User talk:Guettarda/Archive20

Merry Christmas


I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend. - Darwinek (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I send all best wishes for a health, happy, joy-filled and productive new year to you and your loved ones from tropical north Queensland, Australia. Let us hope this next decade will be a happier time than the last for the world and that people quickly begin waking up to the fact that they must and can start making a real world community which is more peaceful and tolerant and much more sustainable, making a real future of hope and opportunity for our grandchildren and their progeny. Be of good cheer and hope. The Wikipedia is a living example that many people are willing to work together for the betterment of us all for no pay and little enough recognition. Thank you for all your fine contributions to this new tool of knowledge. Keep the faith! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Good to hear from you. Best wishes for you and your family. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Guettardite
Happened upon this mineral the other day ... so I sez to meself ... get busy and create a stub and present it as a Wikilove thingy to a friend, So I dedicate it to a great wikieditor and friend : Guettardite! Commons has no image so take a peek here. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty cool. Thanks! I hadn't realise that my username honoured a French naturalist. Guettarda (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox forest
In case you're interested, I've proposed an infobox for forests. Minnecologies (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy Guettarda's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! Guettarda (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

TFLS of List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago
Hi! Since you are the main author of that list, I wanted to let you know that I reviewed its TFL submission here. Maybe you could have a look at it and address those (minor) issues to make it ready for the main page. bamse (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Done Guettarda
Thank you. Much appreciated! Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for ecologists
Hello, Guettarda! (I think we know each other in another context?) I see you originated the page/stub on Dwight Billings (many thanks for that), and I am looking for people to help work on similar bios of ecologists. Are you willing to continue building ecologist stubs? I will be putting together a list of ecologists who need pages and other tasks on this, maybe as a user subpage or something. Please let me know if you can help. If you know other Wikipedians who are good candidates, pass the idea along.

Also, User:Buaidh created a template you and others might like to use. Please pass it on.

Thanks again. --Araucana (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from you-- thanks for stopping by. No, I never heard anything, and actually still haven't figured out how to promote the ecologist userbox above. As far as I know, no one's using it yet... Best to you! --Araucana (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I just noticed you picked up the ecologist userbox on your user page! Thanks... Araucana (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Derivative works
Yeah, to show it's in the public domain we need a source showing the copyright status in Trinidad & Tobago. Unfortunately, I can't find any info on Commons concerning copyright there, but it is a member of the Commonwealth so likely freedom of panorama applies even if the author/date of publication can't be found, just need to confirm. Kelly hi! 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the info. If T&T is like most Commonwealth nations, it's life+70 for copyright, so if the sculptor died before 1942 it's probably OK in that regard even if freedom of panorama doesn't apply. Kelly  hi! 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's OK. I'm going to copy the image over to Commons with the correct template. If you would like to add any of the authorship info you found, that would be great. Kelly  hi! 19:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for sorting that out! I appreciate it. Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime! Kelly  hi! 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cactus
PS: is buffing cactus - be good to see that GA or even FA....I am sure any input would be appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do to help. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also lining up Ficus obliqua at some stage for GA/FA - main headache is the fruit architecture bit which requires some but not too much general info on syconiums.....(groan) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * had a go at the syconium stuff - so have nominated for GA. plant architecture is my weak point....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I noticed the GAN...I was just looking at the article, seeing if there was anything I could add to help it along when the orange bar popped up. The syconium stuff looks good. I'm actually trying to buff ecosystem in the spirit of your core contest. Not like I'll ever have the time to make a competitive expansion, but I figured that I should use the excuse of the contest to see if I couldn't improve the article a bit, since it is actually on the core list. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad that someone is buffing some core material.....competition page is looking a bit quiet... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago
Hi Guettarda,

Great job with getting List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago up to featured list status! I have nominated the article to go up on the main page in the Today's Featured List section. Some concerns about the article have been raised here. If you are willing to help address these concerns, it would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Aye
Thanks. Good to hear from you, too. Things are well. Hope it's likewise... might start poking my head in here more regularly again, not sure yet. Graft | talk 21:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Ecosystem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resistance (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) 14:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Guettarda
I have noticed your knowledgeable contributions to pages related to genetics and I was hoping you could explain something to me, or rather to someone I'm having a discussion with. I explained to him my layman's understanding of "race" not really existing in any meaningful capacity with regard to humans. His immediate response was to call me ignorant and ask to me explain why people of African heredity tend to be better at certain sports at world champion level. My obvious response is that he's simply replaced one physical attribute (skin colour) with another (height and speed in basketball, for example), and only in a minority of individuals, which makes it pretty much meaningless. In other words: Having dark skin does not automatically make you good as basketball. I was wondering if you could help me explain in a better way than that using your knowledge. It would be much appreciated. Thanks very much. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

MSU Research Questions
Hello, I am involved with a research project for Michigan State University and am wondering if you would be able to answer a few questions regarding tool sets on Wikipedia. If so please let me know and I can post back to you. Here is a link to the project if you are interested United States Education Program/Courses/Wiki-Project Management (Jonathan Obar), and if you have any questions please let me know. Ltezl (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, anything for a fellow Spartan :) Guettarda (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How do I become a fellow "Spartan"? :( Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to ignore you - it's just a really hard question that needs some time to frame an answer to. Sorry about the delay. Guettarda (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC) (And here the answer to the mystery question. Guettarda (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Fellow Spartan! Alright! Anyhow, what were your tool sets you utilized before you became an admin, and what were they afterwords? Those are the only questions I have for you, sorry for the dramatic build up but for the project it is important to be clear and informative. Thanks Ltezl (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Re;Ariel Lugo
You are welcome. Hey, I am really glad to see you around. So, you weren't around for much of last year. No wonder I did not see much action from you. Last year was a tough one for me. I had a double bypass and while I was recuperating various editors were after my head here, but I stood my ground and things have become better. Let's keep in touch, after all you have always been one of my best friends in the project. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. When you recently edited Ecosystem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gestalt and Microcosm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

SIA project!
Hey Guettarda! So happy that you came by the Smithsonian Institution Archives project and signed up to participate! We've got a great list of subjects that need to be improved upon or written about. I do hope you'll visit the to-do list and dive in - do let me know if you need anything. And of course, your contributions can earn you the official oh so fancy SIA barnstar :) Thanks again! So happy to have you on board! SarahStierch (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Touré – quality of sources
Dear Guettarda,

Given your previous input at Talk:Touré, would you mind giving your opinion on the quality of the currently available sources here? Thank you very much. DracoE 08:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For this ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest
Wow - thanks so much! I feel a little bit floored by it all. It's great to have that effort appreciated... Guettarda (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for stopping by my talk and congrats on the very fancy trophy - & the money too! Well done! Btw - I like the pic at the top of your page. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! And thank you. This is some seriously impressive work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Guettarda (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Note
- as I have said many times, you aren't welcome here. I've asked you repeatedly to stay away, and you keep reposting. I'm not sure what you think you're gaining from harassing me, but the point is that anything you post here ends up "revert without reading". If you get some fulfillment out of turning that bar on my page orange - well, you need a better hobby, I think. If your goal is to harass and annoy me - well, sorry...right now all you've succeeding in doing is getting me to ponder what motivates you and your ilk. And having spent years trying to figure out what motivates creationists, climate change "skeptics" aren't all that puzzling. Just need to tweak the model a little to get from one to the other... Anyway, I hope it brought some joy or meaning to your life to use my talk page as a venue to mutter to yourself. But this fact notwithstanding, you're still not welcome here. Guettarda (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

- As you well know, you are not welcome here on account of this behaviour. The fact that you not only continue to defend off-wiki harassment of editors. Even if your first post was an inadvertent mistake, your second post was clear harassment. Anything posted here is reverted unread. You are obviously free to participate in discussions on the talk pages of articles I edit, though given the fact that your battlefield conduct has earned you an arbcomm topic ban less than two years ago, you really should think twice before jumping into a discussion 'guns blazing'...all the more so given the accusations levelled against me are false. I have no interest in interacting with you. Please leave me alone. Guettarda (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees  in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's  follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

TFA...
I nominated Aiphanes here at Today%27s_featured_article/requests as we haven't had a plant for over three months and I sometimes feel I should blow my own trumpet less for mainpage requests....We're just trying to find an image. Have a look at how weird the berries look at thumb size....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Coming soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Signpost
Hey, you're mentioned at "News and notes" this week. Tony  (talk)  06:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Main Page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on August 27, 2012. You can view the TFL blurb at Today's featured list/August 27, 2012. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors, or , or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  20:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 

Forty-seven species of snake have been recorded in Trinidad and Tobago, making the snake population of this area the most diverse in the Caribbean. Forty-four of these snake species are found in Trinidad and twenty-one in Tobago. Many of these species are South American, most of which are present in Venezuela. Trinidad and Tobago consists of two main islands, Trinidad and Tobago, and several smaller islands. The Bocas Islands, which lie between Trinidad and Venezuela, in the Bocas del Dragón, consist of Chacachacare, Monos, Huevos and Gaspar Grande. Several smaller islands lie off Trinidad, but snakes have been recorded on only one of them: Caledonia Island. Snakes have been recorded on one island off Tobago: Little Tobago. Four species are venomous: two coral snake species, the fer-de-lance, and the South American bushmaster. The common coral is found on at least two of the Bocas Islands: Gaspar Grande and Monos. No venomous snakes inhabit Tobago.

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
 * 1) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
 * 2) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
 * 3) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
 * 4) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
 * 5) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
 * 6) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
 * 7) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
 * 8) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle:, , , , , , and. We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

William Connolley WP:AN/EW
I'm quite surprised by your comments. The talk page discussion is about identifying the context of notability, not simply whether or not the topic is notable. I'm happy to explain further. I'd like to find a way to explain it so these problems would end. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've avoided the recent AfDs on that article because I don't know what to think...or rather, I think we'd be better off without that article, but I can't justify it in policy. So sure, I was interested in that topic when you raised it. But after several hundred words, there's nothing new...and if you can't convince someone who's looking for a reason to delete (or at least looking for facts to validate my gut feeling), I don't see any hope for progress. At this stage, with the discussion turning into an argument, the atmosphere has turned sour. The article has been through 7 AfDs. The people you're arguing with have made their case in those AfDs. When you start out by asking "How does this article and its topic meet WP:N" you're putting yourself in the role of judge. You're telling people that they need to spend their time meeting your desires. And you're asking that of people who have already advanced their argument over the course of repeated AfDs. When you say something like that, people are likely to get the message that you think your time is valuable (too valuable to sort through the archives and the AfDs) while their time isn't. If you want to move forward with this (and I'd give it a couple months before you do) you need to come up with a convincing argument for why the article failed GNG (or whichever guideline you choose). You need to acknowledge and address the arguments they've made in the past. And you need to make it clear that you hear them. Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Excellent points, especially "You need to acknowledge and address the arguments they've made in the past. And you need to make it clear that you hear them."
 * You didn't actually respond to what I'm doing, "The talk page discussion is about identifying the context of notability..." I has nothing to do with AfDs. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but the AfDs were about notability. So there's likely to be more than a little fatigue over the topic. Sorry if that wasn't clear - things tend to make more sense in my head :) Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So because of unrelated discussions and reactions to those discussions, it's best to stop new discussion...? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not unrelated. The AfDs have been about notability. But no, the main reason not to continue the discussion at this point is time is that it has been going in circles for weeks. Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your sticking with the discussion.
 * The round-in-circles concern is about past discussions. I'm trying to remain focused upon suggestions from those discussions that appear extremely useful, have some support from others, and have no objections. My mistake then appears to have been keeping the discussion together. Instead I should have simply started a new discussion (as a top-level section), so the other discussions could be settled and closed. How does that seem to you? Am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not long ago, at the article talk page, some other editor (I think it was Kim but am not 100% certain) observed that none of the AFDs had been based on subject matter notability. I do not know for sure, myself, just observing that the AFD statement above in this thread might be incorrect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what do you think of my solution ( 18:12, 10 Dec)? Unless I get some other feedback that I can work from, I think this will be my next step: restart the analysis of the potential sources in a new discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Plant pages
I apologize for mistake. I was not aware of the naming convention. I will move them back. Asarelah (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plant ecology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Succession (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) 11:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Passing by...
I love the quote on your user page. I have nothing to add to it! Guy (Help!) 10:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter solstice greetings!
All the best for the season, from dave souza, talk 15:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!
Hello Guettarda, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup
Hello, Guettarda, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
 * The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
 * Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
 * If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
 * Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
 * Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Resistance (ecology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mutualism (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) 11:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Roupala
was expanding proteaceae genera and took a nice photo of one of these in our bot. gdns in Sydney......I don't have much in the way of books on neotropical plants though.....expand away and share in the DYK spoils (mwahahahaaaa) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Coming a bit late to the party, but I will definitely look at it in the morning. Since it's a plant I actually know and all... Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't have a source for that off-hand (will have to find one!), but a decoction of R. montana bark, locally known as bois bande, is used as an aphrodisiac. Guettarda (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool - maybe.....hang on a minute.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Bleh, I was going to make Roupala montana but the source was loading really slowly on JSTOR and looks like a bit of a taxonomic headache. Maybe time to buff Ficus macrophylla to GA......Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * R. montana looks like a nice mess taxonomically. But that's all the more fun. :) Guettarda (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, I've gotten it past 5k readable prose...since it hasn't run on DYK yet, I'm guessing it would be worth a WikiCup bonus? Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ganteaume
Thanks for the suggestions, I've replied on the talk page. As I mention, there is an autobiography for Ganteaume which I do not have access to, so that may contain some answers, but I'm a bit stuck for now. This may mean that it cannot be a GA at the moment, but never mind. On the last points, feel free to add the information yourself; I am unsure how significant it is, and am quite happy to go with your view. Finally, I don't suppose you have access to any nice, juicy sources on little-known Trinidadian cricketers such as Wilton St Hill, Edwin St Hill, Victor Pascall, George Dewhurst, George John, or any others I could mention? I've scoured just about everywhere, but reliable sources are hard to find. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the other person who commented is not actually doing a formal GA review either! I was just thinking out loud, but thanks for the helpful comments and feel free to chip in more. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your message on my talk
I have replied on my talk page and at Articles for deletion/Mont.. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

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

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


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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for defending the GG&S article
Guettarda -

I'm a big fan of the book, so I follow the article. I want to thank you for your thoughtful but firm defense against the many who try to add inappropriate criticism to the article.

Paulmlieberman (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)