User talk:Noleander

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	The Barnstar of Diplomacy is hereby awarded to Noleander for his Third Opinion in regard to the Juan Manuel de Rosas dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you very much. --Noleander (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brilliant Dadashova. 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) 11:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Transportation of the President of the United States. 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) 12:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For helping us by reviewing 6 GA nominations in the last November-December backlog drive. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 04:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013 India–Pakistan border incident. 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) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done .. seems to be resolved. --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my understanding of the goals/objectives of Ipse dixit can be helped by a little bit of fine focus adjustment?

Three related points in your opinion about Ipse dixit were thought-provoking. Please help me explore your point-of-view in a little bit more depth.

A quite different point-of-view is suggested by a 2005 edit summary here, which explained changes as a shift away from a dictionary definition by usage to a definition by example.

In this context, please notice my diff here which removed dictionary definitions from the main text. Instead, dictionary definitions are only in the external links section.

Your opinion causes me to re-think how I approach editing this article and others like it.

I would have thought that this article and others like it were needed to fill the gaps that an OED-like strategy creates? --Ansei (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the WP article is an encyclopedia article, and therefore can have more historical (and other kinds) of information than a plain dictionary entry. The point I made in the talk page was: When we select quotes to demonstrate good uses of Ipse dixit, we should not use non-experts as sources. For instance, if a US judge says "Humpty Dumpty is using ipse dixit ...", that is just the judge's guess. He is not an expert in etymology. He might be wrong. But, we have lots of excellent sources for high quality examples if ipse dixit. Therefore the article should only use top-quality examples that come from lexicographers, etymologists, and language experts. I did not mean to imply that the entire article should be limited to what a dictionary would contain. For example, the WP article might contain uses of "ipse dixit" (verbatim) in popular culture, or by prominent celebrities. --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've been recently working on the article "Deadalive", in the hopes that I could promote it to FA one of these days. It's currently a GA/A-class article, and it's undergone a peer-review and a copyedit, but—based on the difficulty I had with my last FA nomination—I was wondering if you could take a look at it. Your name was recommended to me due to your knowledge of prose compliance. I understand if you cannot do this, but I just thought I'd ask. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to look at it. I'll get to it in the next day or two. --Noleander (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Feel free to take your time. Thanks so much!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a review. I'm putting my comments in Wikipedia:Peer review/Deadalive/archive1 ... which is an older, unused PR page. Let me know if you want them somewhere else. --Noleander (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. That works fine. Thank you very much for your help.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extremely lengthy discussion it took to get us reach a consensus on such a minor issue of wording, I feel like this edit reverting part of the changes User:Rhonda.R.Shearer and I had agreed on, without even mentioning it on the talk page, was counter-productive. Would you mind dropping by Talk:Jared Diamond#Thoughts from an uninvolved editor (now not so uninvolved) and explaining your objection? Joe Roe (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. 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) 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very tired of all that madness at Juan Manuel de Rosas. I'm sorry if I'm not in the mood to discuss anymore. Anything I have to say can be seen here. Cambalachero and MarshalN20 are (again, again and again) turning another discussion into an unreadable mess. They reply to anything that anyone say even if not directed toward them, making impossible to anyone normal to understand what is going on. Thus, I'd like to make a request for you: please be kind and share your thoughts on what is being requested in the RfC. Either supporting my point of view or supporting Cambalachero's, it doesn't matter. Just do it, please. They won't back down and I won't back down either (because unlike them, all I want is to follow what sources say). Thus, the community has to put an end to it. I'd be really grateful if you could comment there. Lastly, I won't reply any message left to me there or anywhere about the dispute. Everything I had to say has been said. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way ... WP can get discouraging sometimes. As I recommended in the article's Talk page - I'd recommend that you start actually editing the article, rather than spend so much time in the Talk page. But, if you are burnt out, I can understand. --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do that[1] and I was immediately reverted.[2] I can't edut the article, but it seems that Cambalachero can do as many times as it pleases him.[3] Please, do share your thoughts about the content dispute in there. --Lecen (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That change to the arcticle was to replace the picture. That is an entirely different issue that the "dictator" issue, and the picture is not too important in the big scheme of things. I would ignore that picture issue for now. Instead, I suggest that you start editing the Criticism section, as I recommended in the article's Talk page, following those step-by-step instructions. If you do it that way, there should be no problems with reverts. I can assist, if a revert happens. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nub of the issue on the article has revolved around WP:WEIGHT. Gaba p insists that WP:WEIGHT is achieved by having a WP:RS for a fact. This means anything he claims anything he can source he must be allowed to include. He is now claiming that DRN has endorsed this position.

Is this what you've stated? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WEIGHT generally only kicks in if an editor is adding too much detail about an issue .... detail that makes the text size for that issue too large in proportion to the rest of the article. The article's old version of the International Views had a modest amount of information about the EU/Latin American/France thoughts. Now the article has none. The article should have some brief, factual mention of the handful of govmt entities that have published a foreign policy position. So, yes, I agree that RS is the key policy in this point, to be used to insert a modest, reasonable amount of information about international views. See WP:NNC which points out that notability only applies to entire articles: that is, editors cannot exclude relevant facts from an article just because they seem unimportant. It is only when an editor adds several large paragraphs about International views that WEIGHT becomes an issue. That is not the case here. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Was there something unclear about my opening statement?

If you had actually looked at the text I proposed, it is a modest amount of information about the EU/Latin American/France thoughts. A modest amount of information reflecting the weight attached in the literature presenting a balanced NPOV. I am not proposing to exclude content, merely to ensure the coverage is proportionate.

If you look at what Gaba p proposes, it is to simply state the International community only supports Argentina. The very problem is that he proposes to add a disproportionate amount of text to this effect and to remove anything that contradicts it as undue coverage. He claims that any recent information in media sources he must be allowed to include, older material should be ignored. And you have effectively said he is right at DRN, he now claims DRN endorses his approach. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wee: I'd ask you to please stop misrepresenting my comments around. I've never said DRN "endorses" me, I've simply commented on what other editors have said about the dispute. I can say without hesitation that your whole last paragraph above is entirely not true: 1- I do not want to state there is only support for a party, 2- I am not adding a "disproportionate amount of text" anywhere, 3- I do not claim that everything recent must be included and "older material should be ignored" and 4- I have never said either DRN or NPOVN "endorses" me.

I'm sorry for this Noleander, Wee has the habit of bullying anyone who dares disagree with him. You are not the first editor to explain these things to him but he just refuses to get the pint. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derby sex gang. 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) 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Carmenelectra. 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) 14:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Peter Proctor, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee. 

Following your suggestions, I tried to start working on the article as you can see here.[5] I had finished the two first sections and had scanned and added several high quality pictures. I had even asked Astynax (who has copyedited several FAs) to help me.[6] Unfortunately, it was severely butchered (i.e.: everything was reverted) by both Cambalachero and Marshal N20. The reasons given were several, as you may see in the article's history log:[7] "There is no consensus for this change", "this part goes off-topic", "Redundant, he has already been described as authoritarian", "This image makes no sense", etc... I tried what I could, but there is a limit to how far I can go with the farce. Anyway, once the RfC is closed, I'll have to go to Arbitration and ask for measures against them both. If they truly wanted to resolve anything, they would have had accepted the formal mediation process. --Lecen (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I must point in my defense that Lecen's comments are a bit misleading. He says that everything he added was reverted, but if you skip the article history view and check the actual edits, you will notice that I only made minor localized changes here and there, not a mass revert. When I left the computer at midnight, most of the things he wrote were still there. The mass revert was done by himself, removing the content he had added and returning the article to the previous version. And a second and third time. Feel free to take your own conclusions. Cambalachero (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2. 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) 15:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic .

Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noleander. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 15:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

I came here as I saw your comments on drafting some clarfications about overcategorisation. Your draft states: "person P is notable for something else, they just happened to go to Harvard." Please remember that these categories are not just relevant to biographical editors, as they work both ways. Someone writing an article on the institution may well expect to reference this category, in order to be comprehensive and encyclopaedic. In other words, Harvard may be notable because "P" (amongst others) went there. People who patrol categories would do well to remember this, as it may not be overcategorisation from that standpoint. With best regards, Ephebi (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Noleander (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States National Health Care Act. 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) 15:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am not blocking the inclusion of anything but frankly getting heartily fed up with certain editors inability to desist from personalising matters. I have proposed a brief text based on what I proposed at DRN, its brief and to the point and includes all the points I raised there. Your comments would be appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look. --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noleander, thank you again for taking the time to help out over at that article. I've added the citations as you requested to the nearly consensual version you added into the article earlier. Please do tell me if there's anything else you need before inserting it into the article or if you find anything wrong with any of the sources and I'll get on it ASAP. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those ... sources are essential, of course. That article may need an RfC soon. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Effects of global warming. 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) 16:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noleander. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I hope my update comment is sufficiently directed to the question raised about deleting Dr. Proctor page. Basically if there is no way that the page can look into the efficacy of the "hair cult" product that has developed around him, then I will not dispute deletionInhouse expert (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I was wondering if you can take another look at the article before I submit at FAC. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Where do you want the comments? Are you going to open a new PR page #2? --Noleander (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it on the talk page? Thanks! Best, Jona^{talk to me} 21:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the review. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. --Noleander (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a copyvio issue with using an excerpt of lyrics here? Thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is not allowed to present the lyrics of an entire song. I'm not a WP:COPYVIO expert, but I think articles are limited to excerpts of the lyrics/poems: they cannot reproduce the entire text (of a poem, song lyrics, etc). --Noleander (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry which says lyrics have to obey fair use rules ... and they point to Like a Rolling Stone as an example of the correct way to do it. Notice how in that article, the entire song is not presented as a block, but individual phrases are presented separately, accompanied by analysis & interpretation. The entire song may end up getting included, but in pieces. --Noleander (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. FTR, the three stanzas currently included in the article are about 1/3 of the total prose. Is it still okay to leave them blocked together? Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Yes, those stanzas could be included provided that there is a secondary source (critic, biographer, etc) who (1) analyzes those 3 stanzas in the context of Hendrix's death; and (2) the 2ndary source quotes those 3 stanzas. To make it rock-solid: I would add more text before (or after) the stanzas identifying the critic/analyst and citing some of their analysis. --Noleander (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great input. As always, you've been quite helpful. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mario Kart. 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) 17:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noleander, There is a response to your message on my talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mama's Family. 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) 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Noleander, I am sorry to come to you again with this topic. Someone once again suggested Innovation Journalism is a neologism, using false claims that earlier rulings had not ruled out neologism. In legal systems it is a rule that each charge is tried once. Does this apply to Wikipedia? If so, how can it be made clear that neologism has been tried and found to not stand? Or is it the case that Wikipedia is political, i.e. if people aren't happy with a ruling, they will wait for a month and then repeat the exact same charge, continuing to do so until they reached their goals? If so, it seems I am doing the wrong thing. I should should start working under one or several aliases and team up with allies. I am not appealed by that, and I have not plans of doing it.

I am writing to you, because your judgement has always been factual, levelheaded and fair. People who have worked on innovation journalism have been asking me if there is someone out there carrying a grudge, I have answered that I frankly don't know, because it I am the only one in the discussion using my real name, the others are using pseudonyms. It seems very convenient to use an alias while accusing people of things.--dnordfors (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look into the Proctor case again. Recall this case involved collusion between multiple sockpuppets and hyping of themes related to Peter Proctor. Over the past month, at least four editors have appeared out of the blue with complete focus on this case. In order of appearance:

• Feb 10: User talk:Inhouse expert. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive. No comment.
• Feb 28: User:Notsofastfellas appeared soon after completion of the sockpuppet investigation, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive. Apparently Proctor begging for mercy.
• yesterday: User:Akil muhamed to mutilate the proposed deletion of [Peter Proctor]], possibly just for effect.
• today: User:MrDave8888 whose single edit was to dispute and stop the 1-week delayed deletion of the page [Peter Proctor]]. It seems unwise that a new editor would appear on the day before the page would go down and could stop it, especially since there has been so much sockpuppetry in this case.

Thank you, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Smokefoot, the first one was found by checkuser to be unrelated, and not a sock. The second has already been blocked as a sock. And I've reported the third and fourth as possible socks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokfoot: Ditto what Tryptofish says. If you (Smokefoot) ever see a suspected sockpuppet again, just go to the WP:SPI page, go down to the "open or re-open" field, and type in "Pproctor". That will present a page, and in that you enter the sock names, and then save it. Try to give some information also. Within a week or two, admins should take care of the rest. --Noleander (talk)`

But why was the deletion stopped? Because a one-time editor objected?--Smokefoot (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was not stopped: the process just changed. There are two processes for deletion: WP:PROD and WP:AFD, the former is for trivial/obvious deletions, the latter for ones that should have some discussion. The Proctor article just shifted from PROD to AFD, that's all. You can comment on the Proctor AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Proctor. --Noleander (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:When Harry Met Sally.... 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) 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood. 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) 18:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Frasier episodes. 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) 19:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?. I'm telling you this because you were involved in Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#Merger proposal and/or Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#UNMERGING_ARTICLES. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dinna know why - but some of the editors from the DRN discussion about the Talk:United States appear to be "declaring war" about the consensus reached :(. Perhaps a word confirming that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and not just a suggestion there might help? Collect (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sistar. 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) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Resolving a dispute about resolving disputes. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your relevant contribution at Talk:Time dilation. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy! --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander, We've both responded now. Crtew (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll respond at the talk page. --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling. 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, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Noleander, could you please take a look on Mahmudur Rahman article? A new wikipedian User:Khazar2 just start removing sourced material without further discussion. I have added few references and statements there, but that was not finished yet. I think I need few days to put all my known info there. Can you help? --FreemesM ^(talk) 06:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at talk page. --Noleander (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, at RfC talk page. --Noleander (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Limerick Pogrom. 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) 21:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous discussion you said I was obsessed with the connection between U.S. citizenship and being part of the U.S. I explained to you that there is no connection whatsoever and I have never said that. Can you please re-enter the discussion at Talk:United States. TFD (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I never said anyone was "obsessed" with anything ... perhaps you posted this inquiry on the wrong editors talk page? As for the US discussion, I'm pretty busy in real life, so I don't have time to help with the article at this point. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. 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, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. 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, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Syrian civil war. 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) 00:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass on this one. --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Watchmen. 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, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have finally been able to go through all of your helpful points at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/archive2. You had mentioned that you might be able to go through the article again once I finished. If you could do that I'd be grateful. If you're busy, I can ask again at Peer review, so only if you are inclined to do so; you've already been a big help in bringing up the standard of the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy in real life ... so I probably cannot do another peer review at this time. I suggest you try another editor, or remind me in about 4 months. Regards, --Noleander (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the original review. It was a big help already. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Video and Interactive Tutorials. 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 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the supporters of a related proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joseph (son of Jacob). 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, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Inactive WikiProject banner. 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) 07:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. --Noleander (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox political post. 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) 08:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you reviewed the article back in February 2013, I would like to invite you to discuss here if "I Could Fall in Love" is FA ready. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 16:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could look over "all things", since you did an amazing job combing through "Deadalive". If not, no big deal, but if you would be willing, there is absolutely no rush at all. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty busy in real life; but if I can find some time, I'll review it. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]