User talk:Noleander/Archive 1

Cladistics generally has no citations for its pronouncements
Hello, I'm glad to see someone taking an interest in the Cladistics article, and trying to reorganize it. As you study it, you may gradually become aware that most of the claims made in the article are completely unreferenced. I hope this state of affairs will eventually be fixed; I started to try several months ago by expanding the reference section, but since then have not devoted any time to the project. (Until my additions, the article had no citation to Willi Hennig, the inventor of the approach). Good luck in your efforts! EdJohnston 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dancer Phillip Broomhead.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dancer Phillip Broomhead.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use
Well, the problem was that they were replaceable images, AKA they could reasonably be replaced by free images, without copyright. We prefer free images on Wikipedia, as opposed to copyrighted ones.  нмŵוτн τ  18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake
I was vandalism editing, and accidentally bumped the wrong roll back button. Sorry, friend. DavidJ710| talk 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting my mistake. Keep up the good work DavidJ710| talk  03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SLAPCcover2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SLAPCcover2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the Barnstar :) Descartes1979 (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:StillLifeAtPenguinCafeDiskCover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:StillLifeAtPenguinCafeDiskCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Mormonism
Hey - can you help me keep an eye on Val42? He made a few edits that seem to be derailing Criticism of Mormonism. I have to run and will be out of action most of this week. Thx --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:StillLifeAtPenguinCafeDiskCover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:StillLifeAtPenguinCafeDiskCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Mormonism
Hey - can you help me keep an eye on Val42? He made a few edits that seem to be derailing Criticism of Mormonism. I have to run and will be out of action most of this week. Thx --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag at Reformed Egyptian
Hi Noleander, I noticed you re-added the POV tag after User:Snocrates's edits at Reformed Egyptian. Comparing his version to the one you left without the tag (this is the comparison), I can't see anything in Snocrates's edits that drastically alters the neutrality of the article. Your edit summary said to see the talk page for details but you left no new rationale there and you seem to have proceeded with other edits. Would you please explain at Talk:Reformed Egyptian why you feel Snocrates's edits made the article non-neutral? Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the section you linked to on my talk page, but what I'm looking for is not a discussion of an old version of the article. I'm curious why, after your series of edits today, you felt it was neutral enough to remove the POV tag, but after Snocrates' edits immediately following yours, you restored the tag.  I'd rather not be left to guess at what you saw in Snocrates's edits that you felt unbalanced the article sufficiently to warrant the tag. alanyst /talk/ 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you could remove the tag inadvertently when your edit summary says "Remove POV tag", but perhaps you meant you removed it prematurely, and I'm satisfied with that explanation of your actions. I recommend that you update that section of the talk page with what you still feel the outstanding POV issues are, since you did some work to correct them today.  Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 23:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Plural marriage
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - Alis o n  ❤ 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok - a couple of things here. You are revert-warring on the above article. Furthermore, you are using 'sneaky' edit summaries to hide the fact. One more revert on that page and your account gets blocked for a period of time. What you're doing now is disruptive and needs to stop. The other editor will receive a similar warning. Stop now - Alis o n  ❤ 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon merge proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism and history merge proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism and history. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:StillLifeAtPenguinCafeDiskCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:StillLifeAtPenguinCafeDiskCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:StillLifeAtPenguinCafeDiskCover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:StillLifeAtPenguinCafeDiskCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Animalia.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Animalia.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian Names Merge Proposal
As you are a recent editor of the articles in question, please see my merge proposal of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon and Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon - thanks. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Holcomb
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bobby Holcomb, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thetahititraveler.com/general/artsculpcont.asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work
Just wanted to drop you a note congratulating you for your nice work on Criticism of religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Nezzadar (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I think this is total nonsense. Your page is obviously not an attack page. Keep up the good work. -- ✶♏&#8237;ݣ 02:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I tried to write the article in a very neutral manner, relying primarily on quotes of the primary souces.  --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to check out Pallywood, Jewish lobby, Christian right, Christian left, Israel lobby in the United States, Arab lobby in the United States, and so on. Some of the info in the article might be incorporated into those articles that apply. See also: Media bias and Echo chamber (media). Many people make accusations of media bias. Liberal bias, Clear Channel radio domination, Vast right-wing conspiracy, Fox News, New York Times, Left-Coast media, conservative media, talking points, right-wing echo chamber, and so on. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood
I have nominated Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Frmatt (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You've been named at ANI Crafty (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing
Your actions may be construed as canvassing. If you want to inform interested people, please use project discussion boards. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you say canvassing? My Talk notices were limited, neutral, and transparent.  In compliance with the canvassing policy, no?   What is a project discussion board?  --Noleander (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And you decided which editors to alert how? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not canvassing if editors with various viewpoints are notified. See WP:CANVASS. I don't watchlist most project discussion boards anymore since I have less time for Wikipedia. I appreciated being notified of this deletion discussion.


 * Maybe, in addition to leaving a note on some project talk pages, notify some project members directly by picking a starting point on a member list, going down the list, and leaving notices on 10, 20, 30 members' user pages. This avoids the appearance of bias. Many project members are like me, and no longer watchlist project boards. Not enough time to read the many discussions. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * JoshuaZ: I am not an expert in the Canvassing policy.  I read it before contacting anyone, and it said that fewer contacts are better than many.  So I'm confused that user Avi says a Discussion Board should be used.  I notified 3 editors (that I've never contacted before) because there were in the Palestinian group and I thought they would bring diversity to the AfD discussion:  that was only 1 of the 4 criteria in the Canvassing policy, true?  Canvassing doesnt outright _prohibit_ solicitation, does it?   I figure that Israeil/Zionist apologetic editors are around in abundance, and were notified of the AfD due to the fact it was removed from the Antisemitism template.  But as for other viewpoints: how else would potentially interested persons ever find out about an AfD?  That is a genuine question, not a rhetorical question.  --Noleander (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing due to POV is really not ok. This is explicitly under the canvassing policy under CANVASS. Discussion boards unlike specific editors pages are widely watchlisted. I'm also concerned by your remarks about "Israeil/Zionist apologetic editors are around in abundance" and your choice of editors to alert which gets severe POV issues into this. People get alerted by looking at the day's AfD page or seeing pages on their watchlists or a host of other things. Selectively alerting people to bring the "diversity" of a single viewpoint is not ok. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. How is it okay to post on Judaism Deletion list but its not okay to Talk to 3 random people from the Palestinian list?  The POV could be interpreted the other way around.  --Noleander (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a multitude of differences but I'll just list the two largest. First, general Wikiproject deletion sorting pages are centralized locations that anyone can watchlist as opposed to arbitrary specific users who are likely to be more watchlists by peopled with a specific POV. Second, you are setting up an unproductive dichotomy by comparing "Palestinian" to "Jewish" (or some approximation thereof). It seems that you are implicitly conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish". (See also Timeshifter's remark below) JoshuaZ (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not conflating anything. I am just trying to find a variety of wikiprojects so that there isn't an accusation of canvassing. Civility please? Assume good faith? --Timeshifter (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are misinterpreting my see-also. The point there was that you gave pointers to valid ways of alerting people in a neutral setting. The issues of conflation and such were directed at Noleander. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the member list of a neutral project:
 * WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
 * You could leave a notice on the talk page of the project, too.


 * Besides leaving a notice on their project talk pages, you could also pick a few members at random from each of these projects to notify:
 * WikiProject Palestine
 * WikiProject Israel
 * Both of these projects frequently deal with the subject of antisemitism, and accusations of antisemitism. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood
I have nominated An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Frmatt (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)