User talk:Noleander/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Global city email[edit]

Hi Noleandar,

Here you mentioned you sent an email to a lead research of GaWC. I'm just wondering if you have received a response yet. Thank you. 08OceanBeachS.D. 04:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In the email, I asked the recipient to reply on the Talk page of the article, rather than replying to the email. They have done neither yet. --Noleander (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dartmouth RfC[edit]

Thanks for helping to spread the word about the RfC I started earlier today for Dartmouth! When you get a moment, can you stop by the article's Talk page and read my latest comment? I pulled some pageview stats for all of the relevant articles and I think they address WP:PRIMARYTOPIC quite well. ElKevbo (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Abortion general sanctions[edit]

Don't forget, Planned Parenthood is under a 1RR restriction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I reverted once here . Do you see two reversions by me? Or are you just being proactive :-) --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Here as well, yes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you are correct. Hmmm, I would self-revert, but the article is already in a reverted state. I apologize for violating the 1RR (it was unintentional) and I won't object to a block. --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Just keep engaging on talk, and don't revert every 24.5 hours, and we should be good. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

C21H27NO2[edit]

It was a dab page (albeit of a specialised kind), so neither {{stub}} nor {{orphan}} were appropriate. I've removed them. PamD 15:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be more careful in the future. --Noleander (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Draw by agreement[edit]

How did your AWB edit improve draw by agreement? I can't see it in the diff. Quale (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The AWB tool removed spaces (blanks) at the ends of the lines. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Please don't make worthless edits like that. If you want to remove spurious blanks at the end of lines I'm all in favor, but only do it if you make at least one small edit that also actually improves the article. Quale (talk)
You should have read WP:AWB. Please check item 4 under rules of use: Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits. Quale (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes. That makes good sense. Thanks for pointing that out. --Noleander (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing a rfc[edit]

Hello you suggested I change the description in my request for comment, I was wonder if you could direct me someplace that would tell me how to do that. Thanks Tmckeage (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can just directly edit the text directly in the Talk page. Just click here and edit the text. The RfC software will automatically notice the change (it may take awhile) and update the master RfC page. --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR at Planned Parenthood[edit]

You've violated the 1RR restriction at Planned Parenthood ([1], [2]), as has JGabbard (talk · contribs). I'm not going to report either of you at this point, but please stick to the 1RR. I realize that you're just enforcing a clear talkpage consensus against JGabbard's edits, but that's unlikely to be recognized as a valid exception to 1RR. MastCell Talk 23:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I lost track of my edits today. I've self-reverted. --Noleander (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll probably ask JGabbard to do the same, as a show of good faith. It's easy to lose track, and like I said, I realize that you're acting to enforce a talk-page consensus. MastCell Talk 23:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oliver[edit]

Hey, hope you have had a good day, I left a comment for you at the GAR for Oliver Valentine. I was a little unsure of something. :)RaintheOne BAM 02:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I replied on that Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, so did I. :)RaintheOne BAM 21:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism[edit]

Just a heads up, I think that some people may feel that this is getting too close to your topic ban. Best regards, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Well, I'll just recuse myself then. --Noleander (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Hi, I didn't mean to short-circuit the RFC you voted in by jumping ahead and making this change. After some research, my borderline conclusion was this - although I still have my doubts - there are probably more criteria for earning that title! If you disagree with my change, I'm more than happy to revert it and continue on with the RFC. Let me know if you have any other thoughts on the subject, and please continue to contribute there! Dreadstar 23:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your change looks okay: I saw the additional sources listed in the RfC (after I made my comment) that support your change, so I'm comfortable with it. Thanks for notifying me! --Noleander (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Gospel Tradition[edit]

Could you take a moment to critically evaluate the sources on my user page. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Sardinia[edit]

Hi, you may remember that some time ago you said you would be willing to mediate in the discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia regarding the purposing of that page. Since protection is due to expire soon, and there seems to be no explicit agreement among editors about what to do, is there any chance you could help direct that discussion towards some kind of conclusion? Thanks for your help,--Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

More specific RfC on astrology[edit]

Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: [[3]] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented at that RfC. --Noleander (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Volunteers[edit]

Hi, i hope you haven't been scared away from commenting at the RfC on Volunteer (Irish republican) as outside opinion is greatly sought. I have tried to steer it back on course with a new more specific RfC that also includes a compromise and your opinion would be appreciated as its still a two-horse situation. Mabuska (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm still monitoring the RfC ... it looks like progress is being made. I'll look at the new RfC and comment there. --Noleander (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Montalban[edit]

You may wish to know that Montalban says he has responded to your question. Esoglou (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied at that RfC. --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology[edit]

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ talk! 15:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at it. --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that was very useful. I hope you will continue to help us get the balance right. We need people like you that are being objective, and not trying to steer the article towards one bias or another. Cheers, -- Zac Δ talk! 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Give Thanks[edit]

Hi. After I closed this AfD as delete, Cindamuse (talk) asked me on my talk page to userfy the articles for her - not that she was challenging the result of the AfD but she thought she could find more sources, in particular the claim of Gold for "Give Thanks". I userfied the two most promising, which she has now improved - see User:Cindamuse/Workshop/Give Thanks and User:Cindamuse/Workshop/Thank You Lord. I think they are now good enough, but I thought I would check with you - if you agree, I will restore them; if you're not happy, we should probably go to WP:DRV and see what others think. Let me know. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The notability requirement for albums is WP:NALBUMS. It requires: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." or it must have "been mentioned in multiple reliable sources." I looked at all the sources for one of the albums (Thank you lord), and they seemed to be catalog entries, or database entries, or trivial reviews. I dont see any secondary sources that talk about the album in a "significant" way. I think these albums are rather minor, and the encyclopedia would be better served if they were just merged into a larger article List of albums by Don Moen. That said, I wont object if someone restores them. --Noleander (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on this query, I've posted a comment on the WP:NALBUMS Talk page which suggests a modification to that guideline that would clarify the notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I have restored those two, and Cindamuse has agreed that the others should stay deleted. You raise an interesting point at WT:NMUSIC, and I will comment there if I can decide what I think - I quite like the present wording, but have a hard time explaining to myself why. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA1[edit]

A GAN on Margaret Sanger is on hold to allow time for editors to improve prose, inline citations and presentation and formatting before the review looks at accuracy, POV and coverage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

September barnstar[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Noleander for copy editing articles totalling over 8000 words during the GOCE September copy edit drive. Thank you very much for your help! Dianna (talk)
Goce silver barnstar.png Leaderboard Award—5k articles—5th Place (tied)
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Noleander for copy editing one article of 5000 words or more during the WP:GOCE September 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thank you so much for your contributions to the project. -- Dianna (talk)

Tree shaping[edit]

Thanks for your input to the the Tree shaping RfM. Perhaps you could help me with something. Am I the only one who thinks that we cannot just make up a title for a subject, regardless of whether the subject is actually known by that title? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that every one agrees with you that making up a title is not the best practice, and should be avoided. I think where editors differ is that some editors (I'm one of them) concede that a made-up title can be used as a last resort. The guideline WP:Title explicitly provides for made-up titles in some situations. Search for the word "descriptive" in WP:Title and you'll see several scenarios where it is acceptable. E.g.
  • "Where there is no set name for a topic, so a title of our own conception is necessary, e.g., List of birds of Nicaragua and Campaign history of the Roman military, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles."
  • " It need not be the name of the subject; many article titles are descriptions of the subject."
  • "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title (e.g., Population of Canada by year). These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions."
  • "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." (that is from WP:NEO)
I see it as a balancing of several competing factors: what is most informative for readers, what reflects the sources, and what is likely to make an RM succeed. Based on all those factors, I see a descriptive phrase (even one not used by the sources) as an acceptable compromise ... but only as a last resort if all other options fail. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that a descriptive phrase is OK but it must be one that cannot be taken to be the actual name of the subject of the article. Do you agree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you clarify your question? Do you mean the made-up title should not be confused with an actual proper name of the subject of the article? If that is what you mean, yes, I agree that a made-up name should be clearly apparent as a made-up phrase, and should not be worded in such a way that a typical reader could confuse it with a proper name for the subject of the article. --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I mean that we should not use a short phrase like, say, 'tree sculpture' such that a reader might think that the subject is generally known as 'tree sculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. A one or two word made-up descriptive phrase will typically be so short that it may look to readers like a proper name. As a general rule, I'd say that the descriptive phrase should be 3 words or longer so that it is more likely to be understood by readers as a made-up phrase, rather than a proper name. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, we agree then although I think the phrase should be long enough to unambiguously describe the subject, which makes it rather cumbersome like say, 'Forming living trees into useful or artistic objects', in fact I would really like to add something about joining branches by inosculation as this is a near-universal aspect of the art and is necessary to distinguish it from Topiary for example.. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Getting up to 7 or 8 words may draw the opposition of many editors ... WP:TITLE emphasizes conciseness. Maybe something like "Artistic or utilitarian tree training"? No one would mistake that for a proper name :-) --Noleander (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, no one would mistake that for the proper name but it does not distinguish the subject from fan or espallier training of a fruit tree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
True ... maybe another phrase would be better. --Noleander (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, enough for now on this subject. We do not disagree much, if at all. Can I try another question on you? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you see any reason at all that the article should not be called 'arborsculpture'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "arborsculpture" is the best name, and I've made that argument several times in the RfC and RM. On the other hand, I do understand that some editors oppose that name because, apparently, they feel it is too proprietary, too much of a brand name. Perhaps they also feel that that name is not universally used in the sources, and hence picking it would somehow be choosing sides, or showing favoritism. For those reasons, those editors would prefer a descriptive phrase (that is not used by the sources) rather than selecting a name that is used by only some of the sources. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything that makes you think the name is proprietary or a brand name? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No. I initially had that impression, because that word was coined by a specific practitioner, but after reviewing the sources, as I've mentioned in the Talk page, I came to the conclusion that it was not proprietary and would be a good name for the article. --Noleander (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we agree again then. So, apart from the editors with an obvious COI, can you see exactly what it is that makes what appears to be reasonable and sensible editors think that 'arborsculpture' is proprietary or non-neutral as some put it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I assume it is probably due to laziness: it takes time to read all the sources and assimilate the information. I suspect that in this case some editors have not yet taken the time to read the sources and see exactly how arborsculpture is being used. The "descriptive phrase" option is the path of least resistance: it is safe and simple. --Noleander (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this is where we disagree although a descriptive phrase would be my second option. Thanks for the discussion. I have to go now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Color-related merger discussions[edit]

Hello! I've seen you commenting on various color-related AfD's and merger discussions, and thought that you might be interested in taking a look at some of the current discussions for mergers and redirects of color articles. The discussions are located at Talk:Redwood (color), Talk:Lion (color), Talk:Camel (color), Talk:Wine (color), Talk:Redwood (color), Talk:Flame (color), Talk:Brandeis blue, Talk:Byzantium (color), Talk:Amethyst (color), and Talk:Robin egg blue.--Slon02 (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied at the Redwood talk page. --Noleander (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger Article: r to brechbill 123[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. [from user Brechbill123].

See discussion on that articles Talk page. Cheers. PS: comments directed at other editors should go on their "Talk" or "Discussion" page, not on their main user page. --Noleander (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice work at Margaret Sanger[edit]

I have only had experience extensively overhauling much smaller articles with very few editors involved, and even that was a ton of (mostly thankless) work. Kudos. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping an RfC[edit]

Hello. You had responded to the Pingan IFC RfC, looking for more secondary sources and information. Since then a lot has changed on the article, so although I have not responded directly to your posts in the RfC, I invite you to come back and read the new additions to the talk page, and perhaps cast a vote on the RfC following that.

Please note that the revert wars are continuing, and a number of users are reverting the page to "construction status: on hold", refusing to discuss anything on the talk pages; because of this, the front page of the article does not contain the sources I added, because they continue to delete all my references. Please look at the older version of the page where my most recent updates are intact.

I appreciate any help in averting the continuing edit warring that is going on on that page. The RfC, which did not attract enough attention, is one of the most neglected tools in that thread for helping to work things out. Merechriolus (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go check it out. --Noleander (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 backlog elimination drive report
Writing Magnifying.PNG

GOCE September 2011 Backlog elimination drive progress graphs

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We would like to thank all who participated in this drive. Here is the end-of-drive report.

Participation

There were 58 editors who signed-up for this drive, of which 42 participated. This is a slight increase from the July 2011 drive participation, where 39 out of 50 people that signed up participated. Thank you to everyone!

Progress report

During the drive, we reduced the backlog by 146 articles, or by about 4%. Overall we did well, especially considering the exceptionally large number of articles that were tagged during September. Thus far we have reduced the copy edit backlog by 4854 articles, or by about 58%. If we keep up our current rate of copy editing, the backlog should be reduced by 65–70% by the end of this year. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. Barnstars will be handed out this week.

Once again, thank you for participating in the Guild's September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Our next drive will be in November, and we hope to see you there!

Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Last RfC at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria[edit]

Sorry mate! I know this has dragged out. I'd appreciate it if you could give one final response — we're all sticking to the results after this. Thanks and best regards, Nightw 12:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Militant atheism[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Militant atheism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Offering (a modest bit of) help at Margaret Sanger[edit]

Hey there. Since you have been doing all the work at Margaret Sanger, if you think it would be helpful, I thought I'd offer to copy-edit the article as it nears what you would consider "GA-completeness". Not that you couldn't do it yourself, but it's not exactly exciting work. Let me know if you'd like me to do this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, any and all help is welcome. I don't own the article so have at it. If you want to make any significant changes, it may be wisest to propose them first on the Talk page (so the GA reviewer does not get the impression that there is an edit war happening, or that the article layout is thrashing), but that is your call. --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I certainly wasn't suggesting you own it! (And, I haven't even looked to see whether it seems to need copy-editing, but wanted to help with the busy work since I was impressed at your industrious overhauling project.)
What I had in mind, though, was waiting until you feel it is relatively close to "done" for the purposes of your Good Article submission, and then making a couple passes over the whole article at once. It just seems better to wait until you are done with the renovations since it's in such a state of flux right now. Does this seem like a good idea to you ? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to pause anyway for the GA reviewer to pitch in. So, yes, now would be a good time for you to jump in and work your magic. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have to sit down for dinner now, but I made one pass over roughly half the article, mostly adding commas and a few words to increase readability. If you see anything you don't like, let me know and I will adjust my editing behavior for the second half. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your improvements look great! Thanks. The only nit I can find is: "That same year she also published the pamphlet Family Limitation, in defiance of the Comstock Law of 1873, which outlawed as obscene the dissemination of contraceptive information." That placement of commas, to me, implies that her pamphlet outlawed things; when it should indicate that the Comstock law outlawed things. Removing both commas may be a good solution. --Noleander (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I was more careful with commas on the second half of the article; however, I don't see where the above sentence went so I think you may have fixed it yourself. As for the other edits, take a look and see if you approve. Thanks! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed your latest batch of edits, and they look good. I prefer US over U.S., but both are acceptable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations. I believe "made common cause " is an idiom that is used by the sources and has a meaning that "found common cause" may not carry. Otherwise, good work! --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Glad to be of help, and it's always nice to see an editor who takes close reading seriously! I defer to you on all issues of style and usage. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like done. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:War of the Pacific[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Haqqani network[edit]

Hi. You were very helpful in the Pashtun people article but is it possible for you to help me with the intro of the Haqqani network? I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Haqqani network. Thanks.--Jorge Koli (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Margaret Sanger to good article status.

Good work. Well done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll put that on my user page. --Noleander (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your excellent work to this article, where continuous POV warfare would have put off most editors. I am impressed by what you accomplished. / edg 13:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, it's good to see that the work is noticed! --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

proposed changes in lead of 1953 Iran coup article[edit]

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of adding a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ since the article has no mention on why they opposed Mosaddeq other than being bribed to do so.

Iranian coup supporters[edit]

Iranian opponents of Mosaddeq have been described as including "religious leaders and preachers and their followers, as well as landlords and provincial magnates";[1] "conservative politicians such as prime ministers Ahmad Qavam and General Ali Razmara .... and commanders of the military, most notably General Fazlollah Zahedi ... led by the Shah."[2] They have been described as forces that would "have been crippled without substantial British and later U.S. support," [3] while authors Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr say "it would be mistaken to view the coup as entirely a foreign instigation with no support" in Iran.[4]

Observers differ on the opponents motivation for supporting the coup. Mark J. Gasiorowski describes them as "very ambitious and opportunistic."[5] Another author calls Mosaddeq's Iranian opponents elites "determined to retrieve their endangered interests and influence, and unconcerned with the lasting damage to Iranian patriotic sensibilities and democratic aspirations."[6] Money was involved with the US CIA paying out $150,000 after March 1953 to "journalists, editors, preachers, and opinion members", giving Zahedi $135,000 to "win additional friends", and paying members of the majlis $11,000 a week.[7]

Other authors (Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr) describe the opponents as agreeing with Mosaddeq that the "British position was unjust and illegal," but believing that after the 1946 attempt by the Soviets to separate Azerbaijan and Kurdistan from Iran, "Iran's interests lay in close ties with the West to ward off the Soviet threat."[2]government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.[8] --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Birth control history GA[edit]

Thanks for posting that notice to the Women's History project. WP is sadly deficient in articles on the cultural history of reproductive issues. I thought you might be interested in this article, which suggested to me that birth control may have been more widely practiced during that time than I had ever realized. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the sources indicate that birth control was always widespread, even when it was illegal. --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Need a photo![edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of History of the birth control movement in the United States at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusanLesch (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Animal Farm in Popular Culture[edit]

Not sure whether you're still monitoring the article, but it appears that editors are trying to drag skeletons out of the closet. Doniago (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have it on my watch list, but I'll take a look. --Noleander (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nazism[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

2009 Tamil diaspora protests in Canada GA review[edit]

Hi, thank you for your review of the article. I've corrected the deadlinks with new ones. Also, I'm not sure how the Sri Lankan Civil War navbox could be corrected. I've tried some ways to keep the entire navbox condensed but didn't seem to work, so I think it is a problem with the navbox itself rather than how it is kept in the article. Please let me know if there are anymore concerns with the article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've added some more comments to the GA Talk page: Talk:2009 Tamil diaspora protests in Canada/GA1. Let's continue the discussion there to keep it all centralized. --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and help! EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

I notice that you are constantly improving your posts to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout. As a fiddler myself, I cannot but think that this is a good thing. However, I wonder whether the numerous entries that result from these edits causes the edit history page to become less useful to those trying to follow recent posts. Have you considered copying the article you want to edit on to a personal sandbox page, making the various changes, and then copying back the changed version to the page you are editing? Just a thought. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I would never change a proposal in a Talk page if other editors were engaged and relying on the original version of the proposal. (Although strike-thrus are generally be okay). But in this case, interest in the proposal seems to be low, with no substantive discussion (yet) of the proposal, so I'm taking the liberty of improving it. More than that: I invite other editors to collaborate on that proposal and directly change it ... I dont own the proposal. On the other hand, since you've voiced that it is an issue, I'll go ahead and announce that my tweaks are finished, on Talk page. Thanks for pointing it out ... I didn't know anyone was paying attention! --Noleander (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The above comments are not directed at your proposal or your presentation of that proposal on the talk page. Instead, it is to your practice of making multitudinous edits within a short period of time (which fills up the history page with edit after edit by you). Again, I do not want to in any way discourage your numerous edits - constant improvement is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. I just want to suggest that you combine the edits so that the history page is not unnecessarily lengthened. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I'm a "continuous improvement" sort of editor, and every time I look at something I wrote, I can always find some tweak to make anything better. But, as you say, a sandbox or draft copy in User space is often a better solution. --Noleander (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Birth control movement in the United States/GA1[edit]

As you might have noticed, I am done with the review of Talk:Birth control movement in the United States/GA1. Please let me know if you have any questions! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, passed! May I interest you in reviewing another WP:GAN? There is a very large backlog... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm most definitely interested. In fact, I'm reviewing one now ... but I think I'll limit to one at a time, so I'll wait until this one is done before I move on to another. --Noleander (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:History_of_Scotiabank_Caribbean_Carnival_Toronto_(1967–1971)/GA1#Comments_from_reviewer[edit]

A reply. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Birth control movement in the United States[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Redwood Merger[edit]

Hello! About a month ago, you commented on a merger discussion at Talk:Redwood (color). Since the consensus more or less seems to be to merge to variations of red, instead of brown or the article about the tree itself, I'd like to get your input on it before I close the discussion. Would you be fine with the article merging into variations of red? I'm not sure how much progress was made at this discussion that you started.--Slon02 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll comment at that merge discussion. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serer people[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serer people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory[edit]

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I commented at that RfC. --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A tool for you![edit]

Hi Noleander! I see that you are an copyeditor, and thought that you might appreciate some help with finding and eliminating multiple links (or wikification) from the article on which you are working.

I case you're not aware, all you need to do is install the following script:

importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js');

onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, and you'll find a clickable link called "Highlight duplicate links" in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). It can be found both in normal view mode and edit mode. Press on it, and away you go! Have fun! --Sp33dyphil ©© 09:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that works great. I'll use it! --Noleander (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)