision albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Trashlight Vision albums indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a disagreement over content with which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Culpeper".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for the article "about the 16th president Abraham Lincoln"! An extraordinary achievement! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Rinaldo (opera): You reverted my annual attempt to pursue the compromise that - as I believe - its principal editor hoped for. Edit summary: "per talk". I confess that I had forgotten the last talk, but on re-reading it: perhaps it would be better if it was forgotten. You are invited to a new round there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anything has changed, nor is likely to change. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Sisu

Do you think that this source is reliable? Bearian (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Certainly better than the previous option. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Cooper Union

When I added Brooklyn and Manhattan, I hadn't realized that you deleted them; I thought that I'd omitted them. Please allow them to stay. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

They tell readers where Plymouth Church and Cooper Union are, and, as I explained, "Plymouth Church in New York" is unclear. It would have been in New York State, but not in New York City. By the way, thanks for linking Amar's book.Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I don't agree it's necessary to distinguish at this level of detail where they are. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for respecting my wishes.Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's the best choice at this point - it seems unnecessary to provide the level of detail proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

• In the media: Global powers see Wikipedia as fundamental target for manipulation
  Attempted Wikipedia shenanigans apparent from Epstein, AI, various governments.

• News and notes: Discussions open for the next WMF Annual Plan
  Plus, WikiFlix going places, steady progress on older FAs and other news from the Wikimedia world.

• Serendipity: Maintenance crews continue to slog through Wikipedia's oldest Featured Articles
  Hundreds of old FAs have been triaged since project began, but thousands remain — and they need reviewers.

• Disinformation report: Epstein's obsessions
  The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.

• Technology report: Wikidata Graph Split and how we address major challenges
  A personal perspective on a major update to the Wikimedia social machine.

• Traffic report: Deaths, killings, films, and the Olympics
  I'll have the usual!

• Opinion: Incoming Incurables
  A poem for Wikipedia Day 2026.

• Crossword: Pop quiz
  Sharpen your pencil. How well do you really know Wikipedia?

• Comix: herculean
  efforts.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Christopher Hudgens

Should this be taken to WP:AfD? Bearian (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Most of the sources provided are dead - on a quick look I don't see a strong case for notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can propose deleting it. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Arrrgh. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Hudgens. Bearian (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Unlikely to be G4-able after this length of time, so you'd need a second nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll do it another day. Too much work. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Beta-propeller protein-associated neurodegeneration

Hello! I have question about your recent edit, why some illustrations have to be an original size? They occupy too much of the page.

P.S. I have read MOS but still couldn’t understand the reason.@Nikkimaria NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi NotCarlJohnson1992. Users can set preferred image sizes in their preferences, to accommodate their own setup, vision, etc. This determines the default size at which images appear, but setting a specific pixel size for a particular image overrides that preference. That's why that generally shouldn't be done. If you feel the images are too large you can instead adjust them using |upright=, which scales the images relative to the user's set preferences instead of overriding them. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

NRS

I see you deleted the cracroftspeerage source from my 2 recent articles. Can I ask why you did that? As I know the source was used in a lot of articles and it has a web version so that people can have free access to the information. Oohlala8195 (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Oohlala8195, that source is deprecated so shouldn't be cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria may i ask that do you know why it is deprecated Oohlala8195 (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Self-published sources are considered generally unreliable, and the various nobility sites have been discussed multiple times at the reliable sources noticeboard - see the footnote for "peerage" at WP:RSP for examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar

Your persistence in insisting on a country parameter in {{Infobox radio station}} has paid off. With a recently completed bot run on more than 10,000 pages, now 98% of transclusions of this infobox specify a country. And the short descriptions show the country in all cases after I recently found a bug in the code I'd been using. Thank you for pushing for this to happen. Our readers are better off for it. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Thank you so much for helping on the Wikipedia page The Jet Hollis Experience! I am new here so very grateful for your help 😅 Alphonicus (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

What's the problem with the Andorra edit?

Infobox doesn't have to be limited to the exact words used in the body (which is a summary by design), when the information is clearly implying things that are further explained in other articles about more specific subjects. The principality of Andorra is a constitutional monarchy with the two co-princes acting as monarchs, as the politics page and other articles describe. It's also clear that Andorra is a unitary state and not a federation or some other structure. There's no reason to omit such a basic term in a country unless it's really unclear. Canada info box says "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy"; Luxembourg says unitary. Andorra can say unitary too.

If you still object, I will simply add the relevant, sourced information in the article body itself to make your objection moot. ~2026-11876-05 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

By all means, add the relevant sourced information to the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Re. Image licensing

I recently came across the article Bankers' Toadies incident at FAC. Both File:David Milwyn Duggan.JPG and File:W. C. Ives.JPG are Canadian works and in the public domain there, but is additional US tagging required?

Also, could you please assist me with cases involving "Anonymous" and "Unknown" authors? I look forward to your responses. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes - anything with a country-specific tag needs a US tag unless the tag specifically states that it applies worldwide. This one states a US tag is needed.

Authorship only matters if using a tag that relies on authorship, and if the work is recent enough that it is possible for an authorship condition not to be met. For example, if a work from the 1700s has a life+70 tag and an unknown author, it doesn't matter that the author is unknown because no author from the 1700s could possibly have died less than 70 years ago. If the work is from the 1940s, conversely, it is very possible.

In the case of these specific works, there are three possible conditions under which they would be PD in Canada, only one of which relies on known authorship. It appears that both are instead relying on a different condition: a photo taken before 1949. As long as we have no reason to doubt that that dating is correct, authorship doesn't matter for the purpose of this tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

An apology

Hello, we had a very brief dispute over a detail in Gaza Strip under Hamas yesterday. I want to apologize for my use of the word "pedantic" towards you, a personal attack was inappropriate. I was just slightly annoyed in the moment and didn't think clearly. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - March 2026

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Bugle: Issue 238, February 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D review four works Op-ed: GGOTCC discusses the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

https://discord.gg/JVfuvP3Kc

@Nikkimaria Project sol (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not on the Discord, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Terry Fox

Is "enrol" just Canadian English and I didn't know about it or something? mftp dan ^oops 14:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think I'm right in saying that Canadian English follows British English in preferring "enrol" to the AmEng "enroll". - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not know there was a spelling difference for that word in British. Thank you for teaching me that guys! mftp dan ^oops 15:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep - Canadian English follows British for some things, American for others, just to confuse everyone ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wallace Shawn § Nickname in infobox and concerns about banned user

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wallace Shawn § Nickname in infobox and concerns about banned user. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion: Shawne Kleckner - fansite tag

Hello, I removed content and updated sources here based on feedback, can you review and see if you feel the changes are adequate to remove the fansite Tag as I didn't want to do it myself without review. Thanks. TheIshikawa (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The updated sourcing is great, but the tag is more a reflection of tone. Suggest making sure that the article maintains an impartial tone for presenting facts and providing attribution for more opinionated statements. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I changed the tone with the most recent revision and removed opinions that weren't sourced. If you feel that is appropriate, I will remove the tag. TheIshikawa (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any changes having been made since my comment above? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I had posted a full new revision, but if you are saying it still doesn't match tone I will go back and revisit it again. TheIshikawa (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Bots

Can we add the archive link bot to the Canada page? Is it a bot? Last thing we want is an edit like this just adding junk. I added no bots template hoping that it would stop this kind of junk. This was reverted by cosmetic editor. Moxy🍁 15:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The FAQ on Meta suggests that that should be possible, but it's not clear to me whether that would block only direct edits by the bot, or whether it would capture console edits like the one you link. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 March 2026

• Interview: Bernadette Meehan, new Wikimedia Foundation CEO
  Part 2.

• News and notes: Security testing unleashes computer worm on Meta-wiki
  Dormant worm awakes; a sketchy archiving site struck; ether burns.

• Special report: What actually happened during the Wikimedia security incident?
  A horrifying exploit took place, which could have had catastrophic and far-reaching consequences if used maliciously; instead, it seems to have happened by accident and was used for childish vandalism. How did this happen, and what did the script actually do?

• In the media: Indonesian government blocks Wikimedia logins; archive site scoured from Wikipedia after owner runs malware
  As well as controversy over LLM translations.

• Recent research: To wiki, perchance to groki
  Comparisons continue.

• Obituary: Madhav Gadgil, Fredrick Brennan, Mark Miller, Chip Berlet
  Rest in peace.

• Opinion: Interface administrators and trusting trust
  Potential attacks are the logical consequence of giving a group of users unlimited control over JavaScript.

• Technology report: English Wikipedia deprecates archive.today after DDoS against blog, altered content
  After the archive site launched a DDoS campaign against a small blog in January 2026, a request for comment was started, with consensus to deprecate the site used almost 700 thousand times.

• Op-ed: Why is "Trypsin-sensitive photosynthetic activities in chloroplast membranes" cited in "List of tallest buildings in Chicago"?
  The answer is slop.

• Essay: The pursuit of a button click
  Volunteering for Wikipedia has its rewards. The thank-button, for example.

• In focus: Short descriptions: One year later
  A discussion of the challenge set forth to the Wikipedia community one year ago!

• WikiProject report: Unreferenced articles backlog drive
  Unreferenced articles in English Wikipedia - help us in the backlog drive!

• Community view: Speaking of planning ...
  The WMF planning process is underway.

• Traffic report: Over the mountain, kissing silver inlaid clouds
  Death and the Winter Olympics.

• Crossword: "It will never happen"
  Want to take a break?

• Comix: BRIEn't
  Or is it.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 73

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Nikkimaria and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

David Berman musician

Why did you remove his death cause? Orga8 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Per the template documentation, that parameter should only be included when significant to the subject's notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue II, February 2026 Headlines From the team: GLAM in 2026 is calling to action! Belgium report: A photo safari through Wiki Loves Fashion & a rescue mission with Mission Gourmande! Czech Republic report: National Library overview of 2025 Italy report: Cultural Heritage and Memory: 2026 GLAM Call and Executed Renaissance Edit-a-thon New Zealand report: Farewelling the Auckland Museum Summer Students and an update on the NZBSI WiR Poland report: Wikipedia in Cultural Marketing at Crash Mondays Warsaw Serbia report: February in Wikimedia Serbia Spain report: Wikidata in the GLAM context II Switzerland report: Neocomensia, SAPA, Atelier Winterthur, GLAM-on-Tour Disentis UK report: New content in African and Asian languages Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Updates on work by BHLWiki Working Group members Memory of the World report: Focus on Indigenous issues Calendar: March's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 00:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

A few queries

I was taking a look at the images in The Dance of Anitra and have a few queries:

• File:Edith Maryon.jpg and File:Edith Maryon - La danse d'Anitra.jpg – Do these two images require a US PD tag?
• File:1909.02.27 - The Graphic - Maud Allan as Anitra.jpg – Should the source being behind a paywall be noted in a GAN?
• File:Maud Allan.jpg – The author and source information appear to be missing.

I look forward to your response. Thanks, MSincccc (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes
• No, unless there's some reason to believe the image isn't there? But an author date of death is needed to confirm life+70
• They are, and are needed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

CAPT. ALBERT BALL

Hi. You removed my recent addition to this entry, of a rock song that specifically memorializes the subject. You cited the reason as significance. Please tell me what it is that is insignificant about a cultural reference that is wholly specific to the person being discussed. Such references are widely used throughout Wikipedia. Thank you. Peterinamerica59 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Peterinamerica59: our guideline on such entries indicates that they should not just be references that exist, but ones where secondary sourcing is available to indicate the significance of the reference to the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

tq vs green

Hi Nikkimaria. Re this edit: why? Has the tq template been deprecated for some reason? I don't spend enough time on Wikipedia for it to matter very much to me, but I find tq (two letters) faster and easier to type than green (five letters), so I'd be sorry to see it go. Choliamb (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Choliamb: it's not allowed at FAC; see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. There's actually a discussion on the talk page about how template overuse is causing the oldest nominations to not be visible. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I only started using tq because I saw some of the cool kids doing it, and it never occurred to me that for technical reasons FAC might be different. Amazing how many questions are answered if you actually read the instructions! Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Peer review for page on the Bronx fires

Hello, I saw you listed as a volunteer for reviewing pages related to American history. Last year, I created the 1970s South Bronx building fires page, a topic I'm very passionate about. I feel like it needs more added to it to be a proper article, and I was hoping you wouldn't mind reviewing it. Thank you! Bisettes (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like there are a couple of expansion-needed tags present; I'd agree with both of those. Although Great Fire of London is about a single fire, it might be a good model to look at in terms of how to structure the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Maurice Benyovszky edit

I was puzzled as to why you had deleted two paragraphs from the Maurice_Benyovszky article, giving no reason. Being puzzled, I reinstated them a few hours after you had taken them out, only for user Isaidnoway to remove them again, with the explanation that geni.com had been deprecated last year – something I was not aware of. It would have been helpful if you had provided the same reason in the ‘Edit summary’ section, rather than make the deletion with no explanation.

I do find it surprising that neither you nor Isaidnoway thought to simply remove the citation to geni.com, and leave the stated facts as they were? That could so easily have been done with an editorial comment “Citation needed” or similar? If all factual statements without proper citations on Wikipedia were dealt with in such a baby-and-bathwater manner, then there really would not be much left. Worse, the removal of these two paragraphs rendered nonsensical a reference (to “two sets of siblings”) in the subsequent paragraph.

The Wikipedia guidelines on unreliable sources only state that material should be removed if it pertains to living or recently deceased persons; and that “A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims”. It does not say that factual claims should be completely deleted if supported by a deprecated source.

Do you have any views on this? Happy to discuss.

In any event, I have now re-instated the two paragraphs, but this time with different citation sources, which I trust will be acceptable.

MurdoMondane (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I did mention in my edit summary that I was removing non-RS sourcing. It looks like, reviewing the edit history, your readdition was also tagged as using deprecated sourcing.

The new sourcing you've added is better; however, per the documentation for the infobox template, relatives who are not notable should generally be excluded, so I'd suggest re-removing those. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 239, March 2026

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal of content at Germany

Hey, I see that you have to some extent removed my additions to the Germany article. Is there some sort of guideline or goal that is to be met in terms of article size in bites? Because, from my perspective as a German native who is really familiar with the topic, there still are many really important details missing from the history and politics sections that I would like to add in the future. So it would be nice to know the rationale behind the removal of content. Cheers Nyraxis (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nyraxis: the relevant guideline here is WP:DETAIL - the main article is meant to provide a high-level summary of the country as a whole, while subarticles like History of Germany and sub-subarticles like History of Germany (1945–1990) provide increasing levels of detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Philadelphia transit strike of 1944

Philadelphia transit strike of 1944 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Is A VERY Helpful Person

So on my talk page this person Nikkimaria was very helpful, she gave me tips to improve my editing skills She's more then likely helped other editors!

-6-7 Kid Remix 6-7 Kid remix (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Cheers indeed 6-7 Kid remix (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – April 2026

Women in Red | April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369 Online events: New: Countries starting with D, E and F | Women's Works: Written works | Cascading Women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: CEE women Tip of the month: When creating a new article, take a moment to ensure any notable woman is redlinked. Someone might be inspired to create an article for her. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 31 March 2026

• News and notes: Entirety of Wikinews to be shut down
  All languages to be shut down in May; first AI agent blocked; new name for AfD?

• In the media: AI ban, newspapers disrupt archiving; and antisemitism complaints
  Perennial challenges with AI, demographic representation, and attacks from people buying media influence.

• Community view: Videos from WikiConference North America 2025 in NYC
  In attendees' own words.

• Disinformation report: Cleaning up after Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Nygard, and Mohamed Al-Fayed
  Countering the edits of the rich and dangerous.

• WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2025 in NYC review
  About the conference series, and this conference particularly.

• Obituary: Dr. Subas Chandra Rout
  Rest in peace.

• Traffic report: Call in the dogs of war, soldier of fortune
  Though of course the picture needs to be Chuck Norris...

• Gallery: Canadian Rangers participate in Operation Enduring Encyclopedia
  Analogies between how Wikipedia works and how Canada works.

• Comix: n00bsitting
  ...!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Complete the citation?

I don't know what you mean. If I wasn't clear, I meant that I think that the quotation from Lincoln in the parenthetical should be in the footnote citing Burlingame. I wasn't able to do that because the footnote citing Burlingame is abbreviated. I see now that the parenthetical is gone, but you don't seem to have removed it. I am utterly confused. Please do whatever you want with this. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

That part is fine, but you added a citation to a magazine that is incomplete - you need a title for the article being cited, and an author if there is one. I'm not able to fix that as I don't have access to the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I moved fn. 4 of Lincoln family to Abraham Lincoln, because that gave the 1637 date. I changed 1638 in Abraham Lincoln to 1637 based on that footnote. The 1638 that cited Burlingame was only Lincoln's assertion. I don't understand how the citation in fn. 4 of Lincoln family is incomplete, but the dates are now gone from Abraham Lincoln. That's what confuses me. This is so trivial that I wish that I hadn't worked on it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

They're hidden for the moment because the citation you brought in was incomplete. If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't have access to that source to be able to fill in the details? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Daughters of the American Revolution link? If you click on that and then click on Page 142, you can see the whole document. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to that link, and no, I cannot - access to GBooks links is highly variable. If you can see it, can you provide the missing citation details? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Volume 62, No. 1, January 1928. "Our English Background," by Caroline Clark Holland. Pages 135-142 Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I pasted your footnote into Lincoln family, replacing the n.4 that was there. I guess you think that keeping the parenthetical in the text is ok. That's fine with me. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a particular preference on that; if you wanted to make it a note, you'd enclose the whole thing in {{efn}} and change the {{sfn}} to {{harvnb}}. Check out the Ranks note for sample formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let it be. But I'll save your instructions for future use. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Removing Geneaology Content

I noticed you removed some content on Douglas MacArthur's early colonial roots. I want to point out many other Wikipedia profiles have detailed geneaology content for historical figures. They have been up for years without issues. It provides helpful context in their early family roots and background. General George Patton's profile for example contains an entire section dedicated to his ancestry. Respectfully, but why is it such a problem here? Simmons1998 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Detailed genealogical content is generally not appropriate, and is particularly problematic in this case given that the article is already quite lengthy. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Possible demotion of Abraham Lincoln to WP:VA4 status

Dear Nikkimaria,

I am writing regarding an article that you promoted to WP:FA status, Abraham Lincoln. I propose that this article be demoted from WP:VA3 to WP:VAPEOPLE. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion here. This courtesy message is per WP:VA#Other.

Sincerely,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Can you respond to this thread so we can work something out you have removed data on two wright pages can you respond so I know what you want Ashie6213 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ashie6213, you need reliable sourcing for the data you want to include - user-generated sites are not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I will use a photo of his grave from internet archive is that ok it lists his wifes age and death death aswell as his Ashie6213 (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

do you know if anyone would be interested to help find more sources for the Adelaide oval and its curators pages? Ashie6213 (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ashie6213, the Australian Wikipedians' notice board would be a good place to look for interested editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ashie6213 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue III, March 2026 Headlines From the team: GLAM in Equinox Albania report: Wikigap 2026 in Tirana, Albania Aruba report: Celebrating 20 Years of Papiamentu/o Wikipedia Bolivia report: The Family Treasures Project Returns, with New GLAM Partners Brazil report: Wiki Loves Folklore Brazil defines six categories to represent Brazilian culture on Commons Colombia report: Architecture in the public domain in libraries in Nariño/Arquitectura en dominio público en bibliotecas nariñenses Czech Republic report: Main Wikimedian in Residence report for 2025 is here Germany report: Art History Loves Wiki 2026 – digital/local. collection loves wiki India report: Collaboration resumes with the British Library for Bangla Wikisource Italy report: 2026 winners projects New Zealand report: New Zealand Bioeconomy Science Institute Wikimedian in Residence update, a letter published in Nature & Architecture + Women NZ North Macedonia report: Wikimedia MKD's GLAM Highlights: Botany and Beyond Portugal report: March in Portugal Serbia report: March in Wikimedia Serbia Sweden report: Looking for similar images Switzerland report: GLAM Wiki Group, Donna, CoCreation PTT-Archive UK report: CILIP MDG 2026 Conference, Library meetups and the World's Enamels Ukraine report: Spring 2026 news from Ukraine – Wiki Loves Folklore & more #1Lib1Ref USA report: MoMA's International Traveling Exhibitions and Wikidata on the LD4 Arts Affinity Group April Community Call Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Updates on work by BHL-Wiki Working Group members AvoinGLAM report: Oulu Löyly Memory of the World report: Indigenous languages on the Main Page Calendar: April's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 18:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Golem Pop Culture References

I first wanted to thank you for referring me to the Manual of Style when it comes to pop culture, as I understand some of why you removed my edits. However, with being new to editing Wikipedia, I would like some further clarification. In the episode I referenced, Denial, Anger, Acceptance, Tony's actions in regard to the Jewish people in the episode are in line with the theme of hubris and his existence being a mixed blessing that is described in the Golem page. While it does lack a sources that do more than simply verifying the fact, other pop culture references seem to lack those sources too, such as the Simpson's episode. Thank you in advance. Just looking for some clarification as a newbie. Cgriffin1234 (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cgriffin1234, I would agree with you that there are other entries on the page that are problematic. If you look at the top of the section, it has a maintenance tag indicating that it's in need of cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Egypt edits

Hello Nikkimaria, An edit you made in Egypt caused an incomplete sentence which resulted in a reddit post. I would have added back the portion you removed, but I haven't delved further to understand why only one portion of the sentence was sourced. Jay 💬 18:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has addressed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Johnny B Goode Edit Reverted

Why did you remove my edit from Johnny B Goode, despite my citation and it being a well known fact in the Earthbound Community? SuperMadWolf (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi SuperMadWolf, user-generated sites like Fandom are not considered reliable sources - you need reliable secondary sources indicating the significance of this fact to the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I am being hounded or followed

I think a spike 'em is following me across wikipedia and targeting my work here's my evidence

He made these edits on April 9th

11:55, 9 April 2026 diff hist −718 Stan Williams (Australian footballer) →Adelaide Oval's curator: remove trivial mentions. thank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor 11:52, 9 April 2026 diff hist −225 Arthur Lance no need for 1 sentence sections in such a short biog. Remove trivial mention of going on holiday. thank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor 11:08, 9 April 2026 diff hist −164 Albert Wright (Australian cricketer) remove some minor content / links, improve SPAG thank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 11:02, 9 April 2026 diff hist −1,463 Albert Wright (Australian cricketer) →The Royal Visit: remove excessive links, another report which makes no mention of Wright thank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor 10:52, 9 April 2026 diff hist −216 Charlie Checkett →Adelaide Oval's curator: remove irrelevant trivia thank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor 10:34, 9 April 2026 diff hist +458 George Dunn (Australian curator) Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Dunn (Australian curator). thank Tag: Twinkle 10:23, 9 April 2026 diff hist +225 George Dunn (Australian curator) Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. thank Tags: Twinkle Reverted 10:11, 9 April 2026 diff hist −1,417 Albert Wright (Australian cricketer) →Legacy: not sure what these links are meant to be, but certainly not encycopedic thank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 10:05, 9 April 2026 diff hist +144 Curator of Adelaide Oval Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. thank Tag: Twinkle 10:04, 9 April 2026 diff hist −269 Damian Hough →Adelaide Oval's curator: ce, remove more advertorial content thank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor 10:01, 9 April 2026 diff hist −497 Damian Hough →Adelaide Turf Solutions: remove advert thank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor

He keeps calling Adelaide Oval Turf Solutions which worked on the 2024 Men's T20 World Cup advertising

I bought those logs to my mentor and without being @ he showed up and wrote this on User talk:Shellwood

You mentioned someone going on holiday in an article, please explain how that is important? I have to say, your articles are of a poor standard and do not meet notability standards. You have created 5 or 6 articles in a similar manner and all of them either need to be deleted or heavily pruned. I have left multiple comments on your talk page and article talk pages to explain the community standards, but you seem to pay them no notice. Spike 'em

He wrote this on George Dunns deletion You have not shown that this position is notable and that holding it is a guarantee to receive significant coverage as an individual. Other curators in this series are also likely to be deleted if this AfD passes. Spike 'em

I think he is watching my contributions and is targeting my work Ashie6213 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I have posted multiple concerns about this editor's work on their talk page and articles. They asked for a review of some additions to a page at WT:CRIC but doesn't seem to like the outcome. They have drawn attention to their own work, which needs a lot of improvement / deletion. Spike 'em (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I received a notification when you posted both this and the previous message as you included a link to my name when you c+p my comments. Spike 'em (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi both, this really isn't the place to address this. Ashie6213, linking to someone's username creates a notification (as it will with this comment), so being aware of your comments here and at Shellwood's talk page is not indicative of being followed. If you really do still feel like you're being hounded, you do have the option to pursue dispute resolution processes, but personally I would advise against that at this point - I think your mentor's advice was good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria. I didn't know that copy-pasting the messages was automatically notifying him. Ashie6213 (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

New Aberfan image

Hi Nikkimaria, Can I ask your opinion on this edit. We had much the same image (although a wider crop) in the article, but this has been replaced by someone claiming it's free in the US (see File:Rescue at Aberfan disaster.jpg). Am I right in thinking that this shouldn't be on Commons as it's still under copyright in the UK, and I think the photographer is still alive (although I'm not 100% sure on that). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, the uploader claimed simultaneous authorized publication in the US, which (if true) would mean they don't need to care about UK status. It would rely on there being no copyright notice, though, and I don't have access to the sources given to check that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Good Afternoon, I am very appreciative that you made me learn that find a grave is a non reliable source, I will try to do better next time.

Have a great day, Poorguy Poorguy212.2.1 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 240, April 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four works Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Fandom wiki links

Hi there, just wanted to let you know in regards to your edits to Dan Heng that it is generally considered best practice to link to the Fandom wikis for fictional characters, locations, etc. if the wiki has a history of stability and high number of editors, both of which I believe are true for the Honkai Star Rail Wiki. Players and fans of the game can generally rely on it for lore information and other detailed information about the game. Please see the guidance at Template:Wikia#Compliance with policies and guidelines and WP:ELYES. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 14:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gommeh, I don't think ELYES applies - see note d. Also per WP:ELBURDEN disputed links are excluded unless/until there is consensus to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's discuss at ELN. Note D is about copyright, and per Fandom policy I'm pretty sure the stuff hosted on HSR wiki is likely fair use, but let's see what others think. Discussion: WP:ELN#Honkai Star Rail Wiki (Fandom) Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 01:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Lists of horror films of 1999 and 2017

Can you add the 1999 mummy on List of horror films of 1999 and the 2017 mummy on List of horror films of 2017 Michael Fullman (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The 2017 one is already there, but I've added 1999. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I meant to ask you for the 2017 film to also be put on the article's 2017 horror film section Michael Fullman (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

thanks Michael Fullman (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The Mummy (franchise)

Did I edit The Mummy (franchise) article's Stephen Sommers series (1999-present) section right? Michael Fullman (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Your edit went through, but you should include a source for that information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey Nikkimaria, send me your number let chat Owen686 (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 April 2026

• News and notes: Six Serbian Wikipedia editors banned following controversy about political bias
  Plus, new bans for AI-generated content in place, a new drop in active admins, pranks on pranks, May admin election, and other news from the Wikimedia world.

• In the media: Could Wikipedia be involved in Massachusetts' proposed social media ban for minors?
  Another regulate-the-internet attempt casts a wide net.

• Gallery: March equinox
  The progression of seasons in March.

• Traffic report: Time to change my galaxy in case, we outta space!
  What catches the reader's eye? Death and film, per usual, and a loop around the moon per unusual.

• Comix: Of skirts and articles
  When significant coverage is only skin deep.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Layout issues

Hi Nikkimaria, I noticed you reverted my image addition here with the reason "causes layout issues". Could you tell me a bit more about what exactly the issue is? Thanks! JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The History section already has too many images - adding more causes them to start intruding into the following sections. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Central Valley Project

Central Valley Project has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

fail

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Steel_Corporation&diff=1351443165&oldid=1351419276

(1) you removed the source you don't like, but you kept the information extracted from the source you don't like on the page. my head hurts.

(2) you removed information from the source that you allowed to remain in the article in the course of removing the source you don't like. my head hurts even more.

(3) you did it 3 times even though you head been informed that it would be beneficial for your head to hurt instead.

Can't run around wikipedia with a misguided incentive structure and wreck the place. Unreliable sources can and should be replaced by reliable sources. Articles do not just magically appear in their final and perfect form.

Wikipedia is chock full of unreliable sources. In most cases that is regrettable, but that is just the nature of it. You have a duty to work within this structure. And you are expected to improve articles forward and not backward.

(4) even if only the findagrave sources had been used, the information as far as we can tell from the other sources would have been accurate or very near accurate. If you want to act on the advice of people who told you that wikipedia needs more compliance bullshit jobs to get better, at least do it where it makes a difference.

~2026-18771-17 (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi anon, thanks for flagging this - the best option would be to remove the off-topic detail rather than worry about its sourcing. I'll do that now. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – May 2026

Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372 Online events: New: Countries starting with G and H | Women's scientific works | Religion and Spirituality Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Contest: Destubathon of the Americas Tip of the month: Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Luke Newton personal life

@Miss.Sophia.F and @Escape Orbit already discussed this subject. This was a well known fact for years and the actor himself confirmed both relationships as well as the women. Nothing usurps it actually being stated by the source. I have offered to help find a reliable source if necessary (although I thought they handled it) instead of it constantly being added and removed on semantics. Those relationships were never up for debate from Luke Newton himself. Is there another agenda here? Hamnetty38 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My agenda is not to include poorly sourced details. If you have a reliable source for these claims, by all means use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Classical composer infobox dispute regarding Georges Bizet

Hey Nikkimaria, I noticed your edit on Georges Bizet's article. I noticed that the cited infobox controversy is almost 14 years old. I am wondering why this is the case. Why don't we add one? If infoboxes are for quick-glance TLDR general information, why omit it on an encyclopedia? Why is this exclusive to Classical composers? Why carry it for 14 years? Why let Beethoven have an infobox but not Bizet, especially since they are of the same era of the genre? Kurmelige Kuchen (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#RfC: amending project guidelines on infoboxes Moxy🍁 22:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Nikkimaria! I hope I am not bothering you and I hope all is well. Do you remember in January 2026 when you were among the reviewers for the Meg White FAC discussion? I've done an extensive scan of the sources and claims since and wanted to know if you would be free to take a quick skim and see if I could possibly promote it again? Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 12:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There are still some references I'd be concerned about - I did read your response at the FAC, but for example "didn't have as much adware/popups" is not really enough to be a high-quality source. Suggest having a look at this resource. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you; I spent a good amount of time combing through the article's current references and the only one that had me maybe slightly worried was ComingSoon.net, but that stems from an interview the White Stripes did exclusively with that website. Otherwise, are there any specific references as of current that seem wack which I haven't caught? Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 18:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Polyester, inSync and Drumeo. Also spotted some further formatting inconsistencies - for example footnotes 128 and 129 are to the same site but are formatted differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I was able to actually remove those three, they don't make or break the article. I fixed that formatting inconsistency, I don't know how I didn't catch that considering I tried reading these references until my eyes bled LOL Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 03:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but they're still inconsistent ;-) - you've got "Rock and Roll" vs "Rock & Roll", and one repeats the publisher in the title unnecessarily. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I knew that! I was just testing you, definitely.

I am going to cry. Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 04:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Ladytron: Daniel Hunt

Hello. Why did you revert my perfectly reasonable edits please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladytron I don't understand why you would have done this, especially as no explanation was provided. Thanks Mikeylewis01 (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mikeylewis01, external links shouldn't appear within article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

1680 Lexington tornado

I thought the references to Stone and Bridge's provided needed further evidence that they lived in Lexington instead of Cambridge. The previous source has a vague reference to "documents" that I couldn't find, so I thought it was necessary to provide more verifiable sources. 1680 Lexington, Massachusetts tornado

NomzEditingWikis (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Per our Original Research policy, we really can't use primary sources to draw conclusions like this. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

fair enough NomzEditingWikis (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue IV, April 2026 Headlines From the team: How the GLAM Community Can Shine in the 2026–27 Annual Plan Albania report: International Roma Day 2026 in Tirana, Albania Argentina report: WikiConf Argentina and GLAM projects Asia report: Documenting and citing oral knowledge in audio and video Australia report: WikiCon Australia, ICIP, Orphan works and Trans-Tasman partnerships Brazil report: Wikimedia Brasil publishes book on the power and challenges of free knowledge Colombia report: We celebrate Public Domain Day with an expert panel / Celebramos el día del dominio público con un Panel de expertas Italy report: Ongoing and New GLAM-Wiki Projects New Zealand report: Women in Wartime event at Auckland Museum & an update for WiR NZBSI Nigeria report: Wikimedia Commons Upload Campaign North Macedonia report: Wikimedia MKD in Action: Digitization, Wikisource and Educational Workshops Poland report: GLAM-Wiki Developments: Residencies, Partnerships and Audiovisual Heritage Serbia report: April in Wikimedia Serbia Switzerland report: Le Donne di Villa Massimo UK report: A tenth-century Quran and Islamic Art in Urdu USA report: Wiki MIT launches and US meetups Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Update on the BHL Annual Meeting 27 April - 1 May & BHL Day Memory of the World report: Eight new articles on MoW inscriptions Calendar: May's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 13:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Button Gwinnett

May I ask why was my edit of the popular culture section of Button Gwinnett removed? The addition was relevant and appropriately sourced and formatted. Ahorseisahorseofcourse (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ahorseisahorseofcourse, a citation to an open wiki is not an appropriate source - this would need reliable secondary sourcing indicating its significance to the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Educational help

Hello Nikkimaria. I hope you're doing well. For my education, if you feel inclined, please let me know how WP:LINKVIO applies for the WP:EL Find a Grave in your edit of Stephanie Niznik done here - i.e., (1) what parts of the entry violated copyright, and (2) how can you tell they violated? Thanking you in advance for your help, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Quaerens-veritatem, the text is copied from the subject's obit. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Hi, I was wondering why exactly you removed the infobox 'allegiance' flags and rank insignia from Ivan Bagramyan? As far as I know adding flags is standard protocol for people who served in multiple nations, as is adding insignia to Marshals of the Soviet Union, both for visualization and navigation purposes. I won't revert it, but enlighten me please because IMO it improves the quality and readability of these biographies. JoeyDirigo (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Flags shouldn't generally be used in infoboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Barbados

Why else would you claim that familial and communal sources from Dutch Sephardic jews in Barbados, or from Barbados, are not reliable? Unless you legitimately support white supremacy, which is the basis for why until now no one from this community has claimed their jewishness or controlled these websites.

I encourage you to abstain from touching our page or history period. Don Gavi dos Reis II (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Don Gavi dos Reis II, please refrain from slurs. Please also have a read of WP:RSPINSTAGRAM.–Q8682 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not a slur, it is a fact. The narrative that you tried to enable is built on white supremacy in Barbados starting from the prohibition of those of african ancestry from converting to Judaism, or being accepted as Jews, which was exemplified in 1821 when coloured Jews were refused emancipation because of the plantocracy's demands.

You will be held accountable.

You will be asked to understand you have no subject matter expertise in Barbados.

You will understand that minority communities are entitled to write their own history. The sources cited are produced by the community itself, you had literally no problem with content that was literally wrong, posted by Israeli aligned institutions and individuals, literally saying encouraging cultural genocide and erasure.

You do not get to hide behind respectability.

You will not be allowed to continue to participate in erasure unquestioned. Don Gavi dos Reis II (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

(Administrator's note: Don Gavi dos Reis II has been warned about personal attacks and advised to review WP:COI, since they hold themselves out as a member of the subject community. —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you warn yourself about White supremacy or perhaps decide to get informed instead of empowering the impression of an ethnic group denied its heritage by slavery and colonialism, don't you realise you will not win this debate when Barbadian public starts to wake up? Why is it none of you are willing to acknowledge the literal white supremicist aspect of how Jewish History in Barbados is constructed? But let me guess, you never read the sources I provided, your biases just makes you privilage whatever narrative White Academia and Media puts out from anywhere, and the voices that prove the inherent racism behind these sources are ignored.

Community member's note:

https://www.aup-online.com/content/journals/10.5117/SR2023.2.005.ROIT

Once we were slaves by Laura Leibman literally documents exactly what I'm referring to, so I want to see how wikipedia admins are going to find a way to villainise me and bring back white supremicist recounts of Barbadian Dutch History. If there was a reasonable appears process, I would appeal that warning, but since I know you're probably a bunch of white people in America, I doubt there's any justice on here for "blacks". Don Gavi dos Reis II (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Don Gavi dos Reis II Perversely, your conduct is so extreme that I cannot look at the merits of your edits. Instead, because I'm acting as an administrator and not an editor in this matter, I need to stay neutral and look only at your conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You find the refusal of respectability politics so profound in its declamation of the nature of your instrument of authority, an American education in North Carolina, that you cannot help but propagate the very system being critiqued in your address, the claim to neutrality whilst having been born in an environment formed upon the status quo, inevitably makes one such Adminstrator, an American from North Carolina, more apt to tell "Black Minority" in a Foreign Country, what is and is not about their reality. Don Gavi dos Reis II (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Might I suggest you stop digging? Nikkimaria or C.Fred, if you find this unhelpful, please delete. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Might I suggest you don't act like you have any right to speak on my people or our history? Don Gavi dos Reis II (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• ANI courtesy alert. Be advised that comments in this thread have been mentioned inthe administrators' noticeboard for incidents in WP:ANI#User:Don Gavi dos Reis II—COI and battleground mentality. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Well that escalated quickly.

While I understand it might be frustrating for there to be limited sources available which meet our guideline on reliable sources, unfortunately user-generated sources are not generally considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

DOB–DOD removal query (May 2026)

Hi, I can see why you removed geni.com references from Alexander Forbes Irvine, and I assume now thepeerage.com is not reliable source; hadn't used them but had not checked WP:RSP. My question, to improve my understanding as a low-count editor, is the removal of DOB–DOD details and NOK details. Is there an MOS or guidelines, that did not have a reliable source, or I need to adopt a less inclusive style? Thanks,–Q8682 (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Q8682, all of the above - there are some style guidelines at play like MOS:BIRTHDATE and MOS:SURVIVEDBY, and also the sourcing issues, and also the template documentation, and more broadly WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 241, May 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D look at four recent works Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2026

• News and notes: Offline: Osama Khalid still in prison
  He has been imprisoned since 2020 for his Wikipedia edits. A fresh campaign is calling for his release.

• In the media: Indonesian editors, you shall return!
  And lawspam, may you be away.

• Disinformation report: Who is a typical paid editor? Who are their typical clients?
  Remember the golden rule!

• Recent research: WikiLambda the Ultimate
  Does Abstract Wikipedia help fight "One ring to rule them all" solutions for knowledge access - or does it implement one itself?

• Traffic report: This is where I'll be, so heavenly, so come and dance with me Michael!
  A real off the wall thriller, invincible, can't beat it, or is it dangerous and just bad?

• Forum: WikiAnnotate: help us build a dataset of article quality evaluations
  A research project to build better automated article assessment tools.

• In focus: Demystifying the 2026-27 Annual Plan
  A guide to WMF's Tech Annual Plan for the next year.

• Opinion: Wikipedia isn't a battleground. So why does it feel like one?
  Do we really have to fight?

• Serendipity: Wikinews: Into the Wikiverse
  The early suggestions for what the wiki could have been.

• Special report: Wikimedia Foundation closes Wikinews after 21 years
  Displaces 700 active editors among 31 language editions.

• Community view: Wikipedia's traffic drop: more on languages and freshness
  Which topics are dropping, and is the pattern the same everywhere?

• Gallery: Earth Day and Mother's Day
  Earth Day was on 22 April, and Mother's Day was on 10 May (in the US and many other countries).

• Comix: Brother, can you spare a page?
  What would you say?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

You removed something from In Popular Culture at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station because its source (civilization fandom) isn't reliable for information. Is a fandom okay for proof that something exists in a game? Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I added it back, but you can feel free to revert it if it isn't okay for this. I don't think I can find a place that isn't user generated that discusses that in detail. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Putting this here for notifications Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

No, Fandom is considered generally unreliable - see WP:FANDOM. Additionally this type of content needs sourcing that demonstrates not only that it exists, but that it is significant to the subject, per MOS:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! The list really helped- I seemed to be under the impression that IGN was a fandom; maybe I can find something there.

Thanks! Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I ask you how you came across Finnish Democratic Republic? TylerBurden (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Going through poorly done |government type= in {{infobox country}}/{{infobox former country}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Merryman citation

Hi. You know more about the technical aspects of Wikipedia than I do, so I hope that you won't mind my asking you two questions about the edit you made to the footnote I added to Abraham Lincoln. What is the benefit of using the template you used, and why did you put the title of the article cited in lower case, even though, in the journal, it is in upper case? Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Maurice Magnus, since other journal citations in the article use that template, using that template for this citation maintains a consistent citation style. Similarly with capitalization convention. See WP:CITEVARYES, second-last and last points. (FWIW, this RfC found that following what the source does doesn't count as a consistent style). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Editors can make citation styles consistent even if they use a template for some citations and not for others, right? It doesn't matter whether they are consistent when you look at them under "Edit source," because readers do not see them there. If one italicizes a sentence, should one italicize the period at the end of it? That's a joke. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Using or not using templates is considered a citation style difference under CITEVAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

CITEVAR is anal. ☺ Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2026

Women in Red | June 2026, Vol 12, Issue 6, Nos 358, 359, 373, 374, 375 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Alphabet run: Countries starting with I, J, K and L Article improvement campaign: Orphaned women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: Eiffel women Tip of the month: Consider contributing to two of our monthly events at once, and improve coverage of LGBTQ+ women by de-orphaning their articles. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Symmachus Ben Joseph

Hi Nikki. Why did you remove my reference to the quote about Symmachus? Thank you. Akiva100 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The reference provided was not reliable - see WP:FANDOM. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Request for mentorship

Hello, I'm posting here to ask if you would be willing to mentor me as I put Portugal for FA consideration. The instructions strongly suggests a mentor for first time nominators (which I am), and Z1720 recommended I seek your help. Portugal is already under a peer review. I have successfully one GA and one FP to my credit so hopefully I would be a good mentee. Thanks for any consideration. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi GumballNine1Nine, that's certainly an ambitious pick for a first FA! I can take a look - before I do that, could you speak to how you approached identifying which sources to use? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. The sources were gathered through a combination of searches in the Wikipedia Library collections, Google search (including google scholar), and for more obscure topics (like pre-roman history), by using AI to search for potentially relevant sources for further verification. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hm. How did you decide which obscure topics warranted inclusion in the main article, and which should be in subarticles? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The more obscure topics are all in the pre-independence part of the history section, which I have barely touched, since it typically receives substantial attention from other editors and also because of the cleanup I requested several months ago at Wikipedia:Cleanup which removed non-essential info GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

by obscure, I mean subjects for which I found it difficult to locate online articles or academic books. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly: you essentially sought to source what was already there, rather than deciding from sources what should be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but only in the history section, I've essentially written the rest of the article using partly the info that was already there. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'd suggest taking a look at history to make sure you're confident about scope and coverage relative to sources on the topic. Often the problem you run into with major topics like countries is that there are just too many sources to include all of them, but the WIAFA requirement is for a "thorough and representative survey". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I've done that already. I've added many of the references there, I simply left the content in that section as is, unlike the other ones. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

For instance, if you go back in that article's history (like late March) you'll see plenty of sources from "RTP Ensina" which is a Portuguese broadcaster, I replaced every instance of those with an article or academic books GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	for all the copyediting you do, and especially all the copyediting you do of my writing :) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Food mother fuckin' Glorious Food

Nikkimaria, what is your problem with Food Glorious Food? Are you ok? Let the "in popular media" section stay, unless you intend for all "in popular media" sections in song Wikipedia articles to be deleted ~2026-31732-68 (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I'm good, and no, it shouldn't stay without sourcing indicating its significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you be more specific in your edit summaries if you can?

I really don't like it when you keep things vague when you revert my edit, like "previous was sufficient" or "concise". I would like to suggest instead that you say all of your reasons like what you did with the Hawaiian Kingdom, making it something more like:

What is the exact quotation that you have providing this? and *insert other reasons as well*

That way I don't have to get annoyed that my edits was removed with lack of reason, since the aforementioned "lack of reasons" part is gone after you start being more specific and honest. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you - "previous was sufficient" is a reason, and an honest one. More extended discussion, when necessary, would be better positioned on the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

But I would like for it to be prefered straight up in your summary, if I wanted a discussion then I would've wanted to have one. Being indirect in your messaging would be unpreferable if I had to say so. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't mean to be rude, just to let you know. I wanted to give you some constructive criticism on what you can do instead. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

I was quite interested in reading your dialogue regarding Stanley Kubrick’s article, though it appears to have been put on hold for now. I have no intention of becoming involved, but it was interesting to read nonetheless. I see the other user has decided to add certain things back, citing “per talk.” I’m not quite sure how that works. Have you conceded the point on that article? ~2026-32224-92 (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Addressed - although I'm interested in your interest. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 74

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 74, March–April 2026

• New partnership: Swissdox
• User survey results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 10:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Nikkimaria and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Removing content

Hello, I noticed that your contributions mostly consist of deleting unreliable sources. That's a good thing to do, but I think there are cases when it's preferable to add a "better source needed"/"citation needed" tag (or even better: finding a reliable source for the claim yourself), instead of removing sourced content and leaving it at that. I'm thinking of your edit to the Béla Hamvas page where the location of his burial was deleted. I happened to see it in this case and will put the info up again with a better source, but I imagine there have been other such cases. LongueDurée (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

There are certainly cases where I leave up content despite it being unsourced, but I don't think that's one where that would be warranted. No objection to you sourcing it though. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all you have done over many many years to help content editors. It has not gone unnoticed! Softlavender (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Bad noms

Thanks for bringing this to coord attention. They were never transcluded to WP:FAC so I didn't see them before now—how'd you find them? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: from this error report; ordinarily I'd transclude them but I figured both should just be closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Thanks. I'll keep an eye on that in the future as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue V, May 2026 Headlines From the team: May Global GLAM Call Recording and June Call Announcement Australia report: Celebrating #1Lib1Ref Australasia Brazil report: GLAM Connection: Fashion, History, and Biodiversity in May France report: New Wikimedian in Residence Italy report: Connecting the Arctic and Sicily through Wikimedia Projects Mexico report: How the cultural, governmental, educational, and museum sectors contributed in unison to Wikimedia projects Netherlands report: Setting up your own platform (part 1): from wish to the creation of a wiki New Zealand report: ESEAP Conference 2026 and the NZBSI WiR update North Macedonia report: Wikimedia MKD Shares GLAM Experience at International Conferences Poland report: Partnerships, Participation, and Open Knowledge Serbia report: May in Wikimedia Serbia Spain report: El Prado en femenino III Switzerland report: Museum for Communication, Panel IMD, Wikipedia Day UK report: Early Qurans on the front page of Wikipedia Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Updates on work by BHLWiki Working Group members Special story: New tools for multilingual audio, video and metadata Memory of the World report: New articles in Urdu Calendar: June's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 21:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Caution when converting infoboxes on historical governments

I noticed that you recently replaced the infobox on Nationalist government to be an Template:Infobox executive government. If you recall, I did previously make a discussion on the Beiyang government page after you did the same replacement. Since making that discussion, I have had a change of heart and actually prefer a government infobox over a former country infobox on these pages, so I am not opposed to the change. Rather, I am worried that you are performing these changes without much research into the subject, albeit in WP:GF.

For one, you put the National Assembly (Republic of China) as the legislature of the Nationalist government, which is incorrect, since the National Assembly was only formed as part of the later constituional government. Then for the executive, you linked to Paramount leader, which is only about leaders of the People's Republic of China.

For now, I have reverted this change. I have recently found some good WP:RS on this topic and may spend some time trying to piece together a proper government infobox later.

Edit: After reverting, it seems that these errors were already in the previous infobox. I have gotten rid of them for now. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep - I didn't add anything that wasn't there previously. Look forward to seeing what you put together. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a very difficult topic to fully understand, since everything operated de facto, especially around Chiang Kai-shek, as he never really had an official title consistently.

• Of the military, he held the titles of Chairman (1926-1927; 1928-1928) and later Head (1932-1946) of the Military Affairs Commission
• Of the party, he held held the titles of Chairman of the Central Executive Committee (1926-1927; 1936-1938) and later Director-General (1938-1975) of the Kuomintang.
• Of the state, he held the title of Chairman (1928-1931; 1943-1948) of the Nationalist government.

Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Might be simpler to omit the title. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I just added the infobox. It still doesn't fully cover everything but I hope it'll do for now. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Image reviews needed

Nikki, I have three article at A-Class:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landing at Scarlet Beach
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Savannah River Plant
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Savannah River Site

All that is holding up their promotion is a need for image reviews. If you could provide one or more image reviews, it would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Will take a look in the next day or two if no one gets to it before then. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Canvassing concerns

I think there has been canvassing with regards to ongoing infobox discussions regarding Ravel and Rimsky-Korsakov. A user has posted notices for both, unprompted, to the WikiProject pages for Classical Music and Opera, in replies to months-old threads. I think it is too odd a coincidence how these pages are now getting replies on their respective talk pages when they had been dormant for nearly a month. Barbarbarty (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You think informing a project of related discussions is canvassing? It would have been good if the RfC had been announced on all projects the topic belongs to when it began. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It is concerning, yes. Especially in replies to months-old threads. “It would have been good” does not mean, in my experience, that one should take it upon themselves to advertise RfCs given that there are acceptable methods to do that already. Barbarbarty (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Barbarbarty, suggest raising that with Guerillero or one of the other admins from the previous discussion; there's little I can do with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 242, June 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about licensing for Alice Tangerini image

Hello. I hope that you are doing well and that you are having a wonderful week so far. Apologies in advance for leaving this random message and question. I would like to nominate Alice Tangerini for a second FAC sometime in the near future, but I wanted to clear up your point from the first FAC about File:Nothovernonia purpurea drawing.jpg. Thank you for letting me know that this image is using two different CC licenses. I had completely overlooked that for whatever reason.

Apologies again, but I do not have any real experience with this type of image of licensing. I would think that since File:Larsenianthus wardianus drawing.jpg uses Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, the same would be true for this image as well, but I admittedly could be wrong. I was wondering if you had any advice on how to best handle this? I could always reach out to the image uploader if necessary. Thank you in advance, and I hope that you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the best approach, since a source was provided, would be to look at the source directly - it appears to use BY 3.0. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for your advice. I will keep this in mind for the future. The source does use 3.0 so I will remove the 4.0 license from this image. Thank you again for your help with this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 June 2026

• From the editors: Ways for beginners to support The Signpost community journalism
  Pointing the way to your contribution to The Signpost!

• News and notes: Community Tech development team disbanded
  And English Wikipedia reaches a milestone in number of highly active editors.

• Disinformation report: PR for the people?
  Or, "PR using PR for PR"?

• Recent research: Proposed tagging system for AI involvement; successful and unsuccessful AI tools for contributors
  And other new research publications.

• In the media: Who won a 14th century battle and who won the 2026 Iran war?
  Media take issue with portrayals of recent and medieval history on Wikipedia. Plus a team supporting Wikipedians gets dissolved, and a few other things.

• Community view: Putting the Wish into the Wishlist
  A history of the Wikimedia community's request process to Foundation developers.

• In focus: A global standard for Neutral Point of View
  Wikipedians are commenting on a proposed global standard for neutral point of view.

• On the bright side: Flowers, blue helmets, reefs, pride, and Juneteenth
  Nice things around the world.

• Op-ed: Breathe, Don’t Panic, there is a different story about Wikimedia + AI futures
  We can build a strategy about AI that doesn't just center on readers; there are still plenty of humans to write the encyclopedia and work on diverse global knowledge.

• Opinion: Wikimedia Foundation staff develop union and Wikimedia user community reacts
  Why should editors support the Wiki Workers United union drive? Lessons the Wikimedia movement can learn from other labor struggles.

• Technology report: Community Tech team is disbanded, controversy erupts
  WMF disbands Community Tech, sparking community backlash over the future of the Wishlist and concerns about unionization.

• Traffic report: 'Cause this is thriller, thriller night
  Horror movies and Michael Jackson dominate theaters in the lead-up to the World Cup.

• WikiConference report: Report of Volunteer Supporters Network Annual Meeting 2026
  Outreach staff of Wikimedia chapters host a global discussion.

• Comix: Take your turn
  In a maze of twisty little edits, all alike.

• Humour: Group of banned T-shirt makers comes out of hiding to sell new Wikipedia-themed merchandise
  It ain't WikiProject United Nations, but you will find some PUNs.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Japan

I apologize for the Richard Rossi revert. It was caused by my clicking the "Vandalism" button (shown by a plugin?) in mistake.

As I said in Talk:Japan, I am quite new here and I would appreciate if you could give me some direction:

In which cases is a primary source acceptable?

If a secondary source is needed, would http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/12/japan-earthquake-live-blog-death-toll-rises-amid-widespread-destruction/ (used in 2011) suffice? If not, could you provide me an example? Draft5455 (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That link returns an error for me so I can't speak to its suitability.

The relevant policy is WP:PSTS - secondary sources are preferred, and required for interpretation. Additionally, because Japan is a featured article, it should use high-quality sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110316132608/http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/12/japan-earthquake-live-blog-death-toll-rises-amid-widespread-destruction/

What methods do Wikipedians (or you personally) use to find high-quality sources or to judge a source? Can it be based on WP:RSP since it "summarizes prior consensus"? It also says that "context matters," but I don't think the death toll is particularly disputed in this case.

p.s. I tried to revert my revert as soon as it happened, only to find out it was already done. Were you using any tools, or are you just that quick? Draft5455 (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As to your comment on Talk:Japan, Template:2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami casualties dead does, in fact, use the source in question. "Was not adopted by this template" is in reference to another source. Draft5455 (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I had copied the wrong citation, but the template still does use a primary source (https://web.archive.org/web/20220827123449/https://www.fdma.go.jp/disaster/higashinihon/items/162.pdf). Draft5455 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That link also isn't working for me so can't speak to that. The CNN archive is working, but I'm not seeing the number you added in that source?

WP:HQRS outlines some of the questions to consider in evaluating a source.

Replying here as I don't see a reply button on your last reply.

Thank you for your reply. After reading what you have linked, my opinion is that using https://www.fdma.go.jp/disaster/higashinihon/items/162.pdf for the death toll alongside the secondary source would be appropriate. Another featured article, 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake, cites the USGS (which I assume is primary) for its death toll. It's odd that the link isn't working for you. Try the original if the archive doesn't work. It would be great if you could somehow access it so that you can provide your input. If the source didn't meet the criteria, would that mean 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami would have to use a different one if it were to be featured?

Lastly, for my learning, I would appreciate it if you could answer all of my previous questions, or at least tell me which ones you cannot answer. Draft5455 (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding to your earlier questions: RSP summarizes general reliability consensus for commonly discussed sources, but does not necessary indicate high-quality sources; and I did not use any tool to revert you. Let me know if there are others I've missed.

Could you elaborate on what secondary source you would propose using, and why you think it needs to be supplemented with a primary source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you still having trouble accessing the link?

I wanted to use the source as I thought the death toll was relevant and should be included in some way. Draft5455 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I can access the unarchived link, but I'm not following your argument here. Has the death toll not been covered by any secondary sources on the topic? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The number 19,759 used in 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is from the source. https://ghostarchive.org/archive/jgUje and the secondary sources I checked had smaller numbers. I thought it would be confusing if different articles used different numbers. Draft5455 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned about why different sources have different numbers - that would suggest it wouldn't make sense to just pick one and run with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's because the sources were using information that was available back then. The death toll was updated many times before it became what it is. Draft5455 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but these events were over a decade ago now; what do the more recent sources say? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

An article from 2021 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/09/after-the-wave-a-decade-of-grieving-for-a-daughter-lost-to-the-japanese-tsunami) says "more than 18,000." Not sure if it's the best one. Draft5455 (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have stopped replying.

In terms of secondary sources, there's also https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3336422/japan-risks-199000-deaths-overdue-megaquake-amid-fresh-tremor-swarm which says "nearly 20,000."

As I said earlier, after reading what you have linked, I think using the primary source is fine in this case. I want to learn why you think avoiding it is better. Draft5455 (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Secondary sources are the default, and I'm not seeing a reason to prefer a primary source when secondary sourcing is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you think about the secondary sources?

To repeat myself again as I'm curious, would 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami have to change its sources if it were to become featured? Draft5455 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that article's sourcing would need to be improved before it could reach FA status.

The SCMP source would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That Rossi editor

"Datacompiler"? I think they have an undeclared conflict of interest re: the article's subject. Am fairly certain they *are* the article subject. - Shearonink (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Dunno. You could take it to COIN if you think you can make that case. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I know I *could*, but I guess to keep things WP-kosher, I'll discuss it with them first, see if they're willing to declare their obvious (at least it is to me) conflict of interest. I mean, looking at their editing it is at least 95% connected with any subject that has anything specifically to do with Rossi & his various endeavors. Thank for the response, Shearonink (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Fingers crossed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Minor edit needed on Islam

Hello Nikkimaria,

A minor edit is needed on Islam. In the Shia section, there is a three-image gallery. The caption under the Imam Ali Shrine states that it is the third holiest site in Shia Islam after Mecca and Medina. This should be revised, as Jerusalem is regarded as the third holiest city in Islam, that includes both Sunnis and Shias. Please change the caption to:

"Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf, the fourth holiest place for Shia Muslims after Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem."

Thanks! ~2026-33312-60 (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've implemented an alternative. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Firebird (ballet) edits

I made an edit clarifying that the widely accepted myth that Lyadov failed to meet the deadline for the score in the original version is wrong. But this entire edit was "condensed" to imply that Diaghilev only "considered" Lyadov for the score. This is manifestly untrue! Lyadov wasn't considered, he was actively courted by Diaghilev, who ended up picking Stravinsky, in a highly unethical act. I'm confused why this loss of important detail is considered "condensing". Thanks. EB54EB (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe the level of detail you proposed is undue, but you're certainly welcome to raise the issue on the talk page to see what others may think. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand, but your condensed version is factually wrong. Perhaps it would be easier to simply say that after engaging both Lyadov and Stravinsky, Diaghilev ended up giving the official commission to the latter. EB54EB (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I have reworded it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the current edit is a little confusing and/or misleading. It reads - "Diaghilev initially sought Anatoly Lyadov to compose the ballet; after considering Alexander Glazunov and Nikolay Sokolov, Diaghilev asked Stravinsky to compose the score upon encouragement from Tcherepnin and Boris Asafyev."

A better and factually correct sequence would be - after initially considering Tcherepnin, Glazunov and Sokolov, Diaghilev proposed the ballet to Lyadov and Stravinsky (who then ended up getting the official commission). EB54EB (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Removed "initially"; the text already mentions Tcherepnin before what you've quoted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Newspapers.com renewal

Hello. I notice you approved my application to renew my subscription. I was wondering how long until it takes effect. It has been sent to the "partner", yet I still cannot access the full website. Akaza ^[talk] 06:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been sorted. Akaza ^[talk] 15:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Source check/review(s)

Hi Nikkimaria! Hope all is well <3 I was wondering if you had the time to check the sources either again on Meg White or Maps (Yeah Yeah Yeahs song), as these are both articles I want to submit for FAC. For Meg, I'm 99% positive it's ready but I want to quadruple-check before submitting it just because it failed once. For Maps, I'm not as sure with the sources. You can look at either, both, or none and completely ignore this if you're busy LOL but thank you in advance! Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 13:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

As always, I'd suggest making sure that similar sources are formatted similar. For example, in "Maps", you've got a reference to AllMusic and one to AllMusic; a bunch of {{cite book}}s but then one book untemplated; robertchristgau.com but then whitestripes.net; etc. I'd also suggest being sure that you could give a good rationale why each and every reference should be considered a high-quality reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Millicent Rogers

Hello. Please do not resize the headshot of Rogers, and please leave the Find a Grave obituary in place (unless you can find another obituary for Balcom). The facts in that obituary are correct, they are corroborated by his wife's obituary, and it is perfectly usable as a reference. Thank you.LJA123 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see MOS:IMGSIZE and WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Lots of data released

https://agriculture.canada.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2026-06/maple-report_2025_rapport-erable_v1-eng.pdf

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/sector/horticulture/reports/statistical-overview-canadian-maple-industry-2025 Moxy🍁 01:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Moylan

Hi, I'm wondering why you removed Thomas Moylan and Margaret Reilly, the parents of Myles Moylan. BuffyO'B (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This detail needs reliable sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

His parents were always cited as Thomas Moylan and Margaret Reilly/Riley. There never was any controversy about who they were. They are recorded in three published articles.

1. Journal of the Old Tuam Society (Volume 18): 42–55. November 2021

2. "Galway Man's Integral Role in Custer's Last Stand". The Connacht Tribune. June 26, 2026. pp. 20–21.

3. "150th Anniversary of Battle of Little Bighorn", Ireland's Own. This link gives the opening of that piece where Thomas Moylan and Margaret Reilly are clearly recorded as his parents. https://www.irelandsown.ie/150th-anniversary-of-the-battle-of-little-bighorn/

I hope this is enough to re-instate them as his parents.BuffyO'B (talk) BuffyO'B (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Revert of the new subsection Truth in Verifiability

Hi. Regarding this revert by you, I appreciate the consideration and opinion that this belongs in an essay, despite my efforts not to opine but just be disambiguating^*. The content is now under Wikipedia:Wikipedia Verifiability is narrower than the English term Verifiability. However I do feel that WP:V is missing at least a minimal pointer for the uninitiated Wikipedia reader/future editor, that what is typically understood as "verifiability for truth" is not what WP:V is about, and a pointer to where any resources about the former are. The way WP:Verifiability stands, it makes it seem like it has covered all that can be done to eliminate falsehoods, while the many essays I found on the subject show that inaccuracy lurks beyond the realm of citations, and other active efforts are needed to reduce it.
What do you think? Is there any short sentence bringing the distinction into awareness that would fit into WP:V and be accepted? I am considering asking a similar question to the wider community, either in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

^*) I noticed that 'truth' was once referred to on WP:V and got removed after a lengthy debate. That reference expressed an imperative, which I try to avoid. I try to just impartially disambiguate.
Zlamma (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I think your content is making a broader point - that terms of art on Wikipedia like verifiability and reliability have specific meanings here that are different from their general meaning. That same point has been made regarding other terms in other policies, in particular notability (example). Personally I think the best solution would be a template that could be added to the top of not only V but also RS, N, etc, saying in effect "this word doesn't mean what you might think". Maybe a village pump discussion could get there? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Nikkimaria for validating the general point, and giving the examples (I incorporated them into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Verifiability is narrower than the English term Verifiability).

If I find time, I'll try to publish a query, likely to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Re the template idea, my quick thoughts: it does sound helpful, provided that it can be placed prominently on top (uninitiated are the most important readers of the policies and most likely unaware of the ambiguity), yet terse (a distinct icon could help) and allow linking to a page that focuses solely on the interpretation ambiguity (like I'm trying to do in the essay). Zlamma (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It could also just be some standard verbiage that gets added to the nutshell, which is already fairly prominent. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

Women in Red | July 2026, Vol 12, Issue 7, Nos 358, 359, 376, 377 Events: New: Crime & law | Alphabet run: Countries starting with M Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: Women in Red celebrates its 11 Year Anniversary on July 18! Eiffel women Developing Countries WikiContest Tip of the month: Working on a group of linked articles? Have you thought about creating a navigation box for the footer of those pages? Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--MSGJ (talk 22:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A query re. PD

I am currently reviewing Alles nur nach Gottes Willen, BWV 72 at GA. Is the image File:Commontime.svg fine from a licensing perspective? Thanks. MSincccc (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep - it's not original enough to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit removals.

Please do not remove prominent cases relevant to the topic discussed within the article. Your intentional removals look as if you are trying to create a bias on pregnancy-associated femicide. For more details, have a look at WP:NPOV as this addresses POV editing. You cannot remove an edit just because you simply disagree. Next time, if it isn't affirmative, negotiate on the talk page. Thank you. Lubdhak 972729282 (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

As already noted on the talk page, there is no indication that these cases are notable examples of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Your expertise

Hi Nikki, I hope you're okay really. I have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ewuare/archive1 that could make good use of your image reviewing expertise. Looking forward, thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 12 reviews between April and June 2026 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Please see talk page Richard Strauss

Hi, I c you are working on the lede, to get a better handle on this I have tagged the page, and made objections known on the talk page to discuss improvements. Thanks. I could edit it, but I rather allow you to do so since you have a history of editing it. Inayity (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue VI, June 2026 Headlines From the team: Tools, tech, and Wikimania Argentina report: New digitization partner Bangladesh report: International Museum Day Edit-a-thon and Workshop held in Dinajpur, Bangladesh Belgium report: Postal Mission on Wikimedia Brazil report: Empowering Institutions through Wikisource Education and GLAM Capacity Building Czech Republic report: Bridging the gap between labs and Wikipedia: continuing cooperation with FZU Egypt report: From Museum Celebrations to Archival Documentation Finland report: Northern Wikimedist meetup in Oulu France report: #1lib1ref Recap and International Archives Week Italy report: Heritage and Community Action Mexico report: Open GLAM in Puebla Netherlands report: Interview with Olaf Janssen, Wikimedia coordinator of the KB, National library of the Netherlands New Zealand report: BAU at Auckland Museum, Otago Uni Library Life and the NZBSI WiR is complete North Macedonia report: Collaboration with the Botanical garden at the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics in Skopje Poland report: Poland Report: New Partnerships, Conferences, and Wikimedians in Residence Serbia report: Opening the Doors of Serbian Heritage: Wikimedia Serbia’s Recent GLAM and Wikidata Successes Spain report: GLAM Labs Futures 2026 Sweden report: Finnish-Swedish cooperation Switzerland report: Exhibition, International Archives Week Panel UK report: Ninth Good Article from Khalili partnership USA report: Philadelphia WikiSalon Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Updates on work by BHLWiki Working Group members AvoinGLAM report: Is the sauna still hot? Memory of the World report: New articles Calendar: July's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

LEE PATTON PAGE

Dear Nikkimaria ~

I'm respectfully requesting that you to back off a bit from editing this page. I have put a great deal of research into the content that I have posted and cited an inordinate number of credible sources. Your edits literally gut the page and omit important information that is crucial to the article. It is neither fair nor accurate to claim it is non-neutral. This is a highly factual article. Just because it lacks an argumentative theme does not make it non-neutral. However, this article does contain 'negative' and 'positive' points - each of which may be easily verified using the cites provided. In this particular article, the 'negative' points are typically football and basketball seasons with lost games - all supported by statistics in the article and supported by credible sources.

At the moment, I am working through some health problems, but intend to do some clean up on this article in the coming weeks so that the format is more consistent with articles covering similar content. I would great appreciate your understanding and a bit of patience.

William Yearout (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi William Yearout, I would suggest working on your article in draft form until it is cleaned up. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 July 2026

• News and notes: An exclusive club
  Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger gets a community ban for canvassing.

• In the media: Battle for a soul – who won?
  Commissars, winners and losers, blocks or bans, a Wiki red card, social engineering on wikis, and Swift action!

• Opinion: We need to innovate with Wikimedia decision-making
  Rules we can actually read, trust and change!

• Recent research: LLMs and NPOV, 20 years of user blocks, Esperanto and Volapük Wikipedias
  And other research findings.

• News from Diff: How to host Wikicurious in your own community
  The Wikicurious team shares their approach to Wiki-event organizing.

• Community view: CUNY Newmark Wikimedian-in-Residence Quarterly Brief – April to June 2026
  Quarterly update on the activities of the City University of New York's Wikimedian-in-Residence, Richard Knipel.

• Special report: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act – for now
  A possible future recategorization by the UK Government remains an existential threat to Wikipedia.

• On the bright side: Fatherhood, weather, and diplomacy
  Father's Day, Canada Day, and the 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence.

• Op-ed: A Layup Easy Proposal for Wikimedia at 25: Spend 25% of Donations on the Community
  If strategy priority 1.1 is supporting the community, can we not increase the support to the community? Increasing grantmaking to 25% of the budget would be a move toward equality in the movement.

• Traffic report: The grass was greener, the light was brighter
  We reached the dizzy heights of that dreamed of World Cup.

• Comix: schnozzed
  on lollerskates.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Inquiry Into Correction on Brown U shooting portion

Hey!

I saw where you reverted the change I made on the Dec. 13th Shooting portion of the Brown University page. It was my first ever edit to an article so I was just hoping to get a better understanding of the reasoning behind your rv. I understand that the info is located on a different page but I still felt like the names of the victims was a fair addition to the portion on the main page. Jeffkiner520 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! That article is meant to be a high-level overview of the university as a whole, with specific details - like the names in question - covered by more detailed child articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Question about a prematurely closed and then reopened RFC

Someone closed an RFC I had opened after less than 23 hours , and then I reverted that . (I reverted so that no one can claim down the line that they didn't see it, plus a new option had been added to the RFC shortly before the premature close, plus there's no need at all to close certain non-controversial RFCs, plus we had already implemented the current favorite to the article.) My question is, does/did that mess up the codes and the mass notifications? I didn't change the signature timestamp of the RFC creation. The RFC is Talk:Sam_Neill#RfC on which image to use in infobox. Thanks for your expertise. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Codes look fine. I checked a few of the notifications and they all seem to use that heading link, which hasn't changed - assuming they're all like that they should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. (1) Beyond deliberate individually posted Wikiproject nptices, I was more concerned about the notices which are auto-posted on certain usertalk pages of people who request usertalk RFC notices. Were they sent out normally in spite of the mix-up? (2) Do you think you could remove this closure request: WP:Closure requests#Talk:Sam Neill#RfC on which image to use in infobox, which was the cause of the problem? I don't want to remove it myself for perhaps obvious reasons, but you could mention a user request in your edit summary if need be. If so, thanks! Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

PS: I deleted the Closure request from that board just now. I don't know if that is allowed, but it's the only way I could think of to stop the unnecessary process from recurring, since the notice on the board says to not archive threads but let the bot do it. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

That should be fine, and yes, looks like the FRS messages are also working. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

On recent DYK removal

I noticed you pulled the Liam Ruck picture hook for one of the preps; if you could let people know on DYK talk instead of solely on the nom page it would save people a bit of confusion. Cheers! Beta Beta Beta - talk 05:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it automatically back on the noms page? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 75

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 75, May–June 2026

• New partnerships: The Telegraph, Marg, The Tribune newspapers
• Tech tip: Expired partnerships

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 14:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Nikkimaria and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Edit summaries

Could I ask that you use more informative edit summaries, in particular when you're removing cited sources (e.g., here)? It's not at all clear why you did this. DS (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

FAC

Hey Nikkimaria, I've recently opened up a FAC for "Dick in a Box". If you could do an image and/or source review, that would be awesome! Thanks, RedShellMomentum 05:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 243, July 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at works on the US and Australian militaries Review essay: Nick-D on South African military museums Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

New RfC

I see there is a new RfC on the Stanley Kubrick page. However, it seems to violate the rules for creating an RfC as instead of a “brief and neutral” statement being provided, it all but advocates for a certain position. Is there some way this can be addressed? Barbarbarty (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Technically it does meet the rule - only what appears before the first signature counts as the RfC statement. But I've added {{unsigned}} to the following content to make attribution of those opinions clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent Abraham Lincoln edit

In this article, you changed all the instances of "archive-url" to "archiveurl" & "archive-date" to "archivedate". Why? Both terms are rendered from Template web etc. with the hyphen not as a single term or word. - Shearonink (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Both work, and the preceding version was primarily unhyphenated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

So you changed all the archive-date/archive-url parameters to archivedate/archiveurl because they had previously been rendered in an older version without the hyphens? I had been thinking editors should rely on Template usage/output but ok. - Shearonink (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yep - they are aliases. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, on changes like this, it would be useful to have a more explanatory edit summary. I have no idea why this seeming partial revert of my work was done. the Stefen 𝕋ower 08:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Your edits introduced a number of formatting inconsistencies and unnecessary clutter without explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Using IABot essentially adds archives and doesn't change formats (unless you consider adding archive-related parameters to be a change of format), thus, I couldn't have introduced formatting inconsistencies. Thus, perhaps you found inconsistencies that preexisted my run of the bot and corrected those, couched in a lot of unexplained removals of archives. All seasoned editors know what IABot does and it says what it did in my edit summary. Also, again, your edit summary "refs" didn't explain what you did. My edit said what tool I was using, and I have no idea what tool you used. For the sake of wiki collaboration, we need to have better communication about why something is being changed. the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't use any tools. I appreciate that you indicated what tools you used, but I don't agree with your understanding of what those tools do and don't do. Adding a retrieval date to a reference that omitted it, for example, is a format change. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – August 2026

Women in Red | August 2026, Vol 12, Issue 8, Nos 358, 359, 378, 379, 380 Events: New: Alphabet run: Countries starting with N and O | Indigenous women | Women born before 1900 Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports More ... Announcements: On 25 July, at Wikimania Paris, Women in Red was named the Coolest Project! Tip of the month: Read the essay Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for a woman's status as Native American or Indigenous Canadian. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk 21:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Removal of gallery images from NYU Steinhardt page

Hello! Thank you for the reviewing you did on the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development page. I wanted to ask your reasoning for removing the images of some notable alumni and faculty. I'm fine with the edit — honestly I think it makes things simpler — but I am new to the Wikipedia editing process and would love to understand. (I've also made mental notes re: sentence casing for headers, using the straight quotes/apostrophes instead of curved ones, and other edits you made.) Cek9850 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cek9850, extensive image galleries are discouraged. More broadly, you might want to consider cutting down the section generally (and there are some other suggestions on that page that might be helpful for elsewhere in the article). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This is super helpful! I'm torn on how best to cut down the alumni and faculty section, since everyone listed has a Wikipedia page (I removed a few folks whose articles were low-quality), and don't want to lose the information on the page; but this list doesn't have the depth that, say, Tisch's alumni listing/notable people article or Stern's notable people article, do. What would you suggest? Cek9850 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I think if you have a look through Category:Lists of people by university or college in New York City, you'll find there is no single way to approach these kinds of lists - some of those look very similar to subdivided versions of what's in the article now. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Really appreciate your help and thoughtful replies. Thanks! Cek9850 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2026

• In the media: Union drive, most prolific editor make headlines
  AI's impact on Wikipedia, World Cup editing, and encyclopedia's place in public life.

• News and notes: Foundation rejects voluntary recognition of union, proposed board eligibility rules sharply restrict candidates
  Further: harassment allegations at Wikimania, and new RfC for Abstract Wikipedia.

• WikiConference: "Kurier, Signpost, wikipress: You can be a Wikimedia journalist" - Wikimania presentation by User:Noé Recap
  A recap of Noé Gasparini's Wikimania 2026 presentation on the variety of wikipress outlets.

• In focus: Is Larry Sanger the co-founder of Wikipedia?
  A look over the years.

• Arbitration report: Think, and not just about content
  ArbCom continues business.

• News from Diff: Meet the Wikimedians of the Year 2026!
  Wikimedians of the Year 2026 announced at Wikimania 2026 - Paris.

• On the bright side: The beautiful game
  2026 Men's FIFA World Cup, Wikimania music, and wikipress.

• Traffic report: Odyssey and Oyarzabal
  To take you in the sun to (Ithaca), to show you the World Cup, it's the time of the season for editing!

• Comix: Well-spotted
  You dasherdly—dash–dash−dash-dash!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

There Are Not Many Like You

Thanks for mentoring me and guiding me through the quality assessment processes, especially image reviews. You are among the few to whom I am truly grateful. It helped me achieve my first FA this past week. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Cause of death from infobox question

Is removing a person's cause of death from the infobox really necessary in this edit? If it is not necessary, why does the infobox have an option to show a person's cause of death in the first place? Missileboi (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes - per the template's documentation, this parameter should only be used in a narrow set of cases, not broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, I get it now, thank you. Missileboi (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

That said, "see template doc" is not the most informative of edit summaries. I really think if you're a little more verbose in your edit summaries, it would make your interactions with other editors smoother. DS (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The summary provided a link to that documentation, which has the relevant detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It's important to take into account how people will perceive what you write, not just how you want them to perceive what you write. "Per template doc" comes off as brusque and boilerplate. It looks automated, and is the sort of thing that leads to people coming to the live help chat to complain.

"Per template doc, 'cause of death' should not be included in the infobox unless it pertains to subject's notability" feels more human and individualized. DS (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It is boilerplate; adding more to the boilerplate makes it less usable, and I'm not convinced the tradeoff is worthwhile. (Plus it's pretty atypical for how edit summaries are used). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue VII, July 2026 Headlines From the team: July and Wikimania Have Come and Gone Brazil report: Strategic Workshops, Academic Publications, and Bidding Farewell to NeuroMat Colombia report: Colombia at Wikimania 2026: panel on how the far-right affects open knowledge institutions Egypt report: From Al-Ahram to Zamalek: Exploring Archives and Art Galleries France report: GLAM Presentations at Wikimania 2026 + Wiki Fashion Show New Zealand report: Launch of Wikifying a Conference handbook; Wikipedia Workshop at Te Toi Uku Poland report: GLAM-Wiki partnerships continue opening collections Sweden report: At Wikimania and copyright process Switzerland report: Faces and Masks - the interwoven relation, Wikimania Paris UK report: Wikimania report + New articles in Hindi USA report: GLAM USA Report (Past & Upcoming) Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Updates on work by BHLWiki Working Group members Memory of the World report: Academic paper in preparation Wiki Knowledge Park report: Preserving Islamic Cultural Heritage: The GLAM and Metadata Impact of Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 Calendar: August's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 00:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Including Links to Composers in Legacy Sections for Writers

Hi Nikkimaria, I have requested additional perspectives on this topic if you’d like to join the discussion.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Music#Including Links to Composers in Legacy Sections for Writers

thanks,

T. E. Meeks T. E. Meeks (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

A favour...

Could you consider giving Savannah River Plant an image review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Savannah River Plant. I have to go to Canada next month and won't be able to access my books, so I would like to be able to close this review if possible. No worries if you can't. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Spaced en dashes

I saw your revert on the Assassination of Lord Mountbatten. I reverted it because the MOS you sent me says that whichever style is used consistently is acceptable, and spaced en dashes were already used in a reaction section of the page. I added spaced en dashes to the rest of the page to keep it consistent with that, which is allowed under the MOS you sent. Your point would be correct if spaced en dashes had not already been on the page before I added the rest. I don't see the point of keeping them in a reaction section and then using different ones throughout the rest of the page. ItsShandog (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that emdashes are far more widely used, it probably makes more sense to normalize in that direction - I've changed the section in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Edited on "Hungary"

So is that note helping there? I added it. Many people might think that there are actually 97.7% Hungarians. What have you learned from being a Wikipedian for so many years? I did it for the good. That's not useless edit.

And am I the only one who is under the watchful eye of all Wikipedians? How many Wikipedians are making small edits, and they are not being undone. সাধারণ পারদর্শী (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think your edit was correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't you have any sense? If it's more than 100%, then the information is wrong, right? I fixed the mistake. What's there to explain here? সাধারণ পারদর্শী (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If people can choose more than one answer, then that means the total can be more than 100%. Which is what the note says. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

"Then in Judea"

Changing Jesus of Nazareth's birthplace from "Judea" to "then in Judea" is extremely odd, and does not follow the conventions for listing place of death for historical persons. Since I see that you spend likely every waking moment of your life on this website, I kindly ask that, perhaps, you check out literally any other article pertaining to living persons and explain to me why you have made this odd choice as pertaining to the most well-known person to ever live. Ssomtan (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Separating multiple wikilinks makes the article more accessible by making it easier to see that there are two links, and (particularly on mobile) making it easier to click on the intended target. In articles on living persons, the larger entities aren't typically linked at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

MOS:DOUBLESPACE

Please do not. ­— Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 244, August 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Nick-D and Simon Harley look at six works Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Logo's licensing

Hello Nikkimaria. I hope you can help me with something I'm confused about. I intend to upload a Logo.gif for this article Global Electronic Music Marketplace but I'm not sure which licensing is fit for this logo because I have taken this logo from web archive. Elisapoly (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Elisapoly, that link doesn't work for me, but generally speaking logos tend to be too simple to qualify for copyright protection - see if you think {{PD-simple}} would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah sorry about the broken link. It is this . I think that {{PD-simple}} makes more sense. Thank you! Elisapoly (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 August 2026

• News and notes: Union process progresses, unanswered questions about Littler Mendelson remain
  And Raju Narisetti leaves WMF board after nine years.

• In the media: Wikipedia editors save Sam Altman's life
  Can AI do that? Meanwhile, Ruwiki gives porn the shaft, and has Grokipedia ghosted?

• Recent research: Women in blue? Wikipedia's gender gap reverses in some areas
  And other new research findings.

• Discussion report: Again and Again
  The community comes to consensus.

• Traffic report: Look out, here comes the Spider-Man!
  Plus The Odyssey and varied topics caught in his web.

• Humour: Her tastes, her Wikimania, her upcoming tour... Baby Globe reveals everything
  A short (parody) interview with Baby Globe via the French wikipress outlet, Regards sur l’Actualité du mouvement Wikimédia (RAW).

• On the bright side: The great outdoors
  Blue Angels, Indigenous Peoples' Day, and the Perseids meteor shower.

• Opinion: Are we embarrassed yet?
  One editor wants to find out more about a Department of Justice investigation of Wikipedia and its editors.

• Special report: Paris Syndrome: Labor Strife, AI Anxiety, and a Leadership Test at Wikimania 2026
  Notes from a delightful Wikimania and the ugly week that followed.

• Comix: WP:FAOWN
  "Explaining civilly" probably should go both ways...

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from removing any references from any page, i saw you did that to Nickwall, Montana. That resource is a strong reference about that page. If you do this again, you will be blocked, Thanks! -Miggy302913 Miggy302913 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Miggy302913, that resource is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference - see its entry at WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

ok Miggy302913 (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead section edits

Thank you for your edits at Bath School disaster. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Happy Land fire#Recent edits about similar content in that article's lead section. - Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Links and updates

Hi Nikkimaria, I noticed a couple of issues in Shia Islam that I can't fix myself because the page is protected. First: In the caption of the image of the Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm Shrine (in the "Hasan. Husayn, and Karbala" section), Muhammad al-Taqī is supposed to refer to Muhammad al-Jawad (who is also known as Muhammad al-Taqi), but it is incorrectly linked to an unrelated person with the same name. Please fix the link and his name.

Second: the photo of the Ḍarīẖ of Ali (in the "ʿAlī: Muhammad's rightful successor" section) and the photo of the Imam Husayn Shrine (in the "Practices" section) are extremely outdated—at least around 20 years old—and the shrines no longer look like that today. Please update the images. Update the image of Ḍarīẖ to this image, and the Imam Husayn Shrine in the "Practice" section to this image. For the image of the Imam Husayn Shrine, please use the following caption: “Pilgrims visiting the shrines of Imam Husayn and Al-Abbas in Karbala.”

Third: in the Ali article, the photos of his shrine and the Great Mosque of Kufa in the “Assassination and burial” section are also extremely outdated. Please update both images with these two photos: File:ImamAliShrine2026.jpg - File:Kufa Mosque.jpg. In the same article, in the lead, move the part saying that he was the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law to before the part saying that he was the fourth Rashidun caliph and the first Shia Imam. Because he obviously was Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law before he became caliph and Imam decades later. His Imamate also started after the death of Muhammad, which means it was before he became the fourth cliph. So This is the correct order: "...was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, the first Shia Imam, and the fourth Rashidun caliph who ruled from 656 CE until his assassination in 661."

Fourth: in articles about religions, including Christianity, the followers of each branches are specified in the lead with numbers, but strangely, this is not the case in the Islam article, it only has percentages with no numbers to be found. That is a crucial information missing. Please add them to the Islam article in the lead just after the part where it first mentions Sunni and Shia. Use this text: "Sunni and Shia Muslims together constitute nearly the entire global Muslim population, with estimates ranging from approximately 1.7–1.8 billion Sunnis to 285–300 million Shias worldwide." Here are the Pew and IRIC sources you need for citation on this: https://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/ - https://iric.org/world-shia-muslim-population/

Thank you! ~2026-37208-19 (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I've switched the images. I think the existing lead organization in Ali makes sense - it's not meant to be chronological. As to the percentages, it looks like those percentages are taken from the first source you suggest? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah both are from Pew but different reports. Nowhere in the article are the numbers mentioned, which is really strange because readers cannot see the figures, and cuz all religion articles have those numbers in the lead where they first talking about branches. That’s why I told you that the numbers absolutely need to be included, as they are vital. It's essential info ~2026-37208-19 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but as far as I can see that report only gives percentages, while the other source you cite cites Wikipedia so isn't a good reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought you would look for additional sources yourself so you could add the information more quickly, which is why I only provided two sources. If you see that some sources give different numbers, that is exactly why I used an average of the two figures in my text above. Here are more sources—please get it done as soon as possible (and use my text above). Thank you.

https://erfan.ir/english/84432.htmlhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/331545468_MAPPING_THE_GLOBAL_MUSLIM_POPULATION_A_Report_on_the_Size_and_Distribution_of_the_World's_Muslim_Population_2009

https://shiism.hds.harvard.edu/

https://www.zwemercenter.com/guide/who-are-the-shia-muslims/

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2016)573914

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16047709

https://web.archive.org/web/20121215070956/http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/shi-a

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shii ~2026-37208-19 (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I did look at other sources; most either use only percentages for the Sunni component, or cite Wikipedia for numbers.

Suggest raising an edit request on the talk page to see if someone will add your text. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Literally, the Pew has numbers for Sunni, and Harvard has numbers for Shia. ~2026-45868-55 (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, suggest taking your suggestion to the article talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I've been debating whether to give you one of these for a while now, especially since the Firefly FAC. We may not always be on the same side of disputes, but your conduct in handling important matters on-wiki such as copyright is commendable, and you are very thorough in your reviews such as those at FAC. Keep up the good work! In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 15:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - September 2026

Women in Red | September 2026, Vol 12, Issue 9, Nos 358, 359, 381, 382, 383 Events: New: Labour activists | Writers & their works | Alphabet run: Countries starting with P, Q & R Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports More ... Tip of the month: Try her pen name when searching for sources, and remember to add her to any of these that apply: List of pen names, List of literary initials, and Category:Pseudonymous women writers. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Talkback

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Talk:Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado#Film genre.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

M. Billoo 04:31, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies

I saw what you posted on the Clarke talk page. It is truly maddening that some issues are so quickly elevated to RfC status and the usual shenanigans occur. I hope you do not lose heart in your positions, it’s just some people are more stubborn in their views than others. ~2026-47179-67 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you add the compromise because you changed your position? Or because it was not worth the hassle? Frankly I thought their reply to you was quite a non sequitur, I don’t recall any policy stating that prior editors need to be notified about ibox discussions. This user has done this before I have noticed. Barbarbarty (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The latter, and you are correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Just some friendly advice: I would not continue engaging with the Clarke talk page. What’s done is done, frankly you really aren’t obligated to address one user’s questions about something when it’s clear they’ve already made up their minds.

Especially when this user is apt to post “friendly reminders” and “encouragement” on other user’s talk pages. Barbarbarty (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hey, do you know why my account still isn't autoconfirmed? It was created on August 28 at 17:43, and I already have over 120 edits. It's been more than four days, but I still can't edit semi-protected pages. Is there something I'm missing? Er-gg1ab (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know the answer, but you might have luck asking at WP:VPT. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Edits on Tamara Alyoshina

So you removed most of the sources on Tamara Alyoshina for not being reliable. Two of these sources were acessed via the Wikipedia library, so that begs the question, is this a mistake or are Wikipedia putting unreliable sources in the Wikipedia library as some sort of joke? Edlectro28 (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately not every source available through a library is going to be reliable - see the entries for these sources at WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Understood Edlectro28 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Treemaps on exports

Hi Nikkimaria

Could you please pause further removals of the export treemaps pending further discussion and consensus? I don't agree with your analysis, as explained at Talk:Economy_of_Israel/Archive_1#Accessibility_issues, for the following reasons:

• MOS:SMALL regulates font sizing in rendered article text; it does not appear to establish an 85% minimum for text embedded in images or charts.
• The chart does not rely on colour as the sole means of conveying its principal information. Export shares are encoded by rectangle area and, for the larger categories, explicitly by product names and percentages. Colour provides an additional grouping cue, rather than being the sole means by which the export values can be understood. MOS:COLOUR prohibits colour as the sole visual means of conveying information, not the use of colour in charts generally.
• MOS:ACCIM does not appear to prohibit charts simply because they are rendered as image files. It says to avoid using images in place of tables or charts, and immediately adds that charts and diagrams should, where possible, have a text equivalent or sufficient description for users who cannot see them. This image is itself a treemap chart, not an image substitute for ordinary text or a table.
• MOS:TEXTASIMAGES likewise says that images “consisting mostly or entirely of text” should be avoided. This treemap does not: its principal visual information is encoded spatially through the areas and hierarchy of rectangles, with text labels superimposed on that visualization. The accessibility issue can therefore be addressed through an appropriate caption rather than treating the existence of text labels in a chart as a violation of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES.
• The fact that the source visualization is interactive does not make the static version unusable. The treemap still conveys its principal information through rectangle area and hierarchy, and the major and many medium-sized export categories are directly labelled. As with visualizations of this type of data generally, very small categories cannot all accommodate full labels. This is an inherent difficulty in visualizing long-tail distributions, rather than a problem specific to these treemaps. Requiring every individual category to be fully labelled would make meaningful visual representations of such data impractical.

PJ Geest (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to start a discussion to try to get consensus for these additions, but I think your reasoning is flawed. "Avoid using images in place of tables or charts" seems like a fairly clear instruction. Illegibly small text is illegible however it is produced or presented, and where the text is absent or illegible the groupings are incomprehensible by any means other than colour, and there is no practical way that a caption could address this issue, nor any other way that this design could be made accessible - as you seem to agree with your final sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

CMG Absolute Value Chart

Exports of Chile by product category (2019)

Product group colour legend

  Chemical Products

  Transportation

  Machines

  Mineral Products

  Plastics and Rubbers

  Metals

  Foodstuffs

  Precious Metals

  Textiles

  Instruments

  Animal Products

  Vegetable Products

  Paper Goods

  Footwear and Headwear

  Miscellaneous

  Stone and Glass

  Wood Products

  Animal and Vegetable Bi-Products

  Animal Hides

  Arts and Antiques

  Weapons

Exports of Chile by product category (2019)

  Chemical Products

  Transportation

  Machines

  Mineral Products

  Plastics and Rubbers

  Metals

  Foodstuffs

  Precious Metals

  Textiles

  Instruments

  Animal Products

  Vegetable Products

  Paper Goods

  Footwear and Headwear

  Miscellaneous

  Stone and Glass

  Wood Products

  Animal and Vegetable Bi-Products

  Animal Hides

  Arts and Antiques

  Weapons

I think you are interpreting “Avoid using images in place of tables or charts” too broadly. The natural reading of that sentence is to discourage, for example, an image or screenshot of a table where an actual accessible wikitable could be used. On the right you have an example where an image of a table is used instead of a table. So this is discouraged by MOS:ACCIM. If the sentence were interpreted to mean that any chart whose underlying data could be expressed in a table should instead be a table, the same objection would apply to a very large number of pie charts, line charts and other data visualizations on Wikipedia. If we would follow this reasoning also all these visualisations should be removed from Wikipedia. Both are used in a massive way on Wikipedia, because the visual representation makes it easier to interpret compared to a table with the raw data.

By the way a treemap is a chart, not an image, so how could the rule "Avoid using images in place of tables or charts" be violated, if it is already a chart, not an image.

You are reinstating your point about small text, while like I already said MOS:SMALL does not require this for charts. The reason is that you can click on the graph to expand its size.

More generally, visualizations inevitably have limits at the smallest end of a distribution. For example, world maps may make very small island states difficult to distinguish at thumbnail size or even in general while still conveying useful information about the overwhelming majority of countries. That can be a reason to improve the map or enlarge it, it does not by itself make the entire visualization unusable. So this is not enough as a reason to remove the world map completely. The same distinction applies here: limitations in displaying the smallest categories do not demonstrate that the treemap fails to communicate its principal information.

There is a practical way to include the colour groupings in the caption. I have now added a (collapsible) product-group colour legend directly below it. This explicitly maps each colour to its corresponding product group in text. PJ Geest (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Pie chart

1. Rainbows (7.70%)
2. Unicorns (7.70%)
3. Witches (7.70%)
4. Warlocks (7.70%)
5. Monsters (7.70%)
6. Ghosts (7.70%)
7. Raindrops (7.70%)
8. Moonbeams (7.70%)
9. Stars (7.70%)
10. Clouds (7.70%)
11. Diamonds (7.70%)
12. Spades (7.70%)

If the sentence were interpreted to mean that any chart whose underlying data could be expressed in a table should instead be a table, the same objection would apply to a very large number of pie charts, line charts and other data visualizations on Wikipedia. The wording is don't use images to replace tables or charts. At right is a chart. You could add these to every "Economy of..." article and I would have no objection. In fact several of them already have these. But what you're proposing isn't that; it's an image of a chart.

You are reinstating your point about small text, while like I already said MOS:SMALL does not require this for charts. The reason is that you can click on the graph to expand its size. Even when you click through to the largest size of these images, some of the text remains unreadably small, or cut off entirely. As I said above, illegibly small is illegibly small regardless of how it is produced. And as you said above, it would simply be "impractical" to improve these images to make them wholly readable, given how they are designed.

There is a practical way to include the colour groupings in the caption. This does not address the COLOUR problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

An SVG file is not equivalent to a raster screenshot of a chart. SVG is a structured vector format in which the chart is stored and rendered, and its text, colours, shapes and other elements can remain editable and scalable without loss of quality. Wikimedia Commons explicitly has thousands of files categorized as “SVG charts” and more than 2000 of them are currently used on Wikipedia on almost 10.000 articles ( ), and Commons guidance even recommends generating or converting suitable charts to SVG. If MOS:ACCIM meant that a chart ceases to count as a chart merely because it is stored as an SVG file, that would be very difficult to reconcile with widespread Wikipedia practice.

I therefore read “Avoid using images in place of tables or charts” as addressing cases where an image substitutes for something that could and should be represented as accessible page content (for example, a screenshot of a table instead of a wikitable) not as a categorical prohibition on charts rendered in SVG. I would also note that the guideline says “avoid”, rather than establishing an absolute prohibition.

Could you point me to the specific guideline that establishes how small text in charts may be, what the cutoff is, and how it should be measured? MOS:SMALL gives an 85% threshold relative to the page's default font size, but that seems designed for rendered page text rather than labels inside an SVG. What size should your screen have for example? Because if you click on a chart to enlarge it, the text is bigger on bigger screens compared to small screens.

Furthermore even if you would represent these data in a table, there would be a cutoff, because it would be "impractical" to represent all these categories in a very long table. So also a table would work with rest categories which are not explained. So the fact that the smallest categories are not individually labelled does not by itself show that the treemap is less informative than a table for its intended purpose.

As for the COLOUR concerns, I agree that insufficient text/background contrast is something that should preferably be fixed where it occurs. That is technically straightforward in the SVG: for example, replacing grey text with black on the lighter backgrounds would bring those labels above the 4.5:1 contrast threshold, while white can be retained on darker backgrounds. PJ Geest (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I therefore read “Avoid using images in place of tables or charts” as addressing cases where an image substitutes for something that could and should be represented as accessible page content. That is exactly the case we have here - the content that is actually effectively conveyed by these images, and more, could be conveyed in a more accessible format. A table wouldn't have to report all of the little rectangles to meet that bar, because the image doesn't accomplish that either.

Look, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but things like adjusting font shade are marginal improvements to a design that fundamentally will not be accessible in static image form. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

A table would not be equivalent to the treemap, because it would not combine the hierarchical grouping of the data with a visual representation of relative magnitude. That high-level visual summary has value in its own right, just as a pie chart or line chart can often communicate patterns more effectively than a table of the underlying values.

As a compromise, I would be willing to modify the SVGs as follows:

• remove truncated labels ending in ellipses (...);
• remove percentage-only labels where there is no corresponding product name;
• correct text/background contrast to meet the 4.5:1 threshold, for example by changing the grey text to black on the lighter backgrounds;
• retain a textual product-group colour legend in the caption (either collapsed or not collapsed).

If those changes were made, would you consider the treemaps acceptable enough for use?

More generally, under what conditions would you consider a treemap with long-tail data acceptable in for example an article such as Treemapping? Would the conditions above be sufficient? If not, what specific remaining issue would, in your view, justify removing the visualization entirely?

I would also note that in two previous Commons discussions about these same export treemaps, only a small minority took the position that the static graphs were altogether useless. Most editors considered them useful, including several who explicitly acknowledged the limitations of the smallest boxes. This was also before the improvements I am now proposing to the graphs.

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:California_Product_Exports_(2020).svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Dave-landry-datawheel

I realize those were Commons deletion discussions rather than enwiki accessibility discussions, but their reasoning says something on their views on the graphs in general. PJ Geest (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I see far more flaws identified in those discussions than benefits, and particularly in the latter the objections were largely procedural. While I appreciate the improvements you're proposing, they do not address the fundamental flaws of this design as a static image. As a compromise, I'd suggest using {{external media}} to link the interactive versions instead of posting the static ones. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree the objections in the latter discussion were largely procedural (like the trainwreck argument), which is not relevant here.

I think the first California deletion discussion is actually the clearest example, because it directly addressed the usefulness of a static export treemap. The nominator argued that the static version was educationally useless, while all three respondents rejected that conclusion.

You continue to refer to “fundamental flaws”, but you still haven't specified what those remaining flaws are after the proposed changes. Without identifying a concrete unresolved accessibility problem, a categorical removal of hundreds of treemaps is not justified. --PJ Geest (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The images would still rely on colour to distinguish categories. The smaller rectangles would still be entirely indistinguishable due to small, cut-off or entirely absent text. The images would still present information that would be conveyed more effectively by a proper chart.

The use-case of the treemapping article is very different - there an image like this is just to display an example of what a treemap might look like, and the specific data is irrelevant. But in Economy/Trade/etc articles, the data is what is relevant - and these images do not convey the data effectively or in an accessible way. The proposed changes don't fix that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Exports of Chile by product category (2019)

  Chemical products

  Transportation

  Machines

  Mineral products

  Plastics and rubbers

  Metals

  Foodstuffs

  Precious metals

  Textiles

  Instruments

  Animal products

  Vegetable products

  Paper goods

  Footwear and headwear

  Miscellaneous

  Stone and glass

  Wood products

  Animal and vegetable bi-products

  Animal hides

  Arts and antiques

  Weapons

I have made an important improvement to the graph. Now you can see the product label, the main category and the percentage of each rectangle (even the smaller ones) by hovering over the respective rectangle. I suggest using these type of graphs. Off course combined with the other improvements I proposed. - PJ Geest (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement from a reader's perspective. How on earth would you propose implementing it? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I have made a Python script which converts an svg chart of this type automatically to imagemap wikicode for hovering. This should be executed 220 times for all the countries. However, because the imagemap wikicode is very long to use in an article, I asked for a bot request to make 220 templates for each country, so the same graph can be reused in different articles: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Make_interactive_export_treemaps_templates

For the other issues, I have also made a bot request on Commons: Commons:Commons:Bots/Work requests#Update_220_export_treemap_SVGs. PJ Geest (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

why did you delete the cases i added?

Jiyai Xin and Taya Malich from the livestreamed suicides list Lesarine (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lesarine, the sources you provided were not reliable - see WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Jurassic Park lead sentence

Hi, you reverted the first sentence of my edit to Jurassic Park, changing "biopunk survival film" to "science fiction film", saying that the former is not supported by the article text. But actually, this is supported in the first paragraph itself. Biopunk is a sub-genre of science fiction that focuses on biotechnology, which clearly encompasses genetically engineers de-extincting dinosaurs. Survival is a genre where the character(s) primary goal is to stay alive. Jurassic Park plainly fits this (more precise) subgenres. Optimizer2006 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Interpreting article text in this way isn't what is meant to be happening in the first sentence. Per MOS:FILMGENRE, the first sentence should identify "the primary genre or sub-genre under which [the film] is verifiably classified". So you'd need to pick one of the two and demonstrate that that one is representative of the weight of reliable sources. At the moment, the article text is more supportive of science fiction being the appropriate entry; biopunk and survival as specific classifications are not mentioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Would biopunk and survival not be relevant sub-genres as per MOS:FILMGENRE? Also, it seems pretty common across film articles on Wikipedia to list multiple (equally) relevant genres in the first sentence. So, I'm not sure if the intent is to strictly pick exactly one genre. Optimizer2006 (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Typically primary is one only - unfortunately articles aren't always perfect. But either way, you'd need to demonstrate that what you'd want to propose is what the film is primarily classified as by reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Memory Alpha External Link

Hello Nikkimaria. I need some education. I noticed that you often remove Memory Alpha as an external link per WP:BLPEL, but I see that it is given as a Wikipedia external link template (Template:Memory Alpha) and is listed under Category:Television external link templates. Please give me complete and detailed reasons for not using Memory Alpha as an external link so I'll be informed.
Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Just because a template exists, does not mean it is appropriate for use on every article. Per BLPEL, articles on living people have more stringent rules regarding what sorts of external links can potentially be included. In particular, self-published sources - which includes open wikis like Memory Alpha - should not be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Is there a MOS or policy entry that directly addresses this? Also, doesn't IMDb come under that view as "The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors" (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Idolator)? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The policy entry is WP:BLPEL - not sure what you're looking for beyond that?

Regarding IMDb, technically yes, but there is a general consensus for it to be an exception. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in picking and choosing which external link is appropriate despite WP:BLPEL, but it is what it is. Another fact for those who criticize Wikipedia in that can be edited by anyone. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to removing IMDb. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for cleaning up my page. I don't know how any of this works, but I'm very grateful!

Brendanabradley (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Query about a public domain but challenged image

Hi Nikkimaria, I've got a question about the copyright status of an image that I'd like to use in a FAC. The image is one of Lord Durham, and it's got this tag:

"While Commons policy accepts the use of this media, one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof."

Would this tag mean the image can't be used in an FA? File:John George Lambton, 1st Earl of Durham by Thomas Phillips.jpg Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

No, that tag would not prevent it from being used. Under US law, reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright, and that's the reading that WP:IUP (which is what the image-related FA criterion refers to) applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks ! It’s the only colour image of Durham so I want to use it rather than others. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Bibliography articles

Please stop. per MOS:LEADFORALIST "Lists should have introductory material; for stand-alone lists, this should be the lead section. This introductory material should make clear the scope of the list." and "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of introductory material in the lead section followed by a list,"

There is nothing in any guidelines that prevents having an infobox or one paragraph summary of a subject in a bibliography. You are also removing the incllusion criteria from the bibliography which is required for a list. If you insist I can create a new infobox and write a fresh lede for the outlines, but please stop. All you are accomplishing is discouraging me from contributing to Wikipedia.  // Timothy :: talk  05:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, I'm not seeing anything at LEADFORALIST that supports the design that you propose, nor is it usual for lists of this type. Take a look for example at the entries at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Bibliographies - they use {{infobox bibliography}} or none at all, and they also do not give editorial directions. Could you explain why you so strongly prefer your proposed design that you would choose not to contribute if you couldn't have it? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I've shortened the lede.

"Infobox bibliography is an infobox "for author bibliographies and is designed for use in bibliography articles within Category:Bibliographies by writer." - This infobox is not for historical topics it is for author bibliographies.

MOS:LEADFORALIST clearly states:

• "Lists should have introductory material; for stand-alone lists, this should be the lead section.' - The beginning of the lede and info boxes are covered by this. MOS:LEAD states: "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". You removed this introductory material and left one sentence that says nothing but the name of the bibliography, which the person already knows.
• "This introductory material should make clear the scope of the list." - The inclusion criteria. You removed this.
• "It should also provide explanation for non-obvious characteristics of the list, such as the list's structure" - The citation section - you removed this.

You removed all three parts called for in the guideline specifically written about the lede of a list. The biggest problem with most non-author bibliographies is random styles and unclear inclusion criteria.

Creating infoboxes for every type of bibliography is redundant when we already have good infovox templates that service this purpose. They would just end up being shortform of the main template. It is understandable to have a special template for author bibs. I think there are other things much more important that need our attention.  // Timothy :: talk  01:22, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, I agree with you that Creating infoboxes for every type of bibliography is redundant when we already have good infovox templates that service this purpose. Given that we already have {{infobox bibliography}}, designed for use in bibliography articles, it makes sense to use that template for other types of bibliographies. It doesn't make any sense to use biographical templates instead. Between that and the category system, it looks like these bibliographies are being treated as biographies in their own right, and that isn't appropriate.

As to the rest, while I am sympathetic to your view that bibliographies tend to be randomly styled, the point of the lead is to give context for readers, not provide instructions for editors. Directions to for example use APA style versus citation templates don't belong there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox author bibliography is for works by an author, not about a subject. It specifically states it is bibs that go into Category:Bibliographies by writer

"Lists should have introductory material; for stand-alone lists, this should be the lead section.'

"This introductory material should make clear the scope of the list."

"It should also provide explanation for non-obvious characteristics of the list, such as the list's structure" A basic part of every bib should be making clear the style used.

The category section is Category:Wikipedia bibliographies - with two sub cats -- Category:Bibliographies by subject and Category:Bibliographies by writer. They are different.  // Timothy :: talk  02:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, I have no problem with putting these articles in bibliography categories. But Bibliography of Malcolm X is also in, for example, Category:20th-century American male writers, Category:Muslim writers, and Category:American socialists; those aren't bibliography categories, they're biographical ones. Similarly the person infobox is intended for biographical articles, not bibliographical ones. If you don't care for the bibliography template, fine, but that's the one closest to the purpose of these articles.

As to what else should be in the lead: the purpose is to introduce the article for the reader. When citation templates are or aren't used is entirely an editor-focused issue, and not at all appropriate for a lead section. Leave these instructions on the talk page, create a hidden note, or set up an edit notice - but they can't stay where they are. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• I compromised with you and made changes even though the guidelines clearly back up my position. Please stop, you have better things to do, find a bibliography that really needs work and spend your energy on that.  // Timothy :: talk  01:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, I disagree with your assertion that the guidelines clearly back up your position. And while I appreciate that you have made some changes, these bibliographies still really need work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Then you can take this to ANI or DR (I'd prefer ANI so that I can ask for an interaction ban with you).  // Timothy :: talk  01:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, given that these problems exist across multiple articles, what venue would you propose for DR? Would you agree to have an RfC on a single article act as a test case for the group? Or do you have a different proposal? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd prefer ANI so I can get an interaction ban  // Timothy :: talk  01:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, this is a content dispute, and content disputes are not generally within scope of ANI. Is there a venue amenable to you to get others' input on the content at issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

No this is a Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes, so ANI is the place, and this issue is how you are dealing with not being able to rewrite guidelines to suit your preference. You have reverted twice.

I assume you are aware this is a CT, if not I will post the warning to your page.

You need to stop. There are bibliographies you can work on that actually need work.  // Timothy :: talk  01:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, the main issue is your belief that editor-focused instructions should appear in reader-visible lead text. I don't agree with your contention that LEAD supports this. Would a discussion at WT:LEAD to clarify the matter one way or the other be something you would be amenable to?

A secondary issue is the use of biographical templates and categories in bibliographic articles; I don't believe you've cited any guidelines to support that. Which are you referencing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You can take this to ANI. You are aware this is a CT?

And I have edited (not all) of the ledes to fit you preference. I just started working today.  // Timothy :: talk  02:03, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, I am aware that infoboxes are a CT, but that is really peripheral to my main concern here, and I'll happily leave it aside if it will help to focus the conversation on the main issue. Could you give me an example of how you are proposing to rewrite the leads? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

"Lists should have introductory material; for stand-alone lists, this should be the lead section. This introductory material should make clear the scope of the list. It should also provide explanation for non-obvious characteristics of the list, such as the list's structure. Stand-alone lists may place non-obvious characteristics in a separate introductory section"

You seriously have nothing better to do than waste time on this? This is the most pressing issue related to bibliographies you can find?  // Timothy :: talk  02:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, I do think it would be helpful to get community input on whose interpretation of that wording is correct. I will open a discussion at WT:LEAD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. ANI is the place for this to be resolved. You are ignoring guidelines and messing with infoboxes and have made multiple reverts while a discussion is ongoing.  // Timothy :: talk  02:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TimothyBlue, ANI cannot assess whose interpretation of the guidelines at issue is correct, and clearly we are not going to reach agreement on that point in this discussion. Given the number of articles at issue, a MOS discussion seems like the best chance of getting broader community input on that question. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Having now seen your rewrite, I think that gets far enough away from editorial instructions to be a workable compromise, so thank you for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue VIII, August 2026 Headlines From the team: Hot August/Cold August Brazil report: Wiki Love Monuments and new phase of Museu Paulista collaboration Catalan areas report: The Catalan public domain: An application to identify Catalan works in public domain Colombia report: Explore the Colombian public domain app: Browse works an authors in the public domain Czech Republic report: Wikimedia CR introduces new members of GLAM/partnership team Egypt report: Egypt’s GLAM Team Brings Egyptian Postal History and Public Libraries to Wikimedia Italy report: The Musical Heritage of the Santa Cecilia Conservatory New Zealand report: New Zealand Thesis Project Update and the upcoming TDWG 2026 conference North Macedonia report: Connecting Culture and Free Knowledge - Wikimedia MKD’s GLAM Partnerships Serbia report: August in Wikimedia Serbia Switzerland report: Summer, Follow-up in Aarau, CoCreation UK report: Wikimedia gets Gazetted + Islamic Calligraphy on English Wikipedia Ukraine report: OpenGLAM Summer 2026 in Ukraine USA report: GLAM USA Report (Past & Upcoming) Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Updates on work by BHL-Wiki working Group members Memory of the World report: Ghana national register Wikimedia Commons report: Media loading change affects Commons Impact Metrics and GLAM analytics Calendar: September's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 08:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. You can vote here. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2026

• News and notes: The Balance of Power
  Wikimedia employees unionize, officer departs, The Signpost gains sister on Wiktionary

• In the media: Shocking photos may be changed on Wikipedia
  The image gallery anyone can edit.

• Disinformation report: Have UN Secretary-General candidates manipulated Wikipedia?
  Speaking diplomatically, not all of them.

• Recent research: Google's AI overviews may have reduced search engine referrals to English Wikipedia by 5%
  And other research findings.

• WikiConference report: The backwater symbiosis – reflections from Wiki Conference India 2026
  The fourth iteration of Wiki Conference India.

• Traffic report: Heaven let your light shine down
  The recently deceased dominate while still leaving room for some entertainment.

• Serendipity: Wikipedia Family Mosh Pit
  A poem by Mollystarkdean.

• Obituary: Passing of Gobonobo, community leader advocating for women and minorities
  Promoter of cultural knowledge and organizer of global cooperation.

• On the bright side: Fantasy video games, hopeful science fiction, and the change of seasons
  The Legend of Zelda, Star Trek, and Vivaldi's The Four Seasons.

• Comix: The Adventure of the Unknown Corpse
  An elementary case for fiction's greatest detective.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The Great Yellow Light

The signifance of this posted comment is that Vincent Van Gogh still has substantial influence of the art world (music) today even after over 135 years. BuffaloBob (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

You would need secondary sourcing indicating the significance of that comment to the subject - see MOS:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Check this out: https://www.welshcountry.co.uk/art-has-the-profound-ability-to-inspire-music/ BuffaloBob (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Does this meet your standard of a secondary source? BuffaloBob (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this doesn't support the claim you wanted to add to the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll pass. Readers will just have to suffer the loss. BuffaloBob (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

SheiKra cleanup

Hello! I am HollynDolly. I recently removed your restore beacuse information about the park vice president and its ideas are not constructive in the opening article. This is to create a more professional look on SheiKra’s page. If you have any questions or concerns your more then welcome to comment on my page. Best of regards! HollynDolly (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi HollynDolly, I disagree and have restored the established version. I'd suggest raising your proposal on the article's talk page so that other editors can weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 245, September 2026

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Non reliable sources on the Loggim Program page

I noticed that you keep removing the pop culture and external links heading because of "unreliable sources" in the Loggim Program page but it states that they are external links to footage or to pages of the pop culture topics not citations so I don't see how it can be used as a "Source" if its just a external link, I am still new to this so please just correct me if I am wrong (I'd really appreciate it) but to my knowledge external links don't count as sources or citations as they are meant for extended reading or research. Masterchief6865 (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're saying these weren't intended to be sources, that would leave that section entirely unsourced, which would still warrant removal. Popular culture sections need secondary sourcing that indicates the significance of entries to the subject - see MOS:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the information I'll remember that Masterchief6865 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Talk Page

If you look at the WikiProject for Classical Music now I am apparently only acting in certain discussions the way I am because I merely “don’t understand” the “new consensus around infoboxes.” Which means they can be added at any time and it is too late to object.

I find it hard to believe the “parting gift” from a now-banned user is what that policy actually means. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not, but good luck convincing otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello again. Can I have some help in how to respond to this sort of behavior?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Storye_book&diff=prev&oldid=1380749828

This user has now commented on my talk page and tagged me on other talk pages for days now in an attempt to strongarm me into reverting an edit for a single article. Mind you, this user has added hundreds of infoboxes to articles for months now but apparently a single article is worth this hassle. This user has repeatedly accused me of “not understanding” their arguments because otherwise I assume I would have no choice but to add an infobox. They have also said “infoboxes are normal” (an opinion, not an actual guideline) and they have also stated they are going to post about this on the WikiProject for some reason (even though I see no reason why the talk page for the article is not sufficient). Frankly I find this user’s behavior about infoboxes to border on the obsessive and I am exhausted with their constant badgering about a relatively benign position and having to explain myself to them as if many other users do not also diverge in their views about infoboxes with this user. Is there anything I can do? Barbarbarty (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

My sympathies - they've certainly made me regret attempting compromise.

As to what you can do: I would definitely suggest not engaging further in the linked discussion - it is not likely to be productive. You are allowed (with limited exceptions) to request that the user not post further to your talk page. It is also possible to mute notifications from particular users, if you feel that would be of benefit. You can continue to ask that they seek consensus as required for the disputed addition on the article's talk page, but be aware they almost certainly will continue to fight for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Fix these images

Hello. The infobox images in the articles for Nahj al-Balagha, Qom, Saqifa, Mashhad, and Rahim Moazenzadeh Ardabili have issues. When you hover your mouse over the links to these articles outside of them, the images do not appear in the preview. I’m not sure how this can be fixed, so I thought you might be able to fix them.

The images for Nahj al-Balagha, Qom, Saqifa, and Rahim Moazenzadeh Ardabili do not appear at all, while the wrong image loads for Mashhad. The image that should appear is actually the first image from the top, showing the shrine, since the city is best known for that landmark, but a different image is being loaded instead. Please fix all of these if possible. Thank you. Er-gg1ab (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Er-gg1ab, I'm not able to replicate that issue for Nahj al-balagha, Saqifa, or Rahim Moazenzadeh Ardabili - all of those show the top image when previewing the link from another page for me. Perhaps there is something specific to your setup which is causing the problem?

For Qom and Mashhad, I do see that issue, and it appears to be consistent across other city articles as well. I wonder if it may be how the template {{infobox settlement}} is designed. Asking at that template's talk page might be the best way to get that behaviour changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 76

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 76, July–August 2026

• New partnership: The Chronicle of Higher Education
• New Partnership Manager joins the team
• Spotlight: TWL page on Meta

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 11:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Nikkimaria and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding whether to link "Grand Duchy of Finland" in Jean Sibelius's infobox. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Jean Sibelius".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Thedarkknightli (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

secondary citation of firsthand account of Lincolns assignation

Hi all — I added a brief clause to the sentence beginning "Historians emphasized the widespread shock and sorrow..." in the Funeral and burial section, citing a Union soldier's letter (Lyman B. Hannaford, 103rd OVI, writing April 23, 1865) as a real-time example of the grief described, placed structurally alongside the existing Whitman example in the same sentence. It was reverted with the note "secondary sourcing is appropriate."

I want to make the case for reconsidering, and I'm open to being told this doesn't fit.

The letter is a private soldier's real-time reaction, written days after the assassination, documented as authentic by three independent sources:

• The physical letter is held by the 103rd OVI Memorial Foundation/Museum, which has confirmed this specific letter in its collection. Museum
• A transcription with a photograph of the original is hosted at Spared & Shared, a dedicated Civil War letters transcription project (not a personal blog in the ordinary sense, though it is hosted on a free platform).
• A separate transcription is archived by the North Carolina Civil War History Center.

I understand the objection to relying on a self-published/free-hosted site as a citation, per WP:SPS. My question is whether a soldier's letter like this — corroborated by an actual museum holding and a second institutional archive — can be treated as a reasonable primary-source illustration alongside Whitman's elegies, given that a rank-and-file private's letter is very unlikely to ever receive dedicated secondary/scholarly treatment the way a public literary figure's work does. This two additional citations that could be added. Miss Gender (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Miss Gender, in my opinion this doesn't fit, although if you continue to disagree you'd be welcome to raise this on the article's talk page to see if others may have a different view. But to clarify, my objection here is based on the use of the letter rather than where the letter is hosted. Primary sources are intentionally used only in limited contexts on Wikipedia; secondary sources are generally preferred. Whitman's work is in a bit of a different category since it is itself notable and has received critical attention. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

in the truer sense lyman first hand account is real time account and Wittman is after the fact. while i think you may have moved the goal post from secondary citation to the letter doesn't sit with Wittmann's after the fact the fact account. I dont want to spend too much energy on this but the letter is real, the reaction is real, the museums that archive the actual letter and transcription is real. Figuring out where this real union soldiers reaction belongs is worth discussion Miss Gender (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the letter, transcription, etc is not real, just that it is primary sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The whole paragraph — historians' claim, Whitman's elegies, the mention of some celebrating Lincoln's death — is already a survey of various reactions to the assassination. In that context, naming one specific soldier's letter as one more documented reaction isn't obviously a broader generalization about "Union soldiers" as a category; it's arguably just another individual data point sitting inside a paragraph that's already built entirely out of individual data points (Whitman's specific poems, specific celebrants). Miss Gender (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - October 2026

Women in Red | October 2026, Vol 12, Issue 9, Nos 358, 359, 384, 385, 386 Events: New: STEM | Alphabet run: Countries starting with S | Award winners Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports More ... Announcements: Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon is happening in October & The Asia-Oceania Destubathon is happening in November Tip of the month: Who are/were the leaders of national organizations in your field? How about national award winners? That's a great place to start looking for article subjects you'd be well-suited to work on. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 13 reviews between July and September 2026 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

New cross-language page link: Aggie Beynon

A new page Aggie Beynon on the Swahili Wikipedia has been linked to the page Aggie Beynon, which you created, via Wikidata (Q19560082).

You will not be notified about future links to pages you created. To opt in to these notifications, follow the opt-in instructions.

NervousBot (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue IX, September 2026 Headlines From the team: What a great month again in the GLAM community! Australia report: Wikifying the ALIA West Conference 2026 Brazil report: Thousands of eyes on Brazilian heritage through Wiki Loves Monuments Egypt report: The Long Strides of Egypt’s GLAM Team in September France report: Organized Labour Month in France Italy report: Note condivise opens up Italy’s musical heritage New Zealand report: Can I trust Wikipedia?, Books of Mana, an Auckland War Memorial Museum update and a report on TDWG2026 North Macedonia report: Wiki Loves Film – Collaboration with Manaki Film Festival Poland report: Opening Collections, Growing Networks: Polish GLAM-Wiki in September Switzerland report: Wiki Ambassadors, Wiki Partners, Raduni Wikigita Tunisia report: Wikipedian in Residence: National Archives of Tunisia UK report: Japanese art in Korean + UK Honours USA report: GLAM USA Report (Past & Upcoming) Biodiversity Heritage Library report: Updates on work by BHL-Wiki working Group members Content Partnerships Hub report: Content Partnerships Hub: Some news from the first half of the year Memory of the World report: Peruvian heritage in Thai Calendar: October's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:57, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Query about an image - not public domain

HI Nikkimaria, I've got a question for you. I'm working on an article on Julius Isaac, first Black chief justice in Canada (Federal Court). I've not found a public domain image. There's a good image on his U of T obit. Would it be okay to copy that image and put it up, non-public domain; suitable only for the bio? Chief Justice Isaac died in 2011, so not likely I'll be able to find a public domain image.

Here's the link: https://www.uc.utoronto.ca/alumni-influence/julius-alexander-isaac

Any comments would be appreciated.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

If no free image is available for a deceased person, you can use a non-free image with {{non-free biog-pic}} and a suitable rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and advice. Appreciated. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 October 2026

• News and notes: AELECT returns, Jimbo gives a union update, VisualEditor is now default
  Plus a survey for North Americans, proposed changes to BoT elections, and developments in the Puerto Rican editing community.

• Serendipity: From a rare portrait of a female millionaire in Nancy to a Japanese painter in Lyon
  Images from Leuven Libraries popular on Wiki.

• Obituary: Doug Weller
  Twenty-year editor, long-term admin, dearly missed.

• In the media: A(I)pocalypses afoot
  Cannibals, freeloaders, rogue agents, scams ... the usual.

• WikiConference Report: WikiConference 2026 & the importance of in-person community
  Celebrating 12 years of WikiConference North America.

• By the numbers: Does the country of birth affect the likelihood of having a Wikipedia biography?
  A cross-country and cross-wikipedia comparison of the likelihood of having a biography in Wikipedia.

• News from Diff: OpenAI "rogue" agent activities found on Wikimedia projects
  CPO/CTO Selena Deckelmann explains the recent detection of AI agent activities on Wikimedia projects.

• On the bright side: Good people
  Nice comments and real-life rescuers.

• Op-ed: Who are our readers?
  The movement makes progress when we know what our scope is.

• Traffic report: This world is big and wild and half insane
  Criminals, 9/11 25 years later, artists expelled for politics... we lived in troubled times.

• Comix: Fudging the numbers
  Take 'em away, officers!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image size

Not sure what I'm missing, but MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE states "The lead image in an infobox should generally not exceed the default size of the infobox". In both cases, they do not. Also, why are you only targeting the MAX Orange and Yellow lines? MAX Red Line, 1 Line (Sound Transit), 2 Line (Sound Transit) are also set to 300px. truflip99 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

But that doesn't support the edit you're making? MOS:IMGSIZE says not to use fixed pixel size without very good reason, and there doesn't seem to be one here.

I'm looking at changes to FAs, and those are the articles that showed up today. But the others should be fixed also. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Image query

Hi there Nikkimaria, hope all is good. I was wondering if I could pick your brains on whether an image is in the PD? It's a photograph taken in the UK in 1872 and, despite consulting several books in which it is used (including despatching my son, an Oxford student, to the Bodelian Library ), I have located no photographer credit/information. I had a look on Commons and the relevant page says "If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or, if during that period the work is made available to the public, 70 years after that." By my reckoning that means that the absolute maximum length of time which a pre-1957 anonymous work could be under copyright is 140 years (70 years unpublished and then a further 70 years from publication if it was published literally on the 70th anniversary of its creation). So, as this photo is 154 years old, it cannot be under copyright? Is that right? And, if so, what would be the appropriate tag for it? Thanks in advance for your time/insight! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The short answer is, it's a bit more complicated than that.

Longer answer: commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Unknown_author lists several scenarios based on when the work was first published. You've mentioned it appeared in several books, so identifying the oldest of those would give you a better idea of which scenario would apply.

Then once you've got that sorted, you've got to figure out the US status. This chart offers tagging options based on publication date, place and circumstance. Again, oldest identified publication will provide guidance here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's a bit too complex for my simple brain, I think I will just leave it. But thanks for sharing the info anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 246, October 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four works on Australian and Canadian subjects Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

David Kent book

I realized that I'd made a mistake putting the book under "Sources," and I knew you'd soon delete it. Thank you for also moving it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft review

Hello . I have worked hard to build a draft of a new page on a historical politician and I am hoping for your review given your expertise. It is my first ever article draft. It is Draft:David Hartigan (American politician). Thank you ~2026-56366-56 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi TA, what was your response to this reviewer comment? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Their comment was beneficial. I found two sources from The Chicago Tribune from the 1950s and 1970s respectively. Thank you for your help ~2026-56366-56 (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the changes made since then, I'm not sure the "in-depth" part of that comment has been met. You've essentially got two avenues for demonstrating notability for this subject: WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Both of these require "significant" coverage, and both provide definitions for that to help with assessing available sources. Do you think that sort of sourcing exists for this subject, or is it mostly just brief mentions? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I see the sources from the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Reader meeting the significant coverage criteria. I also see notability being derived from the fact he held one of the three citywide elected offices in Chicago, then the second-largest city in the United States. Please let me know your thoughts ~2026-56366-56 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

NPOL presumes notability for international, national, and state offices, but not city - even large cities. That's why there's a need for strong sourcing on which to base an assessment of notability. The Tribune sources seem to be more mentions than in-depth coverage. The Reader source is better, but are there more? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. This is all I could find as the subject died in 1959 (well before news articles were posted on the internet) and I don’t have a paid subscription to archival databases where more coverage very likely exists. ~2026-56366-56 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

If it's helpful (not sure where you're located), many local or university libraries provide free on-site access to such databases and/or microfilm copies. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I unfortunately do not have access to those things. Would there be notability in the fact he is well catalogued in the sources as the key patriarch of a prominent, multi-generational political family? Given there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on far more low-level politicians in minor cities, I am surprised I am having as much difficulty as I am with this one. ~2026-56366-56 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

To my knowledge there isn't a notability guideline specific to that case. You can certainly try resubmitting through AFC with the sources you have and you might get lucky with a lenient reviewer, but my advice would be, if it's possible to find more in-depth sourcing, that would improve your chances. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Would you ever read through and copy edit my grammar and writing? ~2026-56366-56 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure - I can take a run through in the next couple days. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. It is quite concise so hopefully shouldn’t take too much of your time. Much appreciated ~2026-56366-56 (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for bringing George Washington to FA and improving it! ReelCosmix (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2026

Women in Red | November 2026, Vol 12, Issue 11, Nos 358, 359, 387, 388, 389 Events: New: 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Alphabet run: countries starting with T Wikipedia Asian Month: Asian women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman Sports More ... Announcements: Check out the Asia-Oceania Destubathon (and de-stub some women's biographies). Tip of the month: Remember to mention the subject's achievement(s) when writing the introduction or lead. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project Follow us on social media: Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 1 November 2026

• News and notes: AELECT5 concludes, a Wikimedian arrested for treason, and updates to GANs and FARs
  Nine new admins, three arrests, and a lot of GAN RFCs.

• Recent research: How Wikipedians use (or don't use) LLMs; experienced editors contribute more to "underproduced" articles than newbies
  And other new research findings.

• Disinformation report: Better bots or bothersome baby borgs?
  Have the Borg landed on Wikipedia?

• In the media: Stop the internet, I was deleted
  Can toeing the line stop the apocalypse?

• News from Diff: Why Wikimedia Is Speaking Up in a Major AI Copyright Case
  When AI companies use copyrighted information, does it qualify as fair use?

• By the numbers: Wikipedian Nobel Prize 2026
  Which language versions of Wikipedia had biographies of laureates before Nobel announcements?

• On the bright side: Gone fishing
  Touring Thailand, exploring iridescence, and translating prairie dog.

• Traffic report: October, and the articles are stripped bare
  Lots of deaths, Indian movies, and monsters. Happy Halloween!

• In focus: Two Roles, One Wikimedia Education Ecosystem
  What happens when different approaches to Wikimedia education connect?

• Comix: Inactivity
  Zounds!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

November music

story · music · places

November begins with a Bach cantata that ends with a love duet (see story) in which he invites to the wedding and she quotes a bridal song. You know because you performed the image review, - thank you for that! - Judith Blegen was on the same page until recently, and I hope to see Marisa Manchado there soon. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi! (Meg White)

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well! I was wondering—if you aren't too busy—whether or not you could conduct a source review for the Meg White FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meg White/archive2? You were very helpful last time, and I think I've addressed every last issue from the first review. Thank you so much! Watagwaan? I really like the color red! 12:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I can take a look this weekend if no one's picked it up by then. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Requesting mentorship for FA

Hi there,

I'm preparing an article, Indonesia, for the FA nomination, which would be my first ever FAC, and I'm looking for a mentor to help me go through the process. FYI, the article passed GAN last month and has completed a peer review just a week ago. The article was formerly FA but got demoted in 2017.

I've worked quite a lot on the article and I'd appreciate some guidance from an FAC mentor before nominating it. I'm most interested in the assessment of whether it's comprehensive enough, the prose, and general readiness for FA. Since this is my first ever FAC, I'd appreciate on any advice on how to handle the nom. Would you be willing to be my mentor on this? Looking forward to hear from you. Thank you. AdaCiccone (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to offer some advice. I see you've already pursued a PR, which is great. If you haven't already, I'd suggest also doing the following things:

• Make sure the issues raised in the FAR have been addressed
• Compare the article to existing country FAs and see how the structure and relative weighting compares. It's fine if there are differences, but you need to have a sense of whether the differences make sense given the actual differences between the countries.
• For every source cited, consider whether you could argue that it is reliable. If you're happy that you could, check that they are consistently formatted. For example, some of the books have locations and others don't - neither of those is wrong, but you should pick one and stick with it.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the prompt reply. I'm going to look into those points you mentioned and come back later. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Responding to your three points:

• For issues at the previous FAR:
  • Dead sources, Ref formatting all over, Duplicate reference and cite errors: I did my best to make sure all sources are consistent from the formatting side. Some dead sources are backed up by the web archives, there's no duplicates and no errors. The location issue you mentioned is now solved; and I chose not to include location on all sources.
  • Many one or two sentence paragraphs: No longer the case because I've made sure every paragraph is more developed and coherent.
  • Sections with few refs. (like Architecture): All sections are now properly cited.
  • Odd image placement with text sandwiching: Per the most recent GA review, all images are placed on the right side. Nothing on the left, so no sandwiching (at least from the desktop side).
  • Huge icons: I see no problem here.
  • Different styles of English: No longer the case as the article now consistently uses British English.
  • Out dated info from 2006: Unfortunately some of the information aren't up to date, like ethnic groups, because that's the most recent data available but most of the information on the article are generally recent.
  • The article is now relatively stable, the one factor (among many) against which the article failed the FAR in 2017.
• For the other country articles, I tried comparing to some of them. The structure is similar, though there's differences of course. For Indonesia, history and culture are the largest sections. Next are government and politics, demographics and geography. I think this weighting is okay for Indonesia because of its vast geographical, cultural, and human diversity, its political and administrative arrangements and its historical development. The economy and infra sections are the smallest because I tried aligning it with WP:SS and thus giving readers a concise overview of those. I think this one could attract the most scrutiny at FAC but I'm open for addressing the gaps if reviewers find any.
• For the sources, I did my best to make sure all are consistently formatted. For reliability, I've generally relied on academic books and journal articles because I assume those are, most of the time, reliable. For government publications and international organisations, I use them for straightforward facts that aren't analytical and evaluative. But I also choose the sources from what particular claim I'm working on.

AdaCiccone (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

A couple potential gaps: symbols (eg the flag), holidays, and philosophy. You can also look at how the lead compares to the article text. For example, the lead mentions the motto, but I don't actually see that discussed anywhere else? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll look into more coverage gaps, not just the ones you mentioned. Hopefully I can get it done this week. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Article moved back?

Hi there! I noticed you moved back Sinking of the SS Arctic because you say it was undicussed. However, it was discussed in RM for Sinking of RMS Lusitania and, subsequently, the Sinking of RMS Empress of Ireland article was moved too. So I moved this to be in line with those. I thought it proper to move in light of that. Omnis (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm having trouble identifying the RM in which this article was discussed - do you have a link? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I think it was a technical request and a few articles were moved after that request went through and I followed up on those moves essentially: here is the revision history of the Lusitania article for the initial one. Omnis (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Er, I'm confused - typically technical requests aren't discussed. So what discussion were you referencing? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

No I am sorry - I just looked closer at it and realised it wasn't a full discussion as I note below. Sorry for the confusion. Omnis (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

In which case, it technically wasn't discussed but it wasn't challenged either. Omnis (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I see. But this one has been challenged. I think the best course of action would be to return it to the original title, SS Arctic disaster. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I guess, in this case, it would be moved through a full discussion then? Omnis (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

That would be best. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I'll go through that then. :) Thank you. Omnis (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2026

This Month in GLAM – Volume XVI, Issue X, October 2026 Headlines From the team: Global GLAM Calls and Upcoming Conferences Albania report: GLAM, Education & Community Highlights – September–October 2026 Australia report: WikiProject Library and Information Science Botswana report: Botswana Joins Wiki Loves Monuments for the First Time Brazil report: Wikimedia Brasil announces list of selected winners for the 2026 Wiki Loves Monuments awards Czech Republic report: Renewed partnership with Charles University launched Egypt report: Capturing & Documenting the Unseen: GLAM Egypt October Recap France report: Unicorns, Science Festival and Birds Germany report: Wikidata and Webarchiving Italy report: ItWikiCon and the Turano Archaeological Survey New Zealand report: Auckland War Memorial Museum updates Philippines report: PhilWiki Community celebrates Bikol Wikisource's 2nd birthday with Open GLAM Day at Bicol Guerilla Museum Poland report: Polish Wikipedia at 25, a New University Partnership and Open Knowledge in the Age of AI Serbia report: October in Wikimedia Serbia Switzerland report: Workshop Digital Archives, National Museum in Prangins, DaSCHCon, UN Library and Archives Tunisia report: GLAM Wiki Days Tunisia 2026 UK report: Mughal scientific instruments + Gazette wind-down Content Partnerships Hub report: Content Partnerships Hub: October updates and new stories on Diff Memory of the World report: A dozen new articles Calendar: November's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:21, 12 November 2026 (UTC)