This user may have left Wikipedia. Maralia has not edited Wikipedia since 23 July 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Tag me with {{u|Maralia}} if you want to notify me of a reply elsewhere.
Hi Maralia, following the closure of the FAC and FAR coordinator proposal earlier today, I've taken the liberty of adding your name to the FAR instructions and the @FAR template. Congrats and look forward to working with you "officially" in the FA coordination space! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. We edit in very different areas, but your edit to Paulins Kill popped up on my watchlist, and I looked at some of your terrific edits and interest in military history. Last year I tried to create articles about all the lost towns along the Mississippi River (within the state of Mississippi). When I got to Bruinsburg, Mississippi, I got quite a surprise. Today it's a complete ghost town, but for a few hours in the 1800s it was a very busy place. Have a look at all the articles that now link to Bruinsburg. Just wanted to share that. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Thanks for your kind note. I appreciated your tweaks at Paulins Kill. The article is a rather old FA written largely by a user who has been banned for hoaxing (among other reasons), so I'm trying to clean it up and ensure everything in it is verifiable. I haven't found anything egregiously wrong yet, but more eyes on it would be helpful.
Thank you both! In truth, this was a LOT easier than cleaning up the other unintended consequences of GA's topic changes back in early 2013, which included redetermining the true topic of something like 2,500 articles under their new scheme. This latest one took a lot of digging around, but at least the fix itself was simple :) Maralia (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
February 6–8: The third annual ArtBytes Hackathon at the Walters Art Museum! This year Wikimedia DC is partnering with the Walters for a hack-a-thon at the intersection of art and technology, and I would like to see Wikimedia well represented.
February 11: The monthly WikiSalon, same place as usual. RSVP on Meetup or just show up!
February 15: Wiki Loves Small Museums in Ocean City. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, with support from Wikimedia DC, will be leading a workshop at the Small Museum Association Conference on how they can contribute to Wikipedia. Tons of representatives from GLAM institutions will be present, and we are looking for volunteers. If you would like to help out, check out "Information for Volunteers".
I am also pleased to announce events for Wikimedia DC Black History Month with Howard University and NPR. Details on those events soon.
If you have any questions or have any requests, please email me at james.harewikimediadc.org.
Not even a week ago I sent out a message talking about upcoming events in DC. Guess what? There are more events coming up in February.
First, as a reminder, there is a WikiSalon on February 11 (RSVP here or just show up) and Wiki Loves Small Museums at the Small Museum Association Conference on February 15 (more information here).
Now, I am very pleased to announce:
Tuesday, February 17 from 10 AM to 3 PM there will be #WikiTurgy at the University of Maryland. Join fellow theatre enthusiasts for a “mass act of public dramaturgy!”
Thursday, February 19 from 10 AM to 4 PM we are hosting the Howard University Black History Edit-a-Thon. We are working in partnership with the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of African-American and African diasporic history.
Tuesday, February 24 from 6 PM to 8 PM we have the Black History Month “First Edit” at NPR. Help improve Wikipedia and help others make their first edit to Wikipedia!
Finally, our monthly dinner meetup is on Saturday, February 28.
There is going to be a lot going on, and I hope you can come to some of the events!
If you have any questions or need any special accommodations, please let me know.
Hello, Maralia. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 02:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Friday, March 13: NIH Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon – 9 AM to 4 PM
In honor of Women’s History Month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing and hosting an edit-a-thon to improve coverage of women in science in Wikipedia. Free coffee and lunch served!
Saturday, March 21: Women in STEM Edit-a-Thon at DCPL – 12 PM
Celebrate Women's History Month by building, editing, and expanding articles about women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields during DC Public Library's first full-day edit-a-thon.
Would you mind checking out 2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final one final time? Another editor gave a thorough copy edit for style and it now has two supports. I think it is finally of sufficient quality since you last looked.
Happy Wikicupping (if that isn't a thing it should be)
Have been watching that happen—he's a peach, isn't he? We are expecting yet another snowstorm here over the next 24 hours, so I should have plenty of time to take another look. Maralia (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia, are you done flagging BLPs? I would help, but I'm unsure where you stopped. If you're done, I'll move on to pinging more frequent nominators ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm wondering if you're game for attempting to get an answer from Wehwalt re whether he still watchlists and maintains all of his noms, since we have no answer yet from him and he doesn't seem to want to discuss it with me; it would be nice to get that chunk pruned if possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. If you are reviewing all the old FAs you must have a massive job on your hands. I will take another look at the seven on your list which are down to me. I do try to keep an eye on them but I'm sure there will be deadlinks etc and other issues. It will take me a week or two to do all of them, as I have a few other things on as well. Do you want me to let you know one by one when I think they are OK or wait until I've looked at all of them & then let you know?— Rodtalk17:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: It truly is a massive effort, with some 2,200 articles on the working list at the moment, so no one is going to start posting angsty follow-up messages anytime soon—take your time! It's fine to wait and let me know once you've been through them all, but feel free to ping me if you run into any specific issues and want a second opinion. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having made a start on one of them I find there is more work than I expected (not just deadlinks etc) so I think my original timescale of "a week or two" may slip.— Rodtalk08:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: Thanks for the update. I've noticed you've had your hands full with the bishop research going on at Magna Carta; fortunately there's no particular rush on this. Let me know if there's anywhere I can lend a hand. Maralia (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know it has been a lot longer than I predicted, however I have been working on these, among other things. Thanks to help from a variety of editors (especially User:CorinneSD from the Guild of Copy Editors) I believe Bath, Somerset still meets the criteria. Could you take a look and let me know if there is anything else you feel needs doing?— Rodtalk07:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maralia, thanks for your note about the FAs. You can remove all but one on the list you left my talk, as I'm maintaining them. The exception is Muhammad al-Durrah incident, partly because it was an unpleasant article to work on, partly because I was waiting for a book in French by one of the parties to be translated into English. I'm intending to go into the article within the next six months and fix and update it. Sarah (SV)(talk)02:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia, @FAR coordinators: I'm going to be traveling for a few weeks, so don't want you to think I've dropped the ball at the sandbox or at FAR. Not sure what kind of internet access I'll have, or when I'll be back at it! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know. We will keep puttering along. (And, since the others will see this, let me add that I'm going to be v busy the first 3 weeks of June myself.) Enjoy your trip! Maralia (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the sandbox, I had gotten through the Ks on pinging nominators with three or more on the list, avoiding those we know are MIA, or those where I know there are issues, so we can leave those for last. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Avi. It's quite normal for it to take a month or two nowadays; the reviewer pool is pretty small, and things always slow down in the summer. Unlike a FAC or PR, it won't be closed simply for lack of reviews. As long as you keep responding to concerns that are raised, there's nothing to worry about. Maralia (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Maralia. It has been two months, but only a few people commented on the FAR for Actuary. Do you think it should remain open longer? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have followed the guidelines for requesting a FA review. I have done this on the talk page of the article. The major editor/contributor initially wrote that he would address my concerns regarding the references in the article. No progress has been done to address my concerns and I, with no malice, want to proceed with the process of a review of its FA status. The major problems are: the references are quite outdated. I have posted other references and left this information on the talk page. I would have edited and inserted the updated references myself but I do not feel as if I have the expertise or familiarity with the topic to do so or I would have fixed it myself. Another significant problem is that the references do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. The references in medical articles should be academic journal review articles, systematic review articles, governmental websites and policies and medical textbooks. I could find none of these as sources (there might one and I might have missed it). My review is not perfect but in good faith, I am optimistic that with the right sources, this article can retain its FA status. Best Regards,
Hi Bfpage. I'm assuming (since you also posted to Nikki, Cas, and DrK) that you posted here because I'm a FAR coordinator, but it just so happens that I helped Colin with this article years ago, as well. While it's true that the references at KD are getting a bit long in the tooth, the quality of the sources is quite impeccable: they are review articles and medical textbooks, so I'm completely baffled by your assertion that you "could find none of these as sources". Can you elaborate? Maralia (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly could be entirely mistaken. I will go back to the article. I have not seen any significant changes in the references since I brought up my concerns in May. Colin was very courteous and said that he would work to make some changes.
On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!
Hi,
I'm editor-in-chief of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and we're about to consider a snapshot of the Cerebellum article for publication in this journal: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Cerebellum. This would make it easier for external sources to use and cite this work, and after we've advanced the journal these publications will be searchable in PubMed as well. Since you have been one of the most active contributors to this article, we would like to include you in the "author" list, but we want these to be the authors' real names. If you approve, you may edit that article to change your username to your real name, or include it in a reply to me. Otherwise, you will be attributed by a link to the history page of the Wikipedia article. Also, the work has undergone peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could have a look into the peer review comments, and help amending the mentioned issues before publication in the journal: /Cerebellum#Peer review. You may first look at its history to see what corrections have already been made by other authors.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Maralia, I think that the WP:FAR project is a very worthwhile one. This is a project that I could really embrace. However, being a new editor (coupled with the fact that I mostly use a tablet & therefore see a stripped down version of the site, specifically the full editorial tools simply aren't available in the mobile view). That being said, if another Wikipedian would be willing to take this novice editor under their wing and guide me, I would very much like to help out with this project. :) about to use 4 tildes, but SineBot will sign again anyway... SeaBeeDee 12:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee SeaBeeDee 12:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowserCheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
There is a discussion at Village Pump (policy) that assessment of WP:Quality assessment for A-Class, B-Class, C-Class and Start-Stub articles is long antiquated and of limited valued for future purposes of Wikipedia. As you are involved in the day-to-day listing and de-listing of articles from these classes to peer review status possibly you could take a glance at the discussion of comments here [1]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.
We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents, an "Intimate, moving and respectful diptych portrait of Albrecht Dürer's parents. The Dürer family went through many hardships but remained close and Albrecht Dürer the Elder and Barbara Holfer were proud of their exceptionally talented son."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
