User talk:Raeky/Archives/2013/July

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
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. 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: 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 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to  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, and  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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cary Grant
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cary Grant. 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) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Chuck Norris
I added an important comment to this discussion. Can you look there? Tomer T (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism
I am confused as to why you removed my edit. I tried to make it unbiased. I did not say that either YECs or mainstream scientists are right or wrong. I pointed out the difference in the way they look at evidence. A YEC looks at a piece of evidence and says, "I need to make this fit within my little box that my literal interpretation of Genesis created. The modern scientist looks at the evidence, disregarding the Bible as not applicable or not reliable, and draws his own conclusion of the evidence outside of the Bible, and if the Bible happens to fit the interpretation, then so be it.  If the modern scientist happens to be a Christian, he will fit the Bible into his interpretation of the evidence.  Does that make sense?  This is not a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of each view.  It is an explanation of how YECs are uncompromising with their views on science since they start with a rigid box (Genesis).

Onceuponatime123 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * YEC makes science claims therefore is measured under our rules for science articles, see WP:FRINGE, their ideas are entirely out there way out fringe for science views therefore any statements or claims are based on the standpoint of science. NPOV doesn't mean we give equal WP:WEIGHT. Your edits are giving YEC's views too much weight therefore not neutral according to wikipedia's definition. Take it to the talk page of the article if you disagree with my assessment, please be mindful of WP:3RR which you've already violated technically today once. — raeky  t  23:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's an article on YEC. Shouldn't it have a clear description of what YEC is? I'm confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onceuponatime123 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 July 2013‎


 * It does, but it doesn't give its "science" claims with that of what science actually says about it. Their viewpoints is all fairy tail bullshit, and the article makes it clear per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia doesn't pander to fringe group's theories, this is an educational website so we represent actual verifiable science for any science claims. — raeky  t  23:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

From the NPOV page: "In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed." That's what I was attempting to do. Explain how YEC analyze facts differently than most others. I'm assuming you are not a YEC. I would say this edit actually gives more bias against YEC, as it shows that YEC's are "constrained to their little box" in their interpretations and are forced to avoid all other interpretations. This comes across sometimes as confrontational and stubborn among mainstream scientists. I wouldn't mind adding that last sentence to the clarification remarks. Onceuponatime123 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Bring it up on the article's talk page if you actually want to make any of these changes, much of your post was clearly biased pro-yec meant to diminish the standpoint of the science. — raeky  t  23:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Race and genetics
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics. 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) 06:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card. 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) 18:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Favour
Hello Raeky,
 * I was checking out your user page and saw that you are an expert in getting free images. I am a member of WikiProject U2 and I am working (along with other users) on the imporvement sof the articles related to the band. I was thinking about if you could get a free picture of Bono, better than the one that is in the infobox. Thank you very much in advance. Please, reply at my talk page :) Miss Bono  [zootalk] ☆ 18:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a couple, but I think the existing lead image is pretty good, just not very large. — raeky  t  21:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so, so, so, so much Raeky! Though, some user changed back to the former image (I like that-the current- but I think the one with the open mouth is far better) Miss Bono  [zootalk] ☆ 16:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am bothering too much, but I have huge problems with Internet access (I only can access Wikipedia), this article needs a free picture as well, can you find some? Again, sorry the bother.   Miss Bono  [zootalk] ☆ 16:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I agree that The source DailyGalaxy.com is not malicious.-- Anderson   I'm Willing To Help  21:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth. 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) 07:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's currently leads overall, while Pool B's  is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,, 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 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, 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, 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)