User talk:Raeky/Archives/2012/September

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) 00:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mila Kunis
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mila Kunis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael Shermer & Richard Dawkins
If you find this man and the magazine he published his article in(science), not reliable you may want to double check with the reliable source noticeboard as I do not have time to prove you of this evident fact.--216.31.219.19 (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have an agenda and are trying to wage some sorta crusade against Dawkins here, but regardless, I responded to you on the talk page. — raeky  t  06:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Your recent editing history at Richard Dawkins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.216.31.219.19 (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny. — raeky  t  07:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative
Hi, Raeky. I've suggested a compromise at Talk:Genesis creation narrative. As a vocal supporter of the move, would you please comment on whether it would satisfy you? - Cal Engime (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Information technology
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Information technology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Raeky,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Mimas Cassini.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 17, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-09-17. — howcheng  {chat} 17:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orgastic potency
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orgastic potency. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins reversion
Hey, I saw you reverted the additions to the article mentioning the South Park episode, and tagged them as vandalism. Even though there's a strong case to be made that adding that much detail about that minor event is a huge WP:UNDUE violation, it's still not vandalism, per WP:VAN: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Just a friendly heads up; I know dealing with that kind of stuff gets tiresome. —Torchiest talkedits 05:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)