User talk:Guettarda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
There is no Cabal
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
AlanM1 23 9 6 72 18:30, 29 July 2014 5 days, 4 hours
no
report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 13:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Canyon dam.jpg

Contents

One year Three Four years[edit]

It's been a year, somehow it's been a year three years already.

Deepest sympathy[edit]

I'm so sorry for your loss. :-( SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They found the bodies this morning. I was hoping for a better outcome, I really was. This is just heartbreaking. Guettarda (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They will be in my prayers, Guettarda. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Truly sad news. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Our hearts go out to you and your family. It's so hard to know what to say. What we really want is to be able to change it for you. :-( SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Terrible news. So sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh nooooo, dearest Guettarda :' ( what awful news. Much love, tears, and deepest sympathy. --MPerel 04:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, that really sucks. So sorry. Hesperian 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I go to sleep tonight with you in my thoughts. Take care of yourself my friend.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is dreadful news, and completely heartbreaking. It's hard even thinking about the pain this must be causing for you and your family, so sorry to hear of this, you have my thoughts and condolences. . dave souza, talk 09:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

:-( Dragons flight (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read the link on your user page and understand you've lost two people who clearly meant a great deal to you. My profound condolences, dear ((Guettarda)).* I hold you and yours in my thoughts and prayers and wish you peace. *my arms around you. :/ deeceevoice (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies for you in this difficult time. You and your family are in my thoughts. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very saddened by this, Guettarda. My heart reaches out to you and the rest of those closest to you. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Words fail me here. I just want you to know that my thoughts are with you, with my deepest sympathies to you and your family. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We care. Very best wishes to you. DurovaCharge! 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Guettarda. These two people clearly meant a lot to you. I share this moment of reflection with you. --CSTAR (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No man is an island, and this is especially true in small communities such as this one. Your loss is our loss. Words cannot adequately convey how sorry we are. Personally, I have lost people before, but never suddenly like this. What you and your family must be going through must be very difficult. I offer my deepest condolences in these hard times. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My heartfelt condolences to you, your sister and your family. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. While studying I had heard of the search come across the radio in Trinidad during the hourly news update but I hadn't yet put two-and-two together to take them to be your relatives. I express to you and the rest of the entire Ramjohn family my most heartfelt and expressed condolences at this very tragic loss. It is clear to all that they gave of themselves a great deal of service for Trinidad and Tobago in their research and for that myself and others in society should be grateful for the service they have given to the country. CaribDigita (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that. My deepest sympathies and condolences dear Guettarda. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I too offer my condolences. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My condolences, Guettarda. It is good to have closure, but not this closure. --Una Smith (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My utmost condolences, Guettarda. Ameriquedialectics 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone in my house survived 24 hours out there last year lost diving (for a living not tourism), hope things are as well as can be expected, best wishes. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My sympathy and solidarity man. Alun (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My God...my most heartfelt sympathies Guettarda. I can't imagine... Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My sympathy and condolences, as usual in such cases, words fail. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My condolences Guettarda; your family is in our prayers. -- Samir 07:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found out this morning about your terrible loss and my heart goes out to you. I, too, have just lost someone close recently. I will be sending warm thoughts of strength and fellowship as I lie awake at night waiting for the pain to dull (it comes in waves) and allow me to sleep. John Hill (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My deepest sympathy my friend. I lost someone too in the New Year and it really just is hard to get through. If you need to talk, you can send me a message any time. Spawn Man (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw you briefly at that awful Egyptian controversy article a couple of days ago, and I wanted to drop by again to tell you I haven't forgotten, that you and yours are still in my thoughts and prayers. Memories persist, and healing will come. Bless, :) deeceevoice (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heartfelt sympathies. I feel dreadful for you. Ben Aveling 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This is for the most part a copy/pasted notice, but I would like to offer my condolences for this recent loss. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I never thanked any of you personally, but I appreciate your notes more than I can possibly express. And I still treasure these notes too much to archive them Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Guettarda. I read about what happened, and I know that in addition to the grief of loss there is a separate pain that comes from lack of closure. Even when it is temporary, lack of closure is a wound that takes time to heal. Hugs. --Una Smith (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As a former US Coastguardsman, I'm sad to say I've seen happy excursions on the sea turn to tragedy before. Your brothers' bravery retains my admiration, and your family remains in my prayers. Ameriquedialectics 20:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Guettarda! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,551 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Satnarayan Maharaj - Find sources: "Satnarayan Maharaj" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  2. Rakesh Yankaran - Find sources: "Rakesh Yankaran" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  3. Gypsy (calypsonian) - Find sources: "Gypsy (calypsonian)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  4. Vincent Floissac - Find sources: "Vincent Floissac" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  5. Winston Dookeran - Find sources: "Winston Dookeran" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  6. Geddes Granger - Find sources: "Geddes Granger" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  7. Mary King (economist) - Find sources: "Mary King (economist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ficus maxima[edit]

have asked Circeus to have a look at context as we've been discussing how to add genus-level material on flower structure to some other plant articles recently. I don't think there is too much to add. A bum rush of ficus at GAN might be fun. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Roupala[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ecosystem GAR[edit]

I understand about real life getting in the way of doing as much on Wikipedia as one would like.

Given my own work and home responsibilities, I'm not sure how much assistance I can offer you, but my work location is just a few minutes away from the university library. If you need access to a published journal article, there is a good chance that I can get it for you.

By the way, if you have time, could you take a look at this Featured Picture Nominee and if you like it, place a vote? I was amazed when I first saw this animation on a German astronomy web site, so I got permission to use it in an article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Cecropia peltata[edit]

KTC (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Roupala montana[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Roupala montana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Roupala montana[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Richeria grandis[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Parinari campestris[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanding Jared Diamond[edit]

Thanks for weight in on the RFC at Talk:Jared Diamond. You mentioned that the article "simply skips Diamond's (quite notable) scientific contributions", and I wondered if you had anything specific in mind on that score? Given the amount of bytes spilt over relatively trivial points on that article recently, it would be nice to expand it with some properly encyclopaedic coverage. Joe Roe (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure his work on Bowerbirds in New Guinea has been pretty significant, but that's outside of my area of expertise. As far as things I know about, in the 1970s he made important contributions to island biogeography, community assembly (including supertramp (ecology), protected area design (see SLOSS debate; Google Scholar says that his "The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves" article has been cited over 1100 times) and what is now called extinction debt (I believe he coined the term "relaxation" in this paper, which Google Scholar says has been cited 350x). Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My identity[edit]

Hi. I watch the article Race and intelligence, mainly to look out for socks of Mikemikev and other banned users. I noticed that you added my username in an edit summary, which puzzled me. Looking at the talk page, I think you were referring to comments by Hans Adler,[1] who announced himself as a mathematician (like me) and made some comments on the term "racial IQ gap". I believe that I introduced the term "racial IQ gap" when creating a new version of the lede on April 5 2010.[2] I hope nobody is confused by any of this :-) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Yeah, I must have filed Hans' comment as yours...he isn't filed in my brain as a mathematician, tbh. Sorry about that. Guettarda (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI, R&I and an IP at User talk:BlackHades[edit]

I've had to mention you at ANI to make it clear that the IP's claim that I made your edit is ridiculous. See User talk:BlackHades first where the IP says an edit 'I' made is a clue. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

People don't understand the power of 10,000-item watchlists. I may have stopped editing the race article in 2005 or 2006, but I watchlisted the R&I article back in those days, though I've generally avoided it except when it spills over into articles closer to my real interests (ecology and biogeography). Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. My watchlist is also over 10,000, and some people get very suspicious when I suddenly reappear at an article. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Though I must say, if we're sockpuppets, we've got an impressive (and impressively broad) editing history ;) Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm having an identity crisis:) So this baby seal walks into a club...ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, that didn't end well for BH, who has been blocked for a week. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The years here have made me a cynic, I think. It's remarkable how predictable people can be. Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asking you again to stop with personal attacks and hostility. BlackHades (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dude, your nonsense is tiresome. When I tell you to stop misbehaving, that's not a personal attack. You're coming fresh off a block and headed back down the same path. Guettarda (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You need to calm down. You repeatedly made statements that you don't consider content from Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredon, as reliable sources. Am I right or wrong here? So based on your statements, I wrote:

"Per WP:NPOV all significant views must be represented. That includes the position held by Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Templer, Gottfredson, etc. You seem to argue for the complete omission of one side of the debate. But neither you, nor anyone else, gets to pick and choose which views belong in the article. That would be WP:Truth. All significant views must be represented including ones that you don't agree with."--BlackHades

Which you responded back with:

"Please cut out your bullshit accusations. I'm sick of your crap already, and you've only been back from your block for what - 2 days? and you're engaging full bore in the sort of nonsense that earned you the block in the first place. I am not "argu[ing] for the complete omission of one side of the debate"...that's utterly false, and you damn well know it's false. I'm arguing against your insistence on using your own interpretation of primary sources. I'm arguing against your insistence on building an article around the primary sources of a group that's viewed by the mainstream as fringe. Now please cut out the bullshit."--Guettarda

You're really going to say your response is an appropriate response to mine? You really don't notice a difference in the level of tone and hostility of mine compared to yours? Did you or did you not state that you consider Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson, as "not reliable", or "fringe", or "non-mainstream". My response to you were based on these statements. If I'm wrong, all you had to do was calmly reply back "I support the inclusion of all relevant positions including Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson", in which case I would have apologized and accepted. But when you constantly call Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson as "not reliable", or "fringe", or "non-mainstream", you don't see how someone can see this as an indication that the person is trying to omit their positions? By the way, even though you responded back that you're not arguing for omission of one side, you still haven't made it clear if that means you support the inclusion of the hereditarian position of Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson. It seems like you do now as you stated you don't support omission but I would request for better clarification here. BlackHades (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Where's the personal attack? ?? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
BlackHades - it was a response to all your crap. Again, as I pointed out before, you shouldn't quote mine - not in article spaces, not on talk pages, not in user talk. It was a response to crap like your repeated insistence that subject-verb agreement is acceptable in English grammar...which is clear and obvious tendentious editing. It was a response to your false claims about sources. It was a response to your constant rudeness and hostility.

But never mind me. Please proceed. Guettarda (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a quote mine. Your assertions here are inaccurate. There's a drastic difference in the tone and hostility that I respond to you versus vice versa. But I digress. Moving on. I would hope that we can both discuss civilly from this point forward. BlackHades (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
So...I'm wrong, BWilkins is wrong, and you're right? Because you say so? Strange, isn't it that two established users (one with five years experience here, one with over 8.5), with clean block logs, don't understand Wikipedia policy and that you, fresh off a block for disruptive editing, are the only one who understands policy. Very interesting. Guettarda (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia longevity doesn't make someone immune to bias. As very clearly shown on the R&I talk page. And I thought we're moving on. Are we still beating this dead horse? BlackHades (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
And once again, you take half my statement and runs with it, ignoring the other half (cf. quote mining). You're just a few days off a block for disruption. This is your second chance to show that you can learn acceptable behaviour. But rather than learn from BW, you imply that your understanding of policy is superior to his. It's not an encouraging attitude.

My observation (and that's just an observation, not a threat) is that editors with an attitude like yours end up perma-blocked. If you refuse adjust your attitude, if you refuse to learn from people with more experience, your time here is likely to be short. As for beating a dead horse - you're the one who keeps posting to my talk page. Guettarda (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. As to yours, the example above is clear. I guarantee that you won't be able to show a single example where I show that level of hostility toward you. And stop with the false accusations of quote mining. Allow me to respond to this with your preferred method. "Please cut out your bullshit accusations. I'm sick of your crap already." In regards to beating a dead horse, you keep reviving this after I've shown that I've clearly moved on.BlackHades (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
BlackHades, your phrase "there's nothing wrong with my attitude" is actually proof positive that there is. Look, I'm an utterly unbiased third party here - it's YOU who are incorrect about the definition of personal attacks, it's YOU who continues to post here (Guettarda has a right to post here - you really don't) and he's allowed to have the last word. You're the one beating a dead horse. You're the one failing to grow from your mistakes and move on. Really - this is not the kind of hounding behaviour that is endearing to anyone. My advice: drop the stick and move on, quickly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
As much as I love the amusing absurdity of this guy, it's clearly time for it to be done. And since BH apparently is unable to stop himself from replying here, and his repeated responses are my fault, it's time to close this thread. Thanks for your input BWilkins. And BlackHades, please consider yourself banned from my talk page, since that appears to be the only way you'll be able to stop yourself from replying to this thread. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
... for helping found WikiProject Forestry ... and many more contributions to Wikipedia ... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much. And thank you for your hard work on that project as well! Guettarda (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter[edit]

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

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

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

Other contributors of note include:

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

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

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bactris[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Frère León[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bactris campestris[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter[edit]

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

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

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

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Phyllodytes auratus[edit]

Given you recent move of Phyllodytes auratus to El Tucuche golden tree frog, I was wondering if you had any reliable sources for that name. I can find OK sources attesting to "golden tree frog", but not this name. Guettarda (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It came from the Phyllodytes page, which seemed well cited. Gigemag76 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? That page includes no inline references, so how can you say it's "well cited"? In addition, I checked the external links, and those that aren't broken do not appear to support the name. One includes it as one of two variant names, but the others don't include any common name. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Surely you aren't moving pages without checking to see that the names you moved them to aren't reliably sourced, are you? Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request[edit]

Hi Guettarda, I've initiated a peer review request for the List of historic schools of forestryarticle, and would appreciate your input on ways that it can be improved. Ultimately, I would like to nominate it for Featured List status. Please add any comments or suggestions at this link. Thanks & Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter[edit]

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and second place Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 16:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Guettarda! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Environmental Science and Pollution Research and its editor[edit]

Is Environmental Science and Pollution Research notable? Is it an industry shill? What about Alvin L. Young, its editor for 2000-2012? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the journal, but it's published by Springer, and has an impact factor of 2.6 which, for a relatively narrowly-focused journal is pretty respectable. That doesn't mean that everything published in it should be accepted uncritically, of course. I'm not familiar with Young or his work. The best way to get a sense of how his work has been received is to look at the articles that cite it (Google Scholar is a good place to find those). If what he has to say seems at all controversial (as would anything on Agent Orange, I'd guess) look for two things - it being ignored (if no one cites something controversial, that's a suggestion that it wasn't taken too seriously) or the publication of rebuttals. If his work on Agent Orange is being cited, and these citations aren't primarily rebuttals, then I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Guettarda (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Young's writings were contested on a couple of issues.
  • How much TCDD was in Agent Orange [hard to estimate apparently because of heterogeneity]. From PMID 12700752: "NAS-1974 calculated a mean TCDD level of 1.91 p.p.m.± 20% for the stockpile. USAF documentation that is widely viewed as authoritative, however, disputes this mean and contends that the four highest values (17, 22, 33 and 47 p.p.m.) must have been Agent Purple, and not Agent Orange, because these values exceeded the mean reported for the NCBC inventory, citing a personal communication from a military officer who recalled that as many as 20 drums of Agent Purple may have been present in the stockpile and redrummed into Agent Orange containers. (The hypergeometric probability of selecting four of the 20 Agent Purple drums from the stockpile is 1.32 × 10-5.) In fact, the range observed is completely consistent with the USAF’s own analysis of the range and heterogeneity of TCDD levels. By 1988, Young, the senior author of the USAF documentation, dropped the word “may” and simply reported the four high values to have been Agent Purple. This latter reference has been relied upon as authoritative by the IOM, and many others." Stellman et al. later guesstimate that "mean TCDD levels in Agent Orange were far higher than 3 p.p.m. for much of the herbicide used. An average value closer to 13 p.p.m. may be more realistic."
  • Young is also the DoD spearhead in a dispute, this time mostly with journalists, over the presence of Agent Orange in Okinawa. This mostly involves shipping records rather than any scientific measurements, so probably of no interest to you.
86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Guettarda/Fauna of Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

I came across your draft page User:Guettarda/Fauna of Trinidad and Tobago and I would like to encourage you to move it to article space. Some of the books found at this search might be worth adding as references, although others found in the search are just reprints of existing Wikipedia articles. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I should. I'll try to make the time. Guettarda (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter[edit]

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Poland Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and Canada Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 10:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You MUST pay[edit]

You owe me one brand new keyboard because you are solely responsible for making me spit out my coffee over mine with your latest response to North. It took me a long time to remove all the keys and clean it out, but it'll never be the same old keyboard after the trauma it (and I) experienced. Oh... and you also owe me for the coffee. And I'm going to charge you for the time I spent cleaning it up, too. And for the time writing this message, as well. AAARRRGGGHHH!!! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

stopping by[edit]

Came by Wikipedia way for some reminiscing. I had not heard about SLR - how sad! I never finished resolving my postmodernism debates with him. Perhaps in the post-afterlife. How are you? Graft | talk 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey - good to see you. I'm well, but barely here these days...trying to be productive in real life, and this place isn't as much fun as it used to be. It's full of ghosts. I come back and try to get back into the rhythm of things every so often, but I haven't managed to get back into the swing of things. If you're on fb and remember my real name, you should add me.
It was quite a shock when Steve died...when I run into his comments on Wikipedia it feels strange - comments that sit, waiting to be engaged, but that never will be answered. Guettarda (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter[edit]

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Canada Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, London Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Poland Piotrus (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 23:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Guettarda. You have new messages at DASonnenfeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ID dispute resolution[edit]

As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

ecosystem and memory
Thank you for quality articles such as Aiphanes, for polishing Core content ecosystem and defending it, for keeping the memory of dear people, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (22 August 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 222nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter[edit]

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4. Canada Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Poland Piotrus (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), Michigan Dana boomer (submissions), Prince Edward Island Status (submissions), United States Ed! (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 05:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning case[edit]

There are twelve active arbs presently but one is abstained. The number however for the majority is currently being incorrectly calculated so I will speak to the clerk team and see what the issue is. 11 active arbs, 1 abstained and 1 inactive. Thanks for pointing this out :) Seddon talk 14:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Range, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaguaramas (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) 11:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute[edit]

Dear Guettarda.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

Hi Guettarda, thanks for your partial revert on intelligent design. As you may have noticed, a couple of editors are pushing for the topic of the article to be shifted to cover the generic argument-from-design and/or uses of the term for the generic argument. The talk page discussions are very extensive, I think it needs some attention. If you have suggestions for a preferred introductory paragraph to the lead, I'd appreciate your thoughts. . dave souza, talk 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter[edit]

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Canada Sasata (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and New South Wales Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 23:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox TT Regional Corporation[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Infobox TT Regional Corporation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem like someone who would know[edit]

Hi there, I recently created some new Trinidad-related pages: Caroni Plain, Naparima Plain, Nariva Plain, Southern Range and added pictures to Nariva Swamp and the Caroni Swamp. I also annotated the map: File:Trinidad and Tobago Shaded Relief PCL Texas Annotated.jpg to show where all these geographical features are located. I don't know that much about Trinidad, and fell into working on these pages by accident while rewriting the V. S. Naipaul page. Could you look at the pages, in particular at the map, and let me know if there are any errors and how to correct them. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Check this out[edit]

My friend, I want to share this with you: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/10/30/profile-tony-the-marine/ Not bad, right? Tony the Marine (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter[edit]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

  1. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)
  3. Canada Sasata (submissions)
  4. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
  5. New South Wales Casliber (submissions)
  6. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions)
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions)
  8. Poland Piotrus (submissions)
  9. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

  • New South Wales Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
  • Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
  • Portland, Oregon Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
  • Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
  • Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
  • Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
  • Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
  • United States Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
  • The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to British Empire The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
  • Finally, the judges are awarding Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 00:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup award[edit]

In recognition of your participation in the 2013 Wikipedia:WikiCup, in which you reached round 2. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 13:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup![edit]

Hello Guettarda, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter[edit]

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter[edit]

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
  2. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
  3. United States WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter[edit]

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit[edit]

ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A. N. R. Robinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Higher School Certificate (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) 08:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter[edit]

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's United States ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Washington, D.C. Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Canada Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Minas Gerais Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Nepal Czar (submissions) and Indiana Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI ARBCOM notice procedures[edit]

Hi, Just fyi regarding this; that's the old procedure. The new "DS Alert" procedure is simply to add

{{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~

to the user's talk page without embellishment. The programming takes care of the logging. If you want to add comments, I think the DS instructions say to add the comments in a new thread after posting the DS alert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Guettarda (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter[edit]

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Modified my comment[edit]

Hi. I'm still wavering about the beauty queen tape, and have modified my comment to better represent my present view. I don't think my change affects the meaning of your later comment, but if you'd prefer to restore my original comment, please do and I'll add a clarification. Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have no problem leaving things the way they are. Guettarda (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive regarding your off-topic commentary at Talk:Intelligent design. It is not your place to soapbox in that thread as you have fairly consistently done already. I asked an independent admin to review and summarie the discussion yesterday, although he has apparently not done so yet. But there is a very real probability that what I can only think of as your obnoxious, arrogant refusal to abide by guidelines will go to AE should it continue. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I'm discussing the topic at hand. You are the one using the page to attack atheists, discuss the historicity of Jesus, speculate about string theory. I'm discussing the issue at hand which is whether "pseudoscience" is an appropriate descriptor for the topic. Seriously, take your bluster and nonsense elsewhere. Guettarda (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The above statement can reasonably be seen as a transparent probably willful absolute disregard for the topic of the thread. And some of your own recent comments casstng similar aspersions on Chrisstians specifically raise serious questions of hypocrisy. Let me try to spell it out in terms you might perhaps be able to understand. The stated topic of the thread in question is presenting evidence to ArbCom. It is not your place to determine what others can present. Are you capable of understanding that? Warning stands.John Carter (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The above statement can reasonably be seen as a transparent probably willful absolute disregard for the topic of the thread
    • Nope, just amusement at your absurd "warning". I'm on topic. You, on the other hand, are using the talk page to complain about Richard Dawkins, the historical Jesus, string theory, and atheism.
  • And some of your own recent comments casstng [sic] similar aspersions on Chrisstians [sic] specifically raise serious questions of hypocrisy
    • Religious intolerance is unbecoming. Attacking me (practicing Christian, regular church attendee, liturgist, who has served on a variety of church committees and chaired one of the key local church committees) because my beliefs do not square with yours is pretty distasteful behaviour on your part.
  • Let me try to spell it out in terms you might perhaps be able to understand...Are you capable of understanding that
  • The stated topic of the thread in question is presenting evidence to ArbCom. It is not your place to determine what others can present.
    • But apparently it's your place to determine what others are allowed to discuss? Fascinating.
  • Warning stands
    • Yep. As an indictment of your incivility, rudeness, misunderstanding of policy and general intolerance of world-views other than your own. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)g
You accuse me in te above of attacking you on your personal beliefs none of whi I was aware of and also accuse me of editing to support my personal beliefs despite knowin nothin whatsoever what those beiefs even are. If you hatted the disussion about relevant matters because you determined them "off-topic" and thus deemed the matters which you unilaterally decided others could not discuss that is even more fascinating and something. You also indicate both a rush to making unsubstantiated assertions about the motivations of other actions. Personally as someone who won an astronomy scholarship from a major astronomy foundation in college I actually strongly support it. Perhaps you were too blinded by your own possible intolerance to even care about knowing something about something before being taken over by your own biases and transparent attempts at misdirection regarding your own actions. Feel free to giving more evidence further irrational and unfounded rushes to judgment. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You accuse me in te above of attacking you on your personal beliefs none of whi [sic] I was aware of
    • Sorry, not an out. You engaged in attacks based on sectarian religious positions. The fact that you specifically accused me of attacking Christianity makes your comments more offensive, but it doesn't change their substance.

      And seriously, that's a very poor attempt at an apology. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I spoke too soon. Relative to this, it was an excellent apology. Fewer personal attacks on this side. Guettarda (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any apologies from yout about your personal attacks based on your irrational and factually wrong assumptions either, but I have known for some time how certain parties who are so quick to criticize others love pulling out the long knives themselves quickly, and rarely if ever apologize for doing so.John Carter (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Wander off and find someone else to bug. Preferably sans the personal attacks. Your antics have gone from amusingly absurd to boringly repetitive.

And if you expect people to stop posting on your user page, you need to stop posting on theirs. Guettarda (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) John, saying to anyone that they are "obnoxious" and "arrogant" is a violation of our rules on being WP:CIVIL. If you have a grievance, then remain professional here, and if it is unresolved then make use of WP:DR. If any ed is truly being a problem, you needn't try to to label the behavior, just point it out in an efficient presentation and let the other party hoist themselves on their own petard. But watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG effect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)