# User talk:Noleander/Archive 13

## Main page appearance: pi

This is a note to let the main editors of pi know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 22, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 22, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

π (or pi) is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. It is approximately equal to 3.14159. π is an irrational number, which means that it cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers, although it is roughly approximated by 22/7. It is a transcendental number – a number that cannot be produced with a finite sequence of algebraic operations (sums, products, powers, and roots). The transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and ruler. The digits in the decimal representation of π appear to be random. Because its definition relates to the circle, π is found in many formulae in trigonometry and geometry, such as Euler's identity, e + 1 = 0. It is also found in formulae from other branches of science, such as cosmology, number theory, statistics, fractals, thermodynamics, mechanics, and electromagnetism. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

## Precious

 constant Thank you for getting attention for a math constant, Pi, on the Main page, and for your quality activity in articles, reviews and proposals with a sense for teamwork, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank-you. I had some helpful assistance from several other editors on the pi article ... it sure was a lot of fun! --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/RfC (Proposal)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/RfC (Proposal). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: limited to participants of anti-vandalism project. --Noleander (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

## FotF

Hi there. I'm sure you recall facilitating a dispute resolution recently, concerning sources and wording at Focus on the Family. In that incident, you made a determination narrowly regarding a single sentence in the lead of the article, and your solution was accepted by all involved, as far as I can tell.

Subsequent to that process, I undertook to further improve the article, which suffered from a disorganized lead section. Being careful to retain the new consensus version of the disputed sentence, I rearranged the rest of the lead's content for style and flow. I eliminated a redundant use of the descriptor "American", and a couple of other words that no longer fit grammatically (and again, these changes did not involve the language editors had hammered-out via dispute resolution). The net change was (-25) bytes.

Immediately, the editor who initiated the DRN reverted the changes, accused me of "vandalism" and of "mass deletion against consensus", which is, of course, utter nonsense. Quite frankly, this seems to be a passive-aggressive response on the part of the adverse party from the earlier process. After a single reversion of my own, wherein I pointed out that nothing was removed, a discussion ensued, but so far has not been fruitful. A couple of other editors seem non-committal, but not willing to step in. There was one follow-on reversion a couple of hours later by an IP which, by all appearances, is probably a meat-sock belonging to first editor. One editor did come along last night and reinstated my re-write, but the original editor reverted this, again claiming consensus for the borked-up version of the opening paragraphs.

The primary claim seem to be that he thinks the dispute resolution now locks down the entire lead. Clearly, outside intervention is needed, both to straighten-out and improve the article, and to educate the obstinate editor.

My questions for you...

Are you willing to step back in and mediate a separate disagreement on the same article?

If a process-based solution is more appropriate, should the original dispute at DRN be closed and a new one initiated?

Do you recommend an escalation to a different process?

Thanks in advance. Belchfire (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to look again and see if I can help. It is probably best to just continue the original DRN ... opening a new one could be confusing. No need to change the process quite yet: Let's see if DRN can do the job. --Noleander (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Presumably you're waiting for another entry in the DRN discussion, so I'll put something in there shortly. Belchfire (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I put a comment in the Talk page of the article. If progress is being made, we could perhaps shift from the DRN to the Talk page. Or, we could use the DRN ... either way. --Noleander (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I left my last post before I noticed that you had visited the talk page. Things seem to be going well there, for now. A little outside influence to get things back on track was what the discussion needed. Belchfire (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

## Bulgaria Dispute

Near Noleander,

I'm involved in the dispute for Bulgaria, however since I'm new to this I wanted to ensure I follow the rules and not post too much or too little in the dispute. For example I do have answers to the questions you posted to the "Independence" editors, but is it good etiquette and practice for me to provide those answers. Please, let me know, as I'm still educating myself (this is my first dispute ever)

In any case I'm providing the answers with references to you, as an FYI only:

Let me ask another question of the "Independence" editors: In what ways were the 1st and 2nd Bulgarian Empires different than the post-1878 states? What differed? Language? Answer: Lagrange was the same. Here is a reference on history: http://www.europe-cities.com/en/666/bulgaria/history/language/ Culture? Answer: Culture was very much the same, retaining the core Bulgarian customs like Koleda (Christmas) Gergiovden (St. George's day), etc. Some of those are from pre 681 even. Here is a link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm Name? Answer: The country has always been called Bulgaria Locale? Answer: Bulgarians have always referred to them and were referred to by others as Bulgarians. During the Ottomon era, did the residents of the bulgarian region speak bulgarian? Answer: Bulgarians continued to speak Bulgarian. Refer to themselves as bulgarian? Answer: Yes, Bulgarians have always referring to themselves as Bulgarian Have a bulgarian culture? Answer: Yes, see customs link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm

Please, let me know if I should post this answer to the dispute page.

Thank you! ximhua — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ximhua (talkcontribs) 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and add it. The important thing is to not repeat the same thing that other editors say, or to go off on irrelevant tangents. If you have new information, go ahead and post it. Be as terse as possible. --Noleander (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

## Angelou reviews

Hi Noleander, thought you might be interested, since you peer reviewed Maya Angelou: it and List of Maya Angelou works are up for FAC and FLC currently. I inform you because both haven't received the reviews they need as of yet. Could you go to both--Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Maya Angelou works/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maya Angelou/archive1--and do what you can? It would be muchly appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be happy to do an FAC review. --Noleander (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

## Bulgaria dispute - gentle reminder

Hi Noleander,

Just a friendly reminder, that we're waiting in the Bulgaria dispute for you to advise on next steps. The opposing side does not provide any references and the same statements are being repeated over and over. I'm really looking to reach a closure. Please, help.

(Ximhua (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

There is no rush. DRNs often take a week or more to come to some kind of conclusion. Some DRNs never get resolved. RfCs (an alternative to DRN) normally take a month. I'm waiting to see if more editors have ideas before I comment again. --Noleander (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough and thank you! I'm new, so I may be coming back with simple questions like this. Thus, please excuse my sometimes simple questions :-) Again thank you for helping!(Ximhua (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

## Angelou images

Hey Nole,

Now that the Angelou FAC is over (yah!), I thought it'd be a good time to work on those images. Here are a few I thought might work:

• File:My Heroes - Maya Angelou connected with countless people through her powerful poetry.jpg This one is in Commons, but has been rejected before because of its original source (Flickr) and because it didn't add anything to the text, other than showing what she looked like in the late 90s. I'm not sure where it would fit at this point.
• [1] Miss Calypso album cover. This was rejected because it wasn't free enough and the editor thought that it didn't illustrate the article.
• [2] Image from Angelou's time at the Purple Onion. Perhaps any of the four images on this website would work; I think this one's the best because it shows her dancing.
• [3] Either the pic with Angelou and Balwin or her and Langston Hughes; I prefer Baldwin.

I think these are a good start. I could probably find others if we need them. Again, thanks for your help, especially during the FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are great images. I think the Heroes one does not add a lot to the article, and therefore perhaps lowest priority. The Calypso and Onion one are most informative to the reader, and top priority. The Hughes and Baldwin are medium priority. The key thing, to include any of them, is that the article must discuss/analyze the event shown in the picture. For example, to include the Purple Onion pic, the article must discuss here dancing, and - ideally - would mention the Purple Onion. The article already includes a paragraph that touches on both those topics: "After Angelou's marriage ended ...". The text there looks sufficient to support the Onion dancing pic. The fact that there is no article yet on Miss Calypso is important: that makes the Maya Angelou the primary WP article for that album, and helps justify inclusion of the picture in this article. But the article probably needs a few more words about the Calypso album itself. Best would be criticism/reviews of the album; or discussion of how the album was an important aspect of her career. The Baldwin pic is okay to use now, because Baldwin is specifically mentioned in the article as a good friend of hers. So I'll go ahead a make a reduced resolution version of that and upload it. L. Hughes is not yet mentioned in the article, so probably cannot be used in the article. If you want to include that pic, can you find some material about her inspiration/relationship/etc with Hughes? --Noleander (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded 2 images, and provided fair use rationales. We can continue this discussion in the Talk page of the Maya Angelou article. --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

## The Signpost: 30 July 2012

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 22:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

## Afro-textured hair

Please see this diff for the very source of problem discussed at WP:DRN#Afro-textured hair. As you may see, the questions of RfC are misleading; taking in account the fact that this is all of the prior discussion, and that the questions of RfC are by far too likely to gather exactly the same answer by all participants of this dispute, the whole RfC will only escalate the conflict. Please, remove your !vote and let Priorsolve77 revoke the RfC unless we have it all fueled. Nobody wants problems coming from the fact that several hours of activity were not enough to learn the way collaboration works on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied on the article Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm pretty confused on how to communicate my idea to you: the editors coming through RfC will face the question about dealing with photographs of bald people, while all the participators in discussion agree that bald people should not be shown in illustrations. How is this RfC going to help??? What is worse, it is pretty obvious that the answers will be "Sure there should be no bald people here!", which will be mistaken by Priorsolve77 for support for his position, making the dispute by far more difficult to resolve.
That is: whatever editors disagree on, it is obviously unrelated to the questions in RfC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the RfC question may be worded very poorly. But the RfC is a discussion: maybe the discussion will find a better way to word the question (Many RfCs start with one question, but it evolves into another question). Or maybe the discussion will show that there is no longer a problem. But Priorsolve77 has an issue that they are asking help with. We need to be patient, and let Priorsolve77 articulate the problem ... if their first try was not perfect, they need a chance to rephrase the questions. WP has a goal of not offending new editors such as Priorsolve77. In fact, there is a whole guideline on that: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Closing the RfC could offend Priorsolve77 and cause them to stop contributing to WP. A better approach is to continue the dialog with Priorsolve77, to let them rephrase their questions, to give them a chance to explain the issues. Many editors only login to WP every 3 or 4 days: so we should wait at least 5 or 6 days before we terminate the discussion. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Definitely I would love to give them opportunity to rephrase questions. That is why this RfC should be stopped and only restarted when the questions are ready: otherwise chances are they will receive the answers to these questions, which would automatically turn rephrasing into inappropriate action, breaking the flow of discussion. Once again, I'm not against having RfC on this dispute, I just want to avoid any accidental harm to the discussion before the proper RfC questions are ready. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go ahead and rephrase the RfC question, so the conversation does not go astray. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

## DRN

Hi there, I noticed you were looking over 2 DRN threads, Joseph_de_Maistre and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29.2C_Talk:Four-dimensionalism. Do you think you could take another look over the threads? I think the first discussion should maybe be looked at by MedCom - it's an easy one for them, get the two participants to work towards a compromise. The second is a little more complex, but I'll leave that one to your capable hands. Thanks so much for your hard work at DRN :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I added another comment to the Eternalism case ... that may be close to consensus. I've also commented on the Pantheism case. I don't recall commenting on the Maistre case, but I'll take a look. --Noleander (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Barnstar of Diplomacy I've been very critical of WP:DRN, calling it essentially worthless, but your behavior has been the exception that shows how the process should go. Instead of counting hands and slapping whoever is in the minority, you work to come up with a reasonable compromise that tries to resolve the underlying dispute. You're not in some all-fired rush to close each complaint and you're even willing to get your hands dirty by editing the article boldly. The end result is that your efforts improve articles, which is what dispute resolution is supposed to be for. Keep up the good work! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. --Noleander (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

## Q 4 U

I'm sure you remember the DRN struggle over the lead at Focus on the Family. (Well, you would remember the first one, anyway). Does that still hold any water? Or is it pretty much null and void if an editor who dropped out of editing the article just prior to the DRN comes back and decides to revert the results? Just askin', to make sure I grok the situation. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 02:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think my initial advice is still valid: get the body of the article written first (including any critical information, provided it is presented neutrally and objectively); then write the lead as a synopsis of the body. Since there is a significant amount of criticism of FOTF, that criticism should be summarized in the lead, in the most neutral way possible. See WP:Criticism. When crafting the lead, it is common to use more general terminology than in the body (e.g. if the body names SPLC as a specific critic, among many, the lead should probably just say "some critics" instead of specifically mentioning SPLC). [PS: "grok" ... now that brings back some memories :-) ] --Noleander (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

## Talkback

Hello, Noleander. You have new messages at Jorgath's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

## Michael Servetus

Thank you for your proposal for the resolution of the Michael Servetus issue. I agree with your definition of WP:FRINGE. Now that the request is closed, I have a doubt about the next steps. Who is entitled to make the necessary changes in the article according to the guidelines you suggested? Is it me, as the OP for the request, or should I step aside here and let some other user or administrator implement that task? Best regards. --jofframes (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is special in WP. Anyone could implement the proposed resolution. It would be best if it were someone with expertise in the Servetus materials: that way the footnotes & citations are more likely to be accurate. --Noleander (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. I will implement the changes in the next few days and include a note in the Talk page regarding the resolution of the dispute (with a link). --jofframes (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As you condense that material down to one paragraph: Rather than delete all of the detail that is there now, consider moving some of the detail into footnotes. It is okay for footnotes to be large. It may be useful for future editors if the important portions of the current material were retained in footnotes. --Noleander (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I opened an incident in the Administrators' noticeboard regarding uncivil behaviour in the Michael Servetus article. Feel free to visit and leave a comment if you consider it adequate. Thank you. --Jdemarcos (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

## HA Schult

Thanks for your comment concerning HA Schult on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. There you said, "I realize that this artist is not famous, so finding traditional hardbound book sources is unlikely." As German academics say that he is "one of the most famous performance artists of our day" and as there are many books and exhibition catalogs published on Schult to be found in American university libraries, as a WorldCat search proves, I do not think that Schult "is not famous". See also my reply on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, where I have cited an additional source that includes an English text by Peter Weibel on Schult. Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected ... I guess I should have said "I've never heard of him" :-) Anyway, my point is still the same: the best sources are journals, newspapers, and books by major publishers. Those sources should favored over websites and PhD theses. That Weibel source looks fine. --Noleander (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in on this, but I observe that the thread for this DRN request is now significantly long. May I take a crack at a concise summary to hopefully get the editors to come to a consensus? I ask before I jump in so as to not create confusion between the DRN Volunteer who is primarily handling the request and those who might be participating as volunteers or those participating as disputants. Hasteur (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that I am the only person who is frequently looking for valuable sources on Schult, among them books, museum catalogs, articles in art journals etc. However, Rhode Island Red does not accept most of these reliable sources. Who is able to solve this problem? Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You may now have a look at Talk:HA_Schult#Suggestions_for_improving_the_paragraphs. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There are still problems concerning the content of the Schult article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

## Talkback

Hello, Noleander. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard.
Message added 22:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

## Ping

Hi Noleander, when you get a chance, someone added a few inline clarification tags to Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders. There are 7 now, hopefully they can be cleaned up easily enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info ... I'm busy in real life, but I should be able to address it in a day or two. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

## The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Hi. On iPhone - sorry about fornatting. See WP:SANITY (new idea) and User:Xavexgoem/dr (draft of new DR policy). Both in progress. Your input appreciated. Ta. Good work on volunteer guide :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 13:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Posted thoughts on both Talk pages. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

## Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Australian Cattle Dog

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Australian Cattle Dog. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done ... closed RfC: consensus was found & implemented already. --Noleander (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

## Dispute resolution concept

Capturing some thoughts here so I don't misplace them:

Nature of issue Progression Behavior Content
Dispute Informal
first stop
Third Opinion Third Opinion
Semi-formal ANI DRN
Formal
(last resort)
Arbitration committee Formal Mediation
Soliciting input RfC (User) RfC (content)

... --Noleander (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind a polite suggestion, would you consider ensuring WP:CLOSE applies to WP:DRN? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Do you mean in that table immediately above? Or are you referring to the open RfC in the DRN talk page? Or ???? --Noleander (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for not specifying context. I meant that, in general, just as an admin closing an RfC is obligated not to just count up editors and must instead exclude views that do not comply with policy and facts, a DRN volunteer should do the same. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree 100%. I've been watching DRN lately, and I have not seen any "vote counting" problems. But, you are right, the DRN policy should make it clear that WP:CLOSE does indeed apply. --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that was my entire point. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
A postscript I would add: DRN is supposed to be more of a mediation than an RfC (where vote counting is more prone to happen); typically in a DRN case there are only 2 or 3 parties plus 1 or 2 uninvolved editors participating, so there is no opportunity for RfC-like vote counting. So applying the CLOSE principle to DRN case is essentially saying: "listen carefully to the parties, apply the WP policies neutrally, and ignore the number of parties on each 'side' ". --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I strongly agree that, due to small numbers and self-selection, the number of people on each side of an issue is almost meaningless. The part of WP:CLOSE that's relevant is that it tells us not to just count, but to look at reasons and ignore preferences that lack plausible stated reasons.

In terms of mediation, this figures in to getting the parties to recast their objections in terms of reasons instead of preferences. If A says "I like X" and B says "I dislike X", there's nothing to discuss, as there's no way to resolve the conflict. But if A says "I like X because of M" and B says "M is false, so I don't like X", now you can at least look at M and see if we can confirm its truth value. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like we are in agreement. Arguments are always stronger when rooted in WP policy or guideline (rather than simply an editors feelings or opinion). --Noleander (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I may agree with you more than you do, as I'd say that (per WP:CLOSE) an argument that's not rooted in policy and facts isn't just weak, it has no weight. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Naturalistic Pantheism page deletion

Hi. Thanks for all the help on the Pantheism page. I think with a little more improvement, the article may have gone from a B class to an A class article due in large part to your contributions.

Related to that, I have researched the term "Naturalistic pantheism" and have found reason for it to be removed. Please take a look when you have time and share your thoughts. Thanks (Allisgod (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

One more thing. This is my first experience nominating a page for deletion. If you have any tips on how I can get more people involved in the process please let me know! (Allisgod (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:MassResistance. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

## Footnote help

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I noticed you announcing your intention to contact another user with an offer of help in respect to footnotes, and that's led me to speculatively contact you on this occasion... The relevant Help page explains how to generate them but not how to edit one if, for example, it contains an incorrectly constitued link, as in this particular case that's increasingly niggling me the more impossible it seems to be to do anything about it. As there seems to be an unusual level of expertise-apartheid at work here, I was wondering whether perhaps you would be kind enough to volunteer your services to explain matters to a non-initiate a second time? Yours hopefully, Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refusenik1 (talkcontribs) 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied on their talk page. --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Replied to reply - sorry for delay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refusenik1 (talkcontribs) 12:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 00:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

## hello

how do you add source links when editing a page? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.28.42.91 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You can find detailed instructions at WP:FOOTNOTES and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Or you can just use this simple example: At the end of each sentence put the following "ref" stuff:

Here is some sentence you've added.<ref>Joe Smith, ''The name of a book'', 1979, Random House, p. 321.</ref> Here is a second sentence you add.<ref>Susan Jones, "The name of a some magazine article", ''The Magazine Name", 20 July, 2005, p 24.</ref>

The key is to describe the source (book, newspaper, magazine) between the "ref" markers. Note that the second ref marker starts with a slash before the "ref". After you save these "ref" stuff, it will appear in the article as a footnote. If you don't have a source (that is, if you are just using your own personal knowledge) you cannot put the material in the article. Let me know if you have any more questions. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

## COI accusation

Hi, my editing activity is currently under discussion at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Issue is related to the Michael Servetus article and its Talk page. You are kindly invited to participate in the discussion due to your fruitful proposal to settle the issue that I raised at a previous dispute resolution on the same topic. I have exposed my defense arguments against the COI but there is still no feedback from neutral users, and I would prefer the issue to be fairly settled and resolved. Your opinion may be helpful in discerning this (for me) perplexing situation that is bordering on harassment. Thanks. --Jdemarcos (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

## on the WQA question

I know it is specifically stated in the proposal as not happening, BUT I think a lot of the objection is that things *may* be pushed to AN/I, which has a very poor track record for civility. I suggested to Stephen that we need dedicated moderators, who are specifically not admins, who can moderate places like AN/I for civility, tone, and most importantly, make sure the threads are staying on track.

Maybe I just need to propose that at the Village Pump. -- Avanu (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I read the proposal as follows: Not only would ANI not be the primary destination for behavior disputes, but moreover WP:3O (a very low-key process) would be the favored destination. I view the proposal as simply a merger of WQA and 3O: they are both lightweight and non-confrontational. It just brings them together: the pool of volunteers would actually grow larger! --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

## Mediation

A mediation request for naturalistic pantheism has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Naturalistic pantheism. However, it lacks a summary of the content dispute. As someone who has previously handled the content dispute on DRN, and is familiar with it, would you mind writing the summary as requested by AGK? Thanks in advance!--SGCM (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

## Assam and DRN

Thank you for your comment and your help in resolving this dispute. Chaipau (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Noleander (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Copyeditor's Barnstar For your invaluable assessment and copy-edits of the draft formal mediation policy, I award you the Copyeditor's Barnstar. Thank you very much! AGK [•] 22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much; and thanks for your work on the mediation committee. --Noleander (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

## Pink Floyd FAC

If you have the time, we could sure use an image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive2. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm busy in real life for the next couple of days; but I'll get to it soon. --Noleander (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much! If you can make the time, I would also appreciate an article review, but if you are too busy I completely understand. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do an article review also. May take 2 days or so. --Noleander (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thanks much! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Read All About It (song). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

## I Could Fall in Love PR

Hello, hope you are having a great day =) I am here to notify you that the article's copy-editing has been completed. Can you begin the peer review? Best, Jonatalk to me 23:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, be glad to. I'm busy in real life, but I should be able to get to it in 2 or 3 days. --Noleander (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I have replied to some of your comments. Best, Jonatalk to me 15:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

## Pantheism page

Noleander, I would like to bring to your attention a series of recent edits and reversions in the last few days which clearly demonstrate the issues I have been complaining about re Allisgod. I hope you will look carefully at these and reconsider your view as to which of us places Wikipedia's interests above any personal interests.
I have a lot more evidence stretching back, relating also to his clearly stated agenda to promote determinism and Classical Pantheism - but this is a very good example of what's been happening all along.
In the Pantheism article Allisgod recently:

• changed the title of "Pantheist organizations" (which has been there for a month or more) to "Green religions," a title that contains within itself both OR and POV.
• seeing that "Green religions" could not be defended, today completely removed the heading "Pantheist organizations" so that these organizations came under the heading "Other religions" which clearly they are not.
• seeing the non-viability of that move, deleted the heading "Pantheist organizations" and created a joint heading "Other religions and organizations."
• inserted unsourced negative comments and evaluations both of the World Pantheist Movement and the Universal Pantheist Society (removed by me)
• repeatedly removed every reference to Naturalistic Pantheism from the Pantheism page, even though
• this term has been in use at least 120 years, has been used mainly in a fairly consistent way as described on the Naturalistic Pantheism page,
• it has FOUR TIMES more Google Books results than Classical Pantheism.
• it was accepted as a notable concept by the AfD board which rejected his attempt to have the Naturalistic Pantheism article deleted.
• repeatedly inserted alternative names for what the WPM promotes - anything other than what it says plainly on the WPM's own web pages "Naturalistic Pantheism" used in a way that's fully consistent with majority use.

All the above maneuvers are blatant and flagrant examples of his stated biases against Naturalistic Pantheism and the World Pantheist Movement. None of my changes can be construed as promoting the World Pantheist Movement - simply at accuracy and avoidance of POV material.--Naturalistic (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are good points ... I think some of those changes look wrong, based on what you're saying. Go ahead and bring them up in the formal mediation (remember to be terse & to stick to the content/sourcing issue only). --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

## The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

## Pantheism Article

Check it out. The guy is editing the page back the way he wants it (removing theistic elements of pantheism etc.) and ignoring ongoing mediation. I really don't think mediating with the guy is effective because his full time job as president and promoter of his donation based organization, which runs "pantheism.net", makes him impossible to work with. It's just too big of a conflict of interest imo. How can I make a more serious complaint because I'm about to give up on mediation and compromise. He has no interest in it and I don't want to waste my time. (Allisgod (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

I know it can be frustrating at times. I encourage you to stick with mediation. Just go through the process ... it may take a week or two. If your approach is more consistent with WP policy, the mediator will acknowledge that, and you can use that as a tool (after the mediation finishes) to help revert inappropriate edits. Hang in there! --Noleander (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's overwhelming for one person though, he is working nonstop full time on his interest. (Allisgod (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
You are not "just one person". There is the mediator; and I would be willing to help pitch in after the mediation is over to implement the resolution. I'm not saying the system is perfect: "edit warriors" do sometimes get their way within WP. Just let the mediation take its course. It may turn out okay in the end. --Noleander (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am responding to this Noleander since you have been involved in mediating/editing the Pantheism article and may be involved in further escalations of this edit war. I want to make sure you have both sides of this picture.
Since the beginning of August Allisgod has been completely running the Pantheism article to his own liking, editing it in an extremely non-neutral way. Allisgod is the person doing non-neutral editing, not me. I have made many concessions to his points of view and his changes - he has made none to mine.
Allisgod pushes his stated agenda of Spinoza (the "prince and prophet" of Pantheism), determinism (including non-neutral arguments in favor of determinism) and Charles Hartshorne (who was a panentheist, not a pantheist) at every opportunity (including in the Panentheism and Spinoza articles).
Part of his agenda has been removing all mention of Naturalistic Pantheism on the Pantheism article and trying to make the mention of the World Pantheist Movement as invisible as possible. His original definition of Naturalistic Pantheism in the Naturalistic Pantheism article included, unsurprisingly, mentions of Spinoza and determinism in the first paragraph, making it identical with Classical Pantheism.
Allisgod's totally inflexible and hostile approach to mediation can be seen very clearly in the current mediation, where he has rejected every suggestion of compromise or agreement and simply held out doggedly for his own versions. The following section is a good example of how, as each one of his reasons for inflexibility is disproven, he immediately shifts ground to a different reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Naturalistic_pantheism#How_much_and_what_kind_of_coverage_the_World_Pantheist_Movement_should_have_on_the_Naturalistic_pantheism_article
In fact his attitude has undermined the mediation so that we now have to resort to other boards for adjudication.
As for his charges against me:

1. I have personally removed all mentions of my own book Elements of Pantheism and do not plan to re-insert any - though the categorization of types of pantheism is particularly useful and not found anywhere else.
2. I have personally shortened the long section on the World Pantheist Movement in the Naturalistic Pantheism article to a single line (I did not insert the long material that was there before). Given that the World Pantheist Movement is the largest pantheist organization in the world, and one of only two with Pantheist in the title in all of history, I think that's reasonable.
3. I have always edited with Wikipedia policies in mind and have not edited in a conflict of interest manner. I been scrupulously neutral and am concerned with accuracy and coverage of all major types of pantheism. Wikipedia specifically encourages people with a potential conflict of interest to declare that interest, and I have done so. We have no idea whether Allisgod has a conflict of interest since he refuses to say who he is. However, it's very plain that he has strong personal views on pantheism and allows those personal views to direct his editing behavior.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

## Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Peer review/Poquita Ropa/archive1

Hey! DO you have additional comments on it? I want to get it to FAC. You said that if you forgot about it, i'd write on your talk page :) — ΛΧΣ21 15:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

## Non-free rationale for File:TheSignOfTheSeahorse.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TheSignOfTheSeahorse.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

## FYI Re: 3O

[4]. Not sure what to do next. Ideas? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 21:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I don't think it is a big deal. My recommendation is to leave it alone, mostly because the most immediate issue is working cooperatively with the 3O community to make sure they can absorb new mostly-behavior cases that arise after WQA goes away. That may entail, for instance creating a sub-process under 3O for 100% behavior issues (but there may be other great solutions). Handling the WQA-close event, to me, is top priority. Spending time on 2 vs 3 party limit would be a distraction from that larger job. My recommended sequence of action is (1) wait one more week for the WQA discussion to finish; (2) close WQA (unless some huge change happens to reverse the current trend in that discussion); (3) work with 3O community to come up with a 3O-conduct-only process (a sub-process that is quasi-independent would be least intrusive to existing 3O process); (4) several months or a year from now, revisit 2 vs 3 party limit in 3O. --Noleander (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

## Re:NFCI RfC

There is a community consensus; I have no idea what you're hoping to achieve from the RfC. I'm trying to be reasonable with you here, but you just don't seem to understand the issues you're talking about. Please read my latest comment at your RfC; that is the situation here, and that, surely, should be clear to anyone with a vague idea of what the NFCC are about. Could you please tell me which part of that is unclear to you? J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So we're on the same page-

The situation with album covers is not particularly complex; I think you're needlessly complicating it. A non-free cover, like any other image, may only be used if it meets the NFCC, including NFCC#8- it must add significantly to the article. There is a general consensus that an album cover adds significantly to the article about the album. This does not extend to other related articles. However, an album cover could reasonably be used elsewhere, like any non-free image, if its use adds significantly to the article in question for some specific reason; perhaps the article discusses the artistry of the cover, perhaps it discusses a controversy around the cover, perhaps the cover is cited as evidence of something and showing the cover can help present the issue neutrally. The significance of the thing the cover represents/whether that thing has an article has no bearing on the issue.

What is unclear/controversial about that? J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Replied at that RfC page. --Noleander (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, please, FORGET THE NFCI. THEY'RE NOT IMPORTANT. The use of non-free images is judged against the NFCC. If an image/usage meets the NFCC, then it can be used. Simple. The NFCI are meant to just help new users, yet, all to often, end up clouding the issue as people mistake them for anything that is at all important. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

## Improving FURs

Thanks again for the great review. I have now addressed all your concerns. I was wondering if you could give me some guidance in regard to your image review comment: "The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article". I am not too familiar with what is best practice so could you give me an example or two that I may implement at the FURs to rectify this situation? Thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm specifically referring to the text in the "Purpose" section of the rationales. Here is once such text:

Section. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. Illustrates the appearance of the album and identifies it by recognized features. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public.

.

As you can see from the discussion in the FAC page, and also the discussion at the RfC, some editors feel that there needs to be a very strong justification for the album covers. Specifically, they cite WP:NFCC requirement #8, which reads: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". So, to satisfy that requirement, I think that each album must be individually assessed, and the "Purpose" text in the rationale must explain why (1) that particular album is very significant for the band; and (2) why the inclusion of the album cover photo is essential to help readers understand the band's history. E.g. "The album cover was carefully selected by the band because ...; and the album cover was widely regarded as ground-breaking because ...". (I'm just making those words up for illustrative purposes, but you get the idea). --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Great thanks Noleander. I'll try to implement your suggested changes when I get time tomorrow. Maybe you could help me out a little bit also if you have the time. Thanks again for the great review! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
... also, you asked about examples. Look at the rationale File:Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band.jpg for its use in The Beatles (also a FA). --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, thanks, good example. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:California Proposition 8

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:California Proposition 8. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk)

## The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Quantum leap

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quantum leap. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Memento

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Memento. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done ... no opinion. --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

## DRN section

Hi. If you could tell me how to make a normal DRN section layout, I would be pleased to do so for my recent dispute resolution request. Filanca (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied at DRN page. --Noleander (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

## Thank You for insight and diplomacy

thanks for good input on Innovation Journalism. The RfD is still not closed, it seems. If you still are available to have a look, it could be helpful. If not, many thanks for your insight and diplomacy! --dnordfors (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the AfD is still open. I've already commented in the AfD ... there is a shortage of editors who spend time monitoring AfDs, so there may not be much more input. An Administrator will be by within a week to make a judgement. --Noleander (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

## RFC on List of Tea Party politicians

I have closed the RFC which you opened on the inclusion criteria for the List of Tea Party politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that RfC! --Noleander (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

## Talkback

Hello, Noleander. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

## Minorities in Greece

Hello. Thank you for your assistance about this topic in the dispute resolution noticeboard. I see that the request is now closed due to the other party of the dispute not attending. The reason I brought the issue to the DRN was to ask intermediary of a neutral and experienced user. Do you have any suggestion as to what could be done now? Filanca (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I posted a notice at their page: User_talk:Athenean#DRN_participation.3F. Let's see what they say. Maybe they just missed the first notice. If they are willing to participate at DRN, then you should open a new DRN case and start over. Use the "Request Dispute Resolution" button at the top-left of the WP:DRN page to start a new case. If Athenean refuses to discuss the case at DRN, that is a violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline, and then you should: (1) proceed with the edits the way you wish, and if Athenean reverts your changes, point out that they refused to participate at DRN; (2) If Athenean continues to revert your edits, create an RfC in the article's talk page. See WP:RFC for instructions. Other editors will supply input on the talk page, and the consensus there is more-or-less binding. (3) If Athenean refuses to accept the consensus from the RfC, then submit a complaint at the WP:ANI forum (be sure to include "diffs" showing the history of the misbehavior). Athenean can be blocked by the ANI action if the editors there believe he is not following the rules. --Noleander (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do as you suggtested. Filanca (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Paul Ryan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Ryan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

## Dispute Resolution RFC

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:List of God of War characters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of God of War characters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Original Barnstar Thanks for your review at Pink Floyd. It was promoted to FA today! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome ... you sure put a lot of work into it! --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Syntax differentiation in editing window

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Syntax differentiation in editing window. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)