User talk:Noleander/Archive 9

Please comment on Talk:South Asia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. 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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

 * This just may be the "thanks" I'm most proud of receiving. :-)  --Noleander (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to know. I really appreciate what you did today. You know when i first saw your edit, i was annoyed. I have to be honest. Actually, i have not been in a very good mood today. Sorry if ever i seemed rude or arrogant. Your willingness to help me shows that you are definitely a very nice Wikipedian as well as a good person in RL. Jivesh 1205  (Talk) 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Family honor GA
Do you think it is a B-class article? If so, could you update the ratings? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think it is B class. I've updated the ratings. --Noleander (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thanksgiving
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thanksgiving. 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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review Family Honor
Hello Noleander,

I was wondering if you could take another look at the article and tell me if you see any improvements that you can mark off on our GA checklist? Also, if there are things the article is still lacking as we continue to work on it? Thanks.

Rojast07 (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In American Civil Liberties Union, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page ADL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Birth control article
Hello! I thought I'd drop by and let you know that I just read through the History of Birth Control article (which I see you wrote) and I found it very interesting and informative. Thank you! The one thing I missed was some stats on exactly how common the use of birth control was: what percentage of people/couples used it regularly, etc...is there not any info on that? I'd be really interested to know. You kind of assume (at least I did) that barely anyone used contraception in the first half of the century, but the article makes clear that wasn't the case. I'm still intrigued to know roughly how widespread it was though (I don't think the article says that anywhere)? --Lobo512 (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words about Birth control movement in the United States ... I'm planning on nominating it for WP:Featured article status soon. Your question about prevalence of usage in the first half of the 20th century is a good question. I have not yet been able to find any good statistical data on that time period.  I have seen several sources that say that "most women" or "most upper class women" (wealthier persons had greater access & disposable income) used birth control.  But I have not seen any source that says "46% of couples in New Jersey ..." or anything approaching that kind of accuracy.   Part of the problem is that there were so few scientific studies of birth control during that time:  it is was a rather taboo subject until the 1940s.   I'll dig some more and see if I can find some stats. --Noleander (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So you do think it was probably the majority of people? I'm just asking now to satisfy my own interests (I love twentieth century social history), even if you can't confirm it on the article. :) Good luck at FAC by the way, you've brave haha. I'm a bit scared of taking an article there. --Lobo512 (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One reliable source says the US birth rate was cut in half between 1800 and 1900 ... which is a huge drop. Then came WW I and the speakeasy/prohibition/flapper/jazz era, and things got even more liberal.  It appears that most of the information transfer was word-of-mouth: woman to woman. --Noleander (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Azad Kashmir
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Azad Kashmir. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll skip this one: a rather ill-formed RfC. --Noleander (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

 * And happy holidays to you too! --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nazareth
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazareth. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Passing on this one. --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My Heartfelt Thanks
I express you my heartfelt thanks. ""Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" has passed. I am very happy. Your feedback and kind words helped me considerably. Thanks again. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of Azerbaijan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of Azerbaijan. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar
Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited American Civil Liberties Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 14th amendment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is your coffee?



 * Thanks! My spelling should improve now :-)   --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2011
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * American Civil Liberties Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to La Ronde, Fifth amendment, Frank Graham, Harold Ickes, Samuel Walker, McCollum, M (film) and Harry Ward

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC image check
I can take a look at it, though it may be a few days. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there is no rush. There is only one reviewer so far. --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WT:Featured article candidates/Mark Satin/archive3
Hi, this is back at FAC, and Babel has answered questions on the FAC's talk page left over from the previous FAC. Thanks for looking at this last time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added some comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4
All issues have been addressed at the above FAC. Thank you for your comments.-- Will C  08:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have time for a review.-- Will C  20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to get to this as soon as possible. I got a few things to attend to first.-- Will C  16:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cases related to the ACLU
This category seems to be an even broader and more vague one than a previously deleted category, as "related to" is incredibly open ended. Given that the ACLU files amicus briefs in plenty of cases in which they aren't even a party or providing representation for someone, it's a rather non-defining characteristic of a case. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing that out. If the consensus that the new category is too vague - a tool can be run to just convert that "Cases related .." category into the existing ACLU category (there were about 5 cases in that latter cat already).   I really dont care which category they are in: but they should be in some category: the ACLU cat is fine.  --Noleander (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be even worse, as the articles most relevant to the ACLU would then be flooded by articles for every SCOTUS case in which they did...something, anything. And it would still be categorizing the case articles based on the same relationship as the "related to" category, so it wouldn't solve anything either.  This information really should be left to List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union for that reason, rather than trying to deal with it through the category system as well.  postdlf (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought that Lists and Categories were mutually exclusive indexing systems?   A reader should be able to start at the ACLU top-level cat, and find all cases that the ACLU was significantly involved in, true?   The list is good, of course, but a person looking at article on case A, would not know that it is in the list.   I'll initiate a discussion in WP:Categories to get more input.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Noleander (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I initiated a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization. Thanks again for bringing it up. --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Du Bois 95th birthday in Ghana 1963.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Du Bois 95th birthday in Ghana 1963.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taliban
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taliban. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Schomburg Center
Hi, I am editing the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. Can you point me to one book about his life that will be helpful to me, please. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am not Noleander, I am leaving the note for him below. Alas, I cannot answer your question, but I used the listening room at Schomburg once, in 1997  - amazing place - and wanted to wish you well with your article. - Babel41 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @IP 66.234.33.8: Hi.  Glad to hear you are working on the Schomburg library article. Are you asking about books about Du Bois? (I presume that is the topic of your inquiry since I recently submitted W. E. B. Du Bois for WP:FA status). There are hundreds of books about Du Bois, but far and away the best overall biography is by David Lewis.  Other than that, the next book I enjoyed (although it was more narrowly focused) was Black and red: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Afro-American response to the Cold War by Horne.  --Noleander (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I am interested in the best book about Du Bois w respect to his dealings w the Schomburg Center. I'll go w Lewis unless you have something better. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree on Horne. Cause I am editing the Paul Robeson article also. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Temple Library comes through for "Satin" biography
Hi. I am the principal author of the Mark Satin biography which you helpfully commented on at the FAC page December 11 and again January 7. Just wanted to let you know that this weekend, an emeritus librarian at Temple U.'s "Contemporary Culture Collection" gave me, for Wikipedia, a much shorter URL for the New World Alliance and New Options Correspondence Files (essentially, Satin's papers from 1977-1992). So the last issue remaining from your December comments has been resolved. - Babel41 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. Glad to be of help.  --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good on you
Good on you for spotchecking that wrestling article at FAC. Spotchecking entertainment articles is hard for me, but you did well. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:East Germany
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:East Germany. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

latest proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article
I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of cleaning up the article to fix duplication, contradiction and bad chronology. Here are my proposed changes. Please leave a comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taliban
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taliban. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
I started a new thread at WT:PR if you want to comment there - as far as I know, no coordinated effort to get more reviewers across projects has been made, thogh there is some overlap (Brian and I are active at FAC - Brian much more than I, and The Rambling Man is active at FLC and does some PRs). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added comments there. --Noleander (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection and WEB DuBois
As you may have seen, Deryck Chan unprotected WEB DuBois. By the way, you can check for protection by going to the article history; from there, click on the "View logs for this page" link in the top left, and pick "Protection log" from the dropdown that displays as "All public logs" when the screen loads. This will show you every time that the page has been protected or manually unprotected, as well as the dates/times when protections have been set to expire. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. Thanks for the info. --Noleander (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited 1949 trial of Communist Party leaders, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Department of Justice and Gil Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Noleander (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Fellows v. Blacksmith/archive1
Thank you for your comments. I have made changes to the article and responded. Savidan 22:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your Du Bois article looks quite good. However, my preference is to only review featured article candidates in subject areas with which I am familiar. Otherwise, it takes more time that I currently have to spend to get comfortable supporting. I suggest leaving a note at the applicable WikiProjects. Savidan 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have responded there. I am not keen to the RFC idea. Savidan 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying on the FAC page whether or not your concerns regarding citation style persist? Savidan 08:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem: I'm not a big fan of that style, but it is not a bar to FA. I'm almost prepared to support ... could you look at a small issue I raised at the FAC page?  --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Periyar (river)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Periyar (river). 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...
... but I really didn't do anything. You deserve all the congratulations. Great work! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you offered encouragement when I was flagging during the long march to FA status. :-) --Noleander (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My thanks too, but I agree that the congratulations belong chiefly to you - well done! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

RE
Congrats on the article, sucks though because I was gonna finish the rest of the article today. I get burned out if I read it all at once, I miss things so I did it in sections. I got 4 left, would you like me to continue? Also, I had an idea. I see you plan to nominate more for FA and as do I. Was wondering if you wanted to make an agreement to review each other's? I never know which ones to review.-- Will C  09:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means, continue reviewing the article: just post your comments on the article's Talk page, and I'll take care of them.   Regarding an exchange of reviews:  I think the FAC delegates might frown on such an agreement, since they may perceive that the reviewer's objectivity is compromised - rightly or wrongly.  If you just steadily review other articles, the principle of karma guarantees that your articles will attract reviewers :-)   --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I thought the same. I've been here for 4 years, everyone seems to get a stick up their ass about something. Thought I'd make the offer anyway, I like your articles, they are done well. If I can ever get sourcing issues out of the way for mine, I hope to a 13 article FA topic, not sure if it will ever happen though.-- Will C  08:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Gregory v. Chicago
Hi. I started going through Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles due to your complaints. I randomly selected an article from the category (Gregory v. Chicago), quickly noticed that it was in your writing style, and then discovered from the page history that you, indeed, were the author.

This is exactly the type of article that should be flagged for improvement. The infobox is all kinds of messed up and the accompanying article text needs fixing (as I said previously, there's a high correlation between infobox issues and article text issues). --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're still in denial about the quality of the template. When a software user complains about the performance of a script/template, there is only one thing to do:  improve the software to better accomodate the user.  --Noleander (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, in this version of the article, how, exactly, is the template supposed to know which Court to output when you completely omitted the "SCOTUS" parameter? Magic? Mind-reading? That was why the article was flagged. The article also happened to have a number of other issues, which I corrected for you. No trouble at all. Glad I could help. :-)
 * A large number of users have correctly used this template without issue (and previous iterations of the template). In nearly every instance that you've used the template, it's been wrong. That's an interesting common denominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And, all snark aside, I really do appreciate the work you've been doing creating these articles. It's a tedious process and not many people are willing to help. Minus the aesthetic/stylistic issues, the articles are good stubs. :-) It's a bit sad that it's taken so long for some of these (very important) case articles to be created, but I'm quite glad that it's finally happening. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Sorry if I sounded snippy ... there was no call for that.  Anyway, thanks for working on the template.  I posted a query to User:Postdlf a few days ago asking if he could suggest some improvements for those stubs I created.  --Noleander (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS
See WP:MEDRS, I'll post a note to WT:MED asking for help, and this Dispatch is helpful: Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. Basically, you want to go to PubMed, search on birth control, and then on the left-hand side of the search results, narrow it down to reviews. Then if you also find full text reviews, bingo ... another thing you can do is sort out the statements that are specifically medical, and ask the docs for help in finding sources. Ping me if I can help, but my time is a mess right now. Good luck-- this will help avoid a lengthy FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed guidance. I'll make sure it gets up to the required standards. --Noleander (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Colin-- who is a topnotch reviewer-- made a preliminary stab at WT:MED. I hope you saw it, since you asked for commentary to be placed on article talk?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out ... I've replied at WT:MED, and I'll implement the suggestions he made. --Noleander (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Foley Square trial
Nice job. --Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Articles are easier to write when there is an interesting story behind them. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating time in American history. If it interests you, look into Oppenheimer security hearing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent article. I hope we never see an era like that again.  Let me know if you want me to do a Good article review on it.  --Noleander (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South Asia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Foley Square trial
I think you can make it into a political/cultural event. I got a little involved in writing some on the Hollywood blacklist, Dalton Trumbo. and even created an article: Trumbo. I was surprised at how many citations were missing and how much was not covered. You noted all the articles referring to the issues, but is there one regarding that particular collective event (the trials, the defense strategy, that particular decade etc.) It's an interesting event/period and should be covered somehow. You just need the right title.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input ... I'll see what the sources say: they'll be a good guide to suggest the best way to treat the topic.  Thanks again for all your suggestions!  --Noleander (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to edict conflict with you. I think some days away from the article plus some new eyes in Peer review will be very helpful. I know I'm past the point of being able to be helpful, unfortunately, at this point. Maybe I'll refresh myself! Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Foley Square trial
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Foley Square trial, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Progressive Party and Distinguished Service Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schiavone
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Schiavone. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CT article RfC
Would you mind commenting on these two RfCs?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. --Noleander (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just read this article, myself, and wanted to pass on my appreciation -- very well done! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestine
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestine. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. And thanks to you for all the work you do in GAN and other places: your contributions are outstanding. --Noleander (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)