User talk:Raeky/Archives/2012/May

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:OTRS
I'm afraid that there is nothing in that ticket (and there's a lot of back and forthing) that covers anything but that particular image. It may be worth contacting the individual directly and hopefully being able to get confirmation that they are controlling the account- you could then forward that to OTRS, and a new ticket could be used for all the other images. However, there is still the issue of the ownership of particular files- of course, typically, a photograph is owned by the photographer, not the subject. Sorry I can't be of more help. I appreciate how frustrating these sorts of situations are for everyone involved... J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rhododendron tomentosum
Hi, I was somewhat taken aback and amused at your reaction to my remark on Rhododendron tomentosum that "As such it is precisely as effective as every other homeopathic agent." I regard homeopathy as contemptible, and my comment was a sneer, literally truly though it was worded. (Unless you happen to know of any homeopathic treatment that actually is effective?) Oh well, if you could misread it, surely others could as well, so I shall not re-instate it. However, I could not tolerate the remaining text, which suggested that a homeopathic treatment might work, so I reworded it to point out charitably and explicitly the lack of evidence for any beneficial effect. I hope that is satisfactory. Let me know if you require any improvement. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It just seems like if you believe that homeopathy is a valid treatment that statement can be confirming. If you want to say that homeopathy has no scientific evidence to be anymore effective than a placebo then you can, otherwise linking to homeopathy is probably sufficient since clicking over to that will let you know it's complete crap. — raeky  t  19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but note that in my edit I did not refer particularly to HP, but to the R.t. effectiveness. BTW, have you noticed that WP has a page on Quackwatch? I have just added a para and link there. JonRichfield (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. 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) 23:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)