In the email, I asked the recipient to reply on the Talk page of the article, rather than replying to the email. They have done neither yet. --Noleander (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dartmouth RfC
Thanks for helping to spread the word about the RfC I started earlier today for Dartmouth! When you get a moment, can you stop by the article's Talk page and read my latest comment? I pulled some pageview stats for all of the relevant articles and I think they address WP:PRIMARYTOPIC quite well. ElKevbo (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, you are correct. Hmmm, I would self-revert, but the article is already in a reverted state. I apologize for violating the 1RR (it was unintentional) and I won't object to a block. --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make worthless edits like that. If you want to remove spurious blanks at the end of lines I'm all in favor, but only do it if you make at least one small edit that also actually improves the article. Quale (talk)
Hello you suggested I change the description in my request for comment, I was wonder if you could direct me someplace that would tell me how to do that. Thanks Tmckeage (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can just directly edit the text directly in the Talk page. Just click here and edit the text. The RfC software will automatically notice the change (it may take awhile) and update the master RfC page. --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've violated the 1RR restriction at Planned Parenthood ([1], [2]), as has JGabbard (talk·contribs). I'm not going to report either of you at this point, but please stick to the 1RR. I realize that you're just enforcing a clear talkpage consensus against JGabbard's edits, but that's unlikely to be recognized as a valid exception to 1RR. MastCellTalk23:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll probably ask JGabbard to do the same, as a show of good faith. It's easy to lose track, and like I said, I realize that you're acting to enforce a talk-page consensus. MastCellTalk23:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I didn't mean to short-circuit the RFC you voted in by jumping ahead and making this change. After some research, my borderline conclusion was this - although I still have my doubts - there are probably more criteria for earning that title! If you disagree with my change, I'm more than happy to revert it and continue on with the RFC. Let me know if you have any other thoughts on the subject, and please continue to contribute there! Dreadstar☥23:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your change looks okay: I saw the additional sources listed in the RfC (after I made my comment) that support your change, so I'm comfortable with it. Thanks for notifying me! --Noleander (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you may remember that some time ago you said you would be willing to mediate in the discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia regarding the purposing of that page. Since protection is due to expire soon, and there seems to be no explicit agreement among editors about what to do, is there any chance you could help direct that discussion towards some kind of conclusion? Thanks for your help,--Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: [[3]] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.
Thanks, that was very useful. I hope you will continue to help us get the balance right. We need people like you that are being objective, and not trying to steer the article towards one bias or another. Cheers, -- Zac Δ talk!17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. After I closed this AfD as delete, Cindamuse (talk) asked me on my talk page to userfy the articles for her - not that she was challenging the result of the AfD but she thought she could find more sources, in particular the claim of Gold for "Give Thanks". I userfied the two most promising, which she has now improved - see User:Cindamuse/Workshop/Give Thanks and User:Cindamuse/Workshop/Thank You Lord. I think they are now good enough, but I thought I would check with you - if you agree, I will restore them; if you're not happy, we should probably go to WP:DRV and see what others think. Let me know. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability requirement for albums is WP:NALBUMS. It requires: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." or it must have "been mentioned in multiple reliable sources." I looked at all the sources for one of the albums (Thank you lord), and they seemed to be catalog entries, or database entries, or trivial reviews. I dont see any secondary sources that talk about the album in a "significant" way. I think these albums are rather minor, and the encyclopedia would be better served if they were just merged into a larger article List of albums by Don Moen. That said, I wont object if someone restores them. --Noleander (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored those two, and Cindamuse has agreed that the others should stay deleted. You raise an interesting point at WT:NMUSIC, and I will comment there if I can decide what I think - I quite like the present wording, but have a hard time explaining to myself why. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is awarded to Noleander for copy editing articles totalling over 8000 words during the GOCE September copy edit drive. Thank you very much for your help! Dianna (talk)
Leaderboard Award—5k articles—5th Place (tied)
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Noleander for copy editing one article of 5000 words or more during the WP:GOCESeptember 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thank you so much for your contributions to the project. -- Dianna (talk)
Tree shaping
Thanks for your input to the the Tree shaping RfM. Perhaps you could help me with something. Am I the only one who thinks that we cannot just make up a title for a subject, regardless of whether the subject is actually known by that title? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that every one agrees with you that making up a title is not the best practice, and should be avoided. I think where editors differ is that some editors (I'm one of them) concede that a made-up title can be used as a last resort. The guideline WP:Title explicitly provides for made-up titles in some situations. Search for the word "descriptive" in WP:Title and you'll see several scenarios where it is acceptable. E.g.
"Where there is no set name for a topic, so a title of our own conception is necessary, e.g., List of birds of Nicaragua and Campaign history of the Roman military, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles."
" It need not be the name of the subject; many article titles are descriptions of the subject."
"In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title (e.g., Population of Canada by year). These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions."
"In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." (that is from WP:NEO)
I see it as a balancing of several competing factors: what is most informative for readers, what reflects the sources, and what is likely to make an RM succeed. Based on all those factors, I see a descriptive phrase (even one not used by the sources) as an acceptable compromise ... but only as a last resort if all other options fail. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that a descriptive phrase is OK but it must be one that cannot be taken to be the actual name of the subject of the article. Do you agree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify your question? Do you mean the made-up title should not be confused with an actual proper name of the subject of the article? If that is what you mean, yes, I agree that a made-up name should be clearly apparent as a made-up phrase, and should not be worded in such a way that a typical reader could confuse it with a proper name for the subject of the article. --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that we should not use a short phrase like, say, 'tree sculpture' such that a reader might think that the subject is generally known as 'tree sculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. A one or two word made-up descriptive phrase will typically be so short that it may look to readers like a proper name. As a general rule, I'd say that the descriptive phrase should be 3 words or longer so that it is more likely to be understood by readers as a made-up phrase, rather than a proper name. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we agree then although I think the phrase should be long enough to unambiguously describe the subject, which makes it rather cumbersome like say, 'Forming living trees into useful or artistic objects', in fact I would really like to add something about joining branches by inosculation as this is a near-universal aspect of the art and is necessary to distinguish it from Topiary for example.. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting up to 7 or 8 words may draw the opposition of many editors ... WP:TITLE emphasizes conciseness. Maybe something like "Artistic or utilitarian tree training"? No one would mistake that for a proper name :-) --Noleander (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no one would mistake that for the proper name but it does not distinguish the subject from fan or espallier training of a fruit tree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "arborsculpture" is the best name, and I've made that argument several times in the RfC and RM. On the other hand, I do understand that some editors oppose that name because, apparently, they feel it is too proprietary, too much of a brand name. Perhaps they also feel that that name is not universally used in the sources, and hence picking it would somehow be choosing sides, or showing favoritism. For those reasons, those editors would prefer a descriptive phrase (that is not used by the sources) rather than selecting a name that is used by only some of the sources. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I initially had that impression, because that word was coined by a specific practitioner, but after reviewing the sources, as I've mentioned in the Talk page, I came to the conclusion that it was not proprietary and would be a good name for the article. --Noleander (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we agree again then. So, apart from the editors with an obvious COI, can you see exactly what it is that makes what appears to be reasonable and sensible editors think that 'arborsculpture' is proprietary or non-neutral as some put it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it is probably due to laziness: it takes time to read all the sources and assimilate the information. I suspect that in this case some editors have not yet taken the time to read the sources and see exactly how arborsculpture is being used. The "descriptive phrase" option is the path of least resistance: it is safe and simple. --Noleander (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. [from user Brechbill123].
See discussion on that articles Talk page. Cheers. PS: comments directed at other editors should go on their "Talk" or "Discussion" page, not on their main user page. --Noleander (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You had responded to the Pingan IFC RfC, looking for more secondary sources and information. Since then a lot has changed on the article, so although I have not responded directly to your posts in the RfC, I invite you to come back and read the new additions to the talk page, and perhaps cast a vote on the RfC following that.
Please note that the revert wars are continuing, and a number of users are reverting the page to "construction status: on hold", refusing to discuss anything on the talk pages; because of this, the front page of the article does not contain the sources I added, because they continue to delete all my references. Please look at the older version of the page where my most recent updates are intact.
I appreciate any help in averting the continuing edit warring that is going on on that page. The RfC, which did not attract enough attention, is one of the most neglected tools in that thread for helping to work things out. Merechriolus (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were 58 editors who signed-up for this drive, of which 42 participated. This is a slight increase from the July 2011 drive participation, where 39 out of 50 people that signed up participated. Thank you to everyone!
Progress report
During the drive, we reduced the backlog by 146 articles, or by about 4%. Overall we did well, especially considering the exceptionally large number of articles that were tagged during September. Thus far we have reduced the copy edit backlog by 4854 articles, or by about 58%. If we keep up our current rate of copy editing, the backlog should be reduced by 65–70% by the end of this year. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. Barnstars will be handed out this week.
Once again, thank you for participating in the Guild's September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Our next drive will be in November, and we hope to see you there!
Sorry mate! I know this has dragged out. I'd appreciate it if you could give one final response — we're all sticking to the results after this. Thanks and best regards, Nightw12:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Militant atheism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Offering (a modest bit of) help at Margaret Sanger
Hey there. Since you have been doing all the work at Margaret Sanger, if you think it would be helpful, I thought I'd offer to copy-edit the article as it nears what you would consider "GA-completeness". Not that you couldn't do it yourself, but it's not exactly exciting work. Let me know if you'd like me to do this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)(talk)(contribs)19:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, any and all help is welcome. I don't own the article so have at it. If you want to make any significant changes, it may be wisest to propose them first on the Talk page (so the GA reviewer does not get the impression that there is an edit war happening, or that the article layout is thrashing), but that is your call. --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I certainly wasn't suggesting you own it! (And, I haven't even looked to see whether it seems to need copy-editing, but wanted to help with the busy work since I was impressed at your industrious overhauling project.)
What I had in mind, though, was waiting until you feel it is relatively close to "done" for the purposes of your Good Article submission, and then making a couple passes over the whole article at once. It just seems better to wait until you are done with the renovations since it's in such a state of flux right now. Does this seem like a good idea to you ? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)(talk)(contribs)20:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going to pause anyway for the GA reviewer to pitch in. So, yes, now would be a good time for you to jump in and work your magic. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your improvements look great! Thanks. The only nit I can find is: "That same year she also published the pamphlet Family Limitation, in defiance of the Comstock Law of 1873, which outlawed as obscene the dissemination of contraceptive information." That placement of commas, to me, implies that her pamphlet outlawed things; when it should indicate that the Comstock law outlawed things. Removing both commas may be a good solution. --Noleander (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your latest batch of edits, and they look good. I prefer US over U.S., but both are acceptable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations. I believe "made common cause " is an idiom that is used by the sources and has a meaning that "found common cause" may not carry. Otherwise, good work! --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Thanks again for your excellent work to this article, where continuous POV warfare would have put off most editors. I am impressed by what you accomplished. / edg☺☭13:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
proposed changes in lead of 1953 Iran coup article
I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of adding a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ since the article has no mention on why they opposed Mosaddeq other than being bribed to do so.
Iranian coup supporters
Iranian opponents of Mosaddeq have been described as including "religious leaders and preachers and their followers, as well as landlords and provincial magnates";[1] "conservative politicians such as prime ministers Ahmad Qavam and General Ali Razmara .... and commanders of the military, most notably General Fazlollah Zahedi ... led by the Shah."[2] They have been described as forces that would "have been crippled without substantial British and later U.S. support," [3] while authors Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr say "it would be mistaken to view the coup as entirely a foreign instigation with no support" in Iran.[4]
Observers differ on the opponents motivation for supporting the coup. Mark J. Gasiorowski describes them as "very ambitious and opportunistic."[5] Another author calls Mosaddeq's Iranian opponents elites "determined to retrieve their endangered interests and influence, and unconcerned with the lasting damage to Iranian patriotic sensibilities and democratic aspirations."[6] Money was involved with the US CIA paying out $150,000 after March 1953 to "journalists, editors, preachers, and opinion members", giving Zahedi $135,000 to "win additional friends", and paying members of the majlis $11,000 a week.[7]
Other authors (Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr) describe the opponents as agreeing with Mosaddeq that the "British position was unjust and illegal," but believing that after the 1946 attempt by the Soviets to separate Azerbaijan and Kurdistan from Iran, "Iran's interests lay in close ties with the West to ward off the Soviet threat."[2]government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeghorganized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.[8] --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting that notice to the Women's History project. WP is sadly deficient in articles on the cultural history of reproductive issues. I thought you might be interested in this article, which suggested to me that birth control may have been more widely practiced during that time than I had ever realized. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether you're still monitoring the article, but it appears that editors are trying to drag skeletons out of the closet. Doniago (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Hi, thank you for your review of the article. I've corrected the deadlinks with new ones. Also, I'm not sure how the Sri Lankan Civil War navbox could be corrected. I've tried some ways to keep the entire navbox condensed but didn't seem to work, so I think it is a problem with the navbox itself rather than how it is kept in the article. Please let me know if there are anymore concerns with the article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you are constantly improving your posts to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout. As a fiddler myself, I cannot but think that this is a good thing. However, I wonder whether the numerous entries that result from these edits causes the edit history page to become less useful to those trying to follow recent posts. Have you considered copying the article you want to edit on to a personal sandbox page, making the various changes, and then copying back the changed version to the page you are editing? Just a thought. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would never change a proposal in a Talk page if other editors were engaged and relying on the original version of the proposal. (Although strike-thrus are generally be okay). But in this case, interest in the proposal seems to be low, with no substantive discussion (yet) of the proposal, so I'm taking the liberty of improving it. More than that: I invite other editors to collaborate on that proposal and directly change it ... I dont own the proposal. On the other hand, since you've voiced that it is an issue, I'll go ahead and announce that my tweaks are finished, on Talk page. Thanks for pointing it out ... I didn't know anyone was paying attention! --Noleander (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments are not directed at your proposal or your presentation of that proposal on the talk page. Instead, it is to your practice of making multitudinous edits within a short period of time (which fills up the history page with edit after edit by you). Again, I do not want to in any way discourage your numerous edits - constant improvement is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. I just want to suggest that you combine the edits so that the history page is not unnecessarily lengthened. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'm a "continuous improvement" sort of editor, and every time I look at something I wrote, I can always find some tweak to make anything better. But, as you say, a sandbox or draft copy in User space is often a better solution. --Noleander (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Yes, I'm most definitely interested. In fact, I'm reviewing one now ... but I think I'll limit to one at a time, so I'll wait until this one is done before I move on to another. --Noleander (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Hello! About a month ago, you commented on a merger discussion at Talk:Redwood (color). Since the consensus more or less seems to be to merge to variations of red, instead of brown or the article about the tree itself, I'd like to get your input on it before I close the discussion. Would you be fine with the article merging into variations of red? I'm not sure how much progress was made at this discussion that you started.--Slon02 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serer people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Hi Noleander! I see that you are an copyeditor, and thought that you might appreciate some help with finding and eliminating multiple links (or wikification) from the article on which you are working.
I case you're not aware, all you need to do is install the following script:
