User talk:DennisPietras/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, DennisPietras. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Garchy (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Garchy:Thanks! The main reason for my successes is the immense amount of help I've been getting. DennisPietras (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy to see you making many contributions and to see so many others helping you! Although you seem to be getting along just fine I wanted to present you with a formal welcome and plate of warm cookies - Welcome! Garchy (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

ToM

One thing Wikipedia suffers from sometimes is too much well-meant advice. Forget TeaHouse and Wikipedia:Your first article. That is for the every-day person who wishes to contribute but has had no academic training at all. So, I have created your very own sandbox for you to experiment in here: User:DennisPietras/sandbox. You can draft in it such articles as ToM (non human) etc, etc. As you're new to Wikipedia, all our computer code and syntax and everything may appear to be un-fathanrable at first sight. Ignore that and use the sandbox for drafting any new articles you so desire. Dotting all the i and crossing all the t's can come later. It is the underlying essence of new articles that comes first. --Aspro (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro:Thanks for the encouragment! Last month I did just go for it and started an article about pseudo-pseudogenes. When I was bitten (IMHO) by experiened users, I just decided it would be easier to incorporate the text into a new section of the existing pseudogenes article, and it survived almost unscathed. So, I'm going to concentrate on improving articles that need a LOT of improving rather than starting new ones. The computer code isn't bad. Even though I was a biologist I took a graduate level beginers programing course (COBAL, I think) using punchcards (augh!) and got an A. Bought a timex-sinclair computer when they were new and started programing games and saving them to a tape recorder. In the mid 90's I was using html code manually to post info for my courses on the university web site. So, this is geting back to my roots. It's a little frustrating, but at least not as bad as learning to play "go", which I have abandoned. I won't abandon wikipedia. There's a point to it, unlike "go". DennisPietras (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yay for the successful rename. I noted what you've posted to your user page. You might be interested i WikiProject Genetics. And completely coincidentally I just moved this genetics-related article from draft space (where it was about to be deleted as "abandoned") to the article space, but I have a feeling it still needs some work. All the best in your editing. Risker (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Risker:Thanks! I had already joined the genetics project, and just revised it to my realname. A question about the Proser1 article. The image of the predicted structure is cool, but I've got the idea that if I tried to include such an image in "pseudogenes" I'd get hammered because it is hype, yada yada. Am I thin skinned (never been accused of that before) or have I just run afoul of a zealot? DennisPietras (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a good answer for you, Dennis; there have been plenty of times I've been reverted too, amazingly enough. I am aware, however, of one of our top image contributors to many of these articles. Her name is Usr:Dcrjsr, and she is most easily communicated with at her Wikimedia Commons talk page. (It is a sister site, you will remain logged-in if you click that link.) She may have some suggestions on how best to ensure that relevant images can be inserted into articles. Risker (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras. Upload the image that you think is fitting to be included to "pseudogenes" to Wikimedia Commons. Then add it to the article. Any editor that then deletes it, will be questioned as to 'why'. If the 'why' is not forthcoming -in a sensible way- it will get reinstated. It is not so much about being thick-skinned rather realizing that anybody can and do edit Wikipedia – and they are not always right. Go for it !--Aspro (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I watch over Wikimeda Commons images. Place here, on this talk-page, the image file name(s) and I will watch over it (them) on Wikimdia Commons.--Aspro (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Punch-cards! Punched tape! Oh just try explain those to one's grandchildren that have a smart phones- tell you what though. Next time the Antiques Road Show is in town, let your descendants wheel you up in your bath chair and get the experts to put a valuation on you. As a relic of a bygone age you may be worth more than you think... Ho Ho ;¬) Your knowledge though could be priceless on Wikipedia. Please read this and start you life all over again: Wikipedia:Be bold. Go for it and ignore the young whipper snappers who don't know their Colbol from their Fortran and Hedgehog is something that scurries around in their garden!--Aspro (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help too. I primarily edit climate change related stuff, and we're always dealing with scientific sources. Suggest that at the original research policy you give extra attention to the section WP:PSTS. Peer reviewed materials in the professional literature are PRIMARY sources. If you also include some SECONDARY or TERTIARY sources to support the same text, other eds will be less likely to object than if you only include the PRIMARY reference. Feel free to post to my talk page if I can be of other help. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Help offer: graphics

Hi! I've noticed some of your really interesting contributions to genetics articles and would like to offer my services to you. I love making diagrams (primarily converting low resolution diagrams to free use SVG ones for use here), maps, samples of writing systems... Genetics is an interest of mine also, but I am by no means a scholar as you are. However, I still think I can help you! If you show me any image you want to include, I will try to figure out a way to create it in a way that both respects licenses and looks good. If you want my help, please feel free to get in touch with me on my talk page. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced both graphics at Convergent evolution § Skin and eye colour with tables. . Please let me know on my talk page if you have any other specific request. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Tables??? Who would have thought that images could be replaced by tables???? I'm reminded of the quote (I don't know from who) that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Just one comment: I confined my text to the blue ocean areas only because I read some advice page on wp that advised people to be concerned about how their text could be translated into another language. So, I figured that by keeping the text only on the blue, it would be easy for somebody writing another language to clip out the text, write their own and then just fill the rest in with blue. DennisPietras (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page

As an aside: Seen it before. As you are becoming very active you will more than likely end up with a bulky talk page. Rather than delete – archive it ! Help:Archiving a talk page. Memory is not perfect and less than five years on from now, many an old post may seem relevant again. That is why we can and need to archive talk pages.--Aspro (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro:Thanks for the advice! To think that after about a month of experience I'm about to try to employ a bot!!!!!!!!!!! DennisPietras (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Think I know the feeling. Within a month of starting collage I was employing a slide rule. It still works to this day as it happens (and I haven't ever needed to replace the batteries even once in over forty years, nor has it ever suffered from any viruses). Stick that up your shirt Microsoft ! --Aspro (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro:My much older cousin was a PhD cell biologist. For one of my birthdays in high school, she gave me a bamboo slide rule in a very nice leather carry case. If only I had it now, it would be really worth money, but, sadly, I decided go switch to the beasts with batteries. BTW, I appear to have the bot ready to work for me. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Asgard (biology)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Asgard (biology), DennisPietras!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note that for redirects, you don't need to submit them like other articles for review. (and they dont need a references section)

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm seconding this comment for all of your redirects, including GWAX (biology) and TACK (biology). You must not have any text before the redirect syntax, i.e. the first line must be #redirect [[Target]]. The only content (if any) you might include below the redirect are redirect templates (e.g. {{R from alternative name}} or {{R to section}}), or, in some cases, article categories. See Help:Redirect and Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects for more information. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Hmmm... I'm going to have to watch more carefully next time I start a redirect. My memory, which admittedly is not the best, is that the template the wizard gave me had a line something like "Don't you dare mess with this line, newbie! Write your text below." DennisPietras (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to use processes like Article wizard or Articles for Creation for any article or redirect. When you click on a red link, you should be able to type directly in the window below the disclaimer that begins "Before creating an article..." Article Wizard and Articles for Creation are simply recommended for beginners or for subjects with questionable notability or possible conflicts of interest with the creator. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Wikiproject Medicine!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of content about health here on Wikipedia, as part of the larger mission of Wikipedia to provide the public with articles that present accepted knowledge, created and maintained by a community of editors.

One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board!

First, some basics about editing Wikipedia, which is a strange place behind the scenes; you may find some of the ways we operate to be surprising. Please take your time and understand how this place works. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Everything starts with the mission - the mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community of editors. (see WP:NOT)
• We find "accepted knowledge" for biomedical information in sources defined by WP:MEDRS -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers, editorials, and popular media as sources for such content. We read MEDRS sources and summarize them, giving the most space and emphasis (what we call WP:WEIGHT) to the most prevalent views found in MEDRS sources.
• Please see WPMED's "how to" guide for editing content about health
• More generally please see The five pillars of Wikipedia and please be aware of the "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; these have been generated by the community itself over the last fifteen years, and you will need to learn them (which is not too hard, it just takes some time). Documents about Wikipedia - the "back office" - reside in "Wikipedia space" where document titles are preceded by "Wikipedia:" (often abbreviated "WP:"). WP space is separate from "article space" (also called "mainspace") - the document at WP:CONSENSUS is different from, and serves as a different purpose than, the document at Consensus.

Every article and page in Wikipedia has an associated talk page, and these pages are essential because we editors use them to collaborate and work out disagreements. (This is your Talk page, associated with your user page.) When you use a Talk page, you should sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment; the Wikipedia software will automatically convert that into links to your Userpage and this page and will add a datestamp. This is how we know who said what. We also "thread" comments in a way that you will learn with time. Please see the Talk Page Guidelines to learn how to use talk pages.

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. You can also just add our talk page to your watchlist and join in discussions that interest you. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note below if you have any problems. I wish you all the best here in Wikipedia! Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Variant of uncertain significance page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinks to your user sandboxes

Hi DennisPietras. In case you didn't know, I'm pretty sure you can wikilink to any page found on any of the WMF sites by simply using the standard double-square-bracket syntax. So, you can add links to you sandboxes just like [[:User:DennisPietras/sandbox]] which looks like User:DennisPietras/sandbox. You can also WP:PIPE the link if you want. Of course, the wikilinks only work with Wikipedia's software, so you will need the full url if you want to be able to access the pages like you would do for any other website you find on the Internet by copying the address into you brower's address bar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

More welcoming

Hi Dennis,

I hope you're feeling somewhat supported despite the criticism and debate going on at Talk:Variant_of_uncertain_significance. It's all part of the process of becoming a Wikipedian. If you feel hard-done-by, you can always drop a note on my talk page to complain and/or ask for help: even though I might disagree with you about matters of style, and even though you have an inexplicable lack of passion for the ancient and noble game of Go, I'm keen to help my fellow editors feel welcome. --Slashme (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slashme: Yes, I do feel supported. I'm happy to be joining a community that knows about curly quotes and historical use of the term garish to describe tulips! Nobody has ever accussed me of being thin-skinned. DennisPietras (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant! Looking forward to working with you :-] --Slashme (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion...

...from Jytdog's user talk page. I read what you said there, about your experiences as a scientist in the real world, and about understanding very well the pitfalls of papers that might end up retracted. I thought I should let you know that in real life I have had a long career as a neuroscientist and was a tenured professor at a large US research university (but I edit anonymously due to privacy concerns). Therefore, I understand very well what you said, and I'm personally familiar with those kinds of issues myself. And I know that you are not some kind of impolite person like the other editor at the ANI case. But Wikipedia really is a totally different environment than is academic scholarly publishing, and the fact that we write for the general public is only the start of it. We get edited by the general public, too, and that means that we encounter a vast array of harmful and troubling efforts to put stuff in our articles that should not be there. We have acquired (through a lot of experience and something not unlike natural selection) a whole bunch of "rules" that prevent things from going bad fast. The guideline about avoiding primary sources for anything that general public readers might construe as medical information that they might use really is a good idea, even if it takes some getting used to. I'm telling you all of this because I really believe that you are someone who can be a valued contributor here, and I hope that you won't get turned away. If you want to see the kind of stuff that I ran into when I first started editing, User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 1 is the archive of my own earliest talk page messages – scroll down if you want to March 26, 2009, and then see: [1]. Anyway, I hope that you will give the WP:MEDRS guideline a fair chance. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Thanks for your comments. I still see jytdog's actions as unacceptable. I am almost done with a lengthy reply, and am going to "copy" you and slashme with a ping at the end of it. If jytdog wants to take this to an ani and his position is supported, I'll back off. But, until then, I believe my arguements are justified. DennisPietras (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that you and I started out the same way, by assessing thousands of articles.  :-)

You might appreciate Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. There is some gray area between "biology" and "medicine", and it's true that some of us can be a bit zealous or black-and-white about enforcing rules, even when the rules say that common sense and the occasional exception are necessary. Please stick with us, and drop by a WP:WikiProject to find other editors who are interested in the same topics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:Thanks for the encouragement! Yes, I'm sticking with it! DennisPietras (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I saw that you were doing the odd administrative work of removing "WikiProject Genetics" templates from redirects. Thanks for that. I checked some of what you are doing and it seems useful. It is a sort of housekeeping which many people would not think to do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:Thanks, but I have my sugar- and caffeine-free soda at my desk as I work in my bedroom. Even my wife approves, since that means she doesn't actually have to see me! I am one stubborn son-of-a-gun, and I'm determined to at least glance at all the articles in the genetics project. It's been enlightening to me as a newbie to see what's "out there", but I can really understand why nobody else has this as a high priority! DennisPietras (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• One effect of that removal that you perhaps have not thought about is that the project will not be notified if one of those redirects is nominated for deletion or retargetting. Somebody took the effort of tagging those redirects, they must have had a reason for that and going around removing them doesn't seem to be a good use of valuable editor time. --Randykitty (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Importance scheme - WikiProject Genetics

Just a quick heads up that Low actually seems to be the lowest importance rating for WikiProject Genetics, so the talk pages are not recognizing your importance ratings when you list them as Bottom. I just didn't want you to do too much work and then find out that the importance was listed as "???" on a bunch of the articles. I fixed one of the ratings, but I didn't want to give the impression of chasing behind you to fix all of them. Thanks for your work. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

EricEnfermeroI know that. Found out early on when I was at about the "S's" working my way down from Z (I'm that kind of disturbed guy). I even tried to get "bottom" made a category, but apparently psychologists came up with the ratings and they can't be changed for just one project, and the world would apparently stop turning if it was done wp-wide. I was going to write a note something like "??? is synonymous with bottom", but figured nobody would notice anyway! You proved me wrong! Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• I noticed, too. In addition to replacing valid assessments with invalid ones, you're cluttering up people's watchlists. Even if those assessments were valid, such merely cosmetic edits are strongly discouraged for that reason alone. Please revert to the correct assessments. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is another example of a totally useless edit. Why on Earth wasting time to insert some blanks that you don't even see in the final result? Most such templates don't contain any blanks, so there must be a couple of million articles out there waiting for you... --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

File:H2AZchromcompjpg.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:H2AZchromcompjpg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. 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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Since you are getting aggressive about this after the discussions at my Talk page here and here -- namely first at Talk:Expanded_genetic_code#mouse_code and now at Talk:Deleted_in_Colorectal_Cancer, I have reviewed the edits you made to article space within your last 500 edits. Here they are:

• diff -- added picture
• diff -- added wikilink
• diff -- added wikilink
• diff -- edited image
• diff -- edited image
• diff -- edited image
• diff -- tweaked wikilinks
• diff -- copyedited, no sources added
• diff -- series of 17 edits. added content based on primary source PMID 27917864, a bunch of unsourced content, content based on primary source PMID 20354178, PMID 24893838, and PMID 26783001 (that bit including a bunch of interpretation of the primary sources by you, and sourced content from PMID 26735365
• diff -- wikilink
• diff -- wikilink
• diff -- created redirect
• diff -- created redirect
• diff -- series of 3 edits
• diff -- added content sourced to primary source PMID 27964778
• diff -- series of 18 edits. content (about health - section called "pain in mammals") added based on primary sources PMID 15994880, PMID 20856883, PMID 15277908 (a 13 year old clinical research with an N of 20 over 2 arms) and PMID 15731586 (12 year old clinical research with an N of 60 over 2 arms); content about development including unsourced OR/editorializing like "Since G protein–coupled receptors are known to activate Signal transduction in cells, it should not be surprising to find MC1R involved in development" based on primary sources PMID 25860801 and PMID 25191747; a section with unsourced OR/editorialzing including "Nosocomial infections are of variable importance. One of the most important is complicated sepsis, which was defined as sepsis with organ dysfunction." sourced to primary sources PMID 23457491, PMID 27488084; content about cancer sourced to two reviews PMID 25786343 and PMID 25319428, a primary source PMID 11179997, and a review PMID 26850723
• diff -- continuation of the above, content explicitly about health sourced to primary sources PMID 20507942 and PMID 24498203.
• diff -- continuation of the above, adding unsourced content.
• diff -- copyedit
• diff -- 3 edits based on primary source doi:10.1038/s41559-016-0059
• diff -- page move
• diff -- added EL - George Church lecture at youtube
• diff -- added content about creation of cerebral organoids sourced to youtube videos, including an embedded URL.
• diff -- added content sourced to youtube video
• diff -- added content including OR sourced to sourced to PMID 2163759 and PMID 2011193 (claiming that these papers describe the discovery is invalid OR - you must have a secondary source for this kind of claim) and then finally citing a review PMID 25693131. but then a complex, full-of OR section (the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the diff) citing the reviews some but also primary sources PMID 26402457 and PMID 21468301. This is written very much like a literature review in the scientific literature. You are obviously an expert, but are not working in Wikipedia like a Wikipedia editor. You are mistaking the genre of what we do here.
• diff -- added figure
• diff -- series of edits, about "recent" (violation of WP:RELTIME - WP articles don't have dates, and nothing is "recent" in WP - sourced to "hot news" article here and a popular media report hyping that paper here.
• diff -- add anchor
• diff -- change redirect
• diff -- add link to lecture on youtube
• diff -- fleshed out stub some using review doi:10.1071/AP03059 and this US govt ref (decent) and primary sources PMID 26950931 and PMID 20943557 and doi:10.1080/09583157.2013.844769 and this NYT ref (not good for science) .
• diff -- created redirect
• diff -- series of edits explicitly about human health sourced to primary sources PMID 26194112 and PMID 25656819 and PMID 25356899 and PMID 10485705 (an 18 year old primary source) and PMID 19838302 and PMID 25225386 and a Nature News piece and a NAS report and a Science News piece (PMID 28209849). The content suggests gene editing to cure autism (editing the genes discussed in the content based on primary sources). This is dangerous and irresponsible editing and I have reverted it.
• diff -- copyediting
• diff -- added content (again about "recent" science, violating RELTIME again) based on "hot science" in primary sources PMID 28232538 and PMID 28232574 and a &^%$ press release from the university where the scientists work here. This edit, to the Plastic recycling article, violates the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy as this research is not commercial (actually used in the field) and may never be.
• diff -- add content based on primary source PMID 28190732
• diff] - copyediting

As I noted you obviously have expertise and you are obviously committed to treating WP like it is a place for you to report science news and to create literature reviews. If you continue editing this way, especially about WP:Biomedical information, I will seek a topic ban from editing about health. It will start there, and if you continue pushing it that will end up getting extended to all biology content.

That would suck and I hope it doesn't go there. You have a lot to offer WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You seem to think that you are going to be able to intimidate me into following your policy rather than wp policy. It's not going to happen. I drew the line in the sand. I'll stay on my side of it. You stay on your medical side, or else you'll be going up against other expereinced long time editors who appreciate what I bring to wp. Maybe they will be able to explain wp policies to you. You've proven over and over that you don't dare to cross them, so get off my back, or else we will go to ani and see what happens. Since you are singling out my edits, at the ani I will also be able to show that you are bullying and harrassing me. So, once again, bite me.DennisPietras (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As I have said before, WP policies and guidelines exist for good reason. Editors who consistently flout them end up getting their editing privileges restricted. Those are just facts. It also seems that you are choosing to personalize this which is unfortunate. This isn't about ego, or about what you want or what I want. And I didn't enjoy spending the time it took last night to start gathering diffs. Would much rather be building content. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I'm guessing that you agree with me that gene editing to produce germline changes is an area that is bound to become of great importance. I am very much opposed to human germline editing, believe it or not. It's going to happen, whether you, I or any number of prestigious committees say it is not OK, because rogues that don't care and have the money will get it done. I read that there is a report giving a "yellow light" to it! DAMN! So, I gather up references, decide how to describe the situtation with background from an NPOV, and insert the material into a wp article so that without trying to influence the reader's reaction, I get them to think "Wow, this is going to happen. What can I do....?". By reverting it, you eliminated the chance for readers to learn that. I hope you can sleep well at night, because I couldn't if I was in your shoes. DennisPietras (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Let us brake this down into easy steps. There is no 'crash-course' into becoming an expert WP editor and think Jytdog (above) even errs at times. Never read the book, but Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, Ben Yates wrote How Wikipedia Works. It may be easier to use this as a quick reference guide, rather than asking on the help desks etc, and waiting for replies. I find that using a physical hard-copy instruction manuals (that I can use a highlighter on and stick on page tabs etc) is a hell of a lot quicker than googling -so it might help. Second point is to underline the dangers of 'primary sources'. In the medical-health-field especially, there is a lot papers published (suggest, most of which have been pharmaceutical funded rather than those which have been government funded ) have been so poorly designed that they are not worth the paper their written on. As Wikipedia editors, it is not in our reemit to evaluate them and include them. You may have that insight but these are the WP rules. When an editor finds his head's hurting from bashing it against a brick wall, we find less painful ways around and focus on what we can do purposely . For those times when do we find something think that really does need more attention, then WP has polices to escalate it up so that more eyes can look at it. In the mean time, make more use of the talk pages for proposed edits. Other editor can then advise on what t's & i's you may need to cross and dot. You don't need to slow down but became more focused. Also, see if an occupational therapist (or better still close friends) can figure-out an escape route to an equally stimulating interest, for those times when you need a break from WP editing (which we all need from time to time). It is really important for recharging the batteries so that one can come back stronger than before. Illegitimi non carborundum --Aspro (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)--Aspro (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Aspro. That was helpful! And yes I do make mistakes sometimes. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue on the gene editing thing, is that you built a case here in WP about the relevance of that gene to autism based entirely on primary sources. You then used a brief discussion by George Church in a news article about the difficulty of sorting out the ethics of gene editing, where he uses this as an example (on the one hand maybe treat autism, on the other cognitively enhance) and you twisted that into an actual suggestion to treat autism by editing this gene. And what is worse is that this content is about autism -- I have tried to tell you before that WP articles and the community have suffered bitter, difficult, long term disruption from autism advocates doing exactly this kind of bad editing and I have told you that this disruption was one of the primary drivers for the creation of MEDRS. Those edits are indefensible; you are establishing a pattern of making low quality edits based on primary sources and then wasting other people's time defending them. Please just make high quality edits based on high quality sources and we will not have to go through this. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: This is part of what I wrote- "Some think that GRIN2B may be an initial test case for the ethics of human gene editing,[14] since the same techniques that could be used to remove an autism-risk alelle could be used to make a change to improve cognition. Recently a committee of the USA National Academies released a consensus report[15] that gave a "yellow light" to human genome editing.[16]" You wrote above "and you twisted that into an actual suggestion to treat autism by editing this gene." No, you are mistaken. You twisted what I wrote into "and you twisted that into an actual suggestion to treat autism by editing this gene.". Perhaps you need more training in reading of the English without inserting personal expectations or prejudice into what is written. IF I had written in the autism article that "Enhancing cognition and preventing autism by editing of the GRIN2B gene is nearly here", THAT would have been indefensible. In part, I look forward to meeting you at an ani, but most of me hopes that you will learn that wp allows use of primary sources and that you (as well as I and I think every literate person on earth) brings their own perspectives along as baggage when they read articles and can misinterpret what they read. DennisPietras (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Two quick additional notes.

First. I gathered the diffs above and presented them in such a way that experienced editors will be able to quickly grasp what you are doing in WP. The diffs are the diffs.

Second. It is not clear to me why you are not pursuing the mission, of providing readers with "accepted knowledge", found mostly where the community has determined it resides - namely in secondary sources. I have ideas about why - namely you are used to academia where you write what you like, and peer review doesn't delve this deep, and this has got your back all bristling; you are also staying very solidly in the genre you know (generating literature reviews) instead of doing what WP editors do and summarizing existing literature reviews, which I can only guess you find boring and maybe even a bit offensive. My guesses here may be dead wrong, of course.

But I thought maybe talking could help. I have a skype account under jytdog that we could use to talk, if you like. You really could add a lot of value and I hope to salvage this discussion. We could set up a conversation over email if you like. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Grin2B

@Jytdog: I am about to make edits to the article after having removed the word autism etc from my previous edit. If you are still interested, please read it carefully to understand what I have and, more importantly, have not written. DennisPietras (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC) _@Aspro:

you already did. See below. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at GRIN2B shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Bravery Barnstar.

Hello, DennisPietras,

Your idea in regards of Bravery Barnstar have been much appreciated in general, and I implemented your idea in graphic design in accordance to the Wikipedia regulations for Barnstars designs, which I learnt, as the participant of the WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. Please, have a look at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards page again, I’ll be very glad, if you will like this version; your comments, suggestions or criticism are welcome, as the most important thing is to reach the result, what will insure that Wikipedia benefits from the Editors collective efforts. All the best. Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear DennisPietras.

It was very nice of you to indicate your appreciation of the Bravery Barnstar version with Celtic Shield on the new discussion, opened for voters: that is very pleasant to know, that you really like this design, but thing is, that not you and not me are eligible to vote for the Barnstar, in creation of which we have been involved. Only other Editors can give support to our work, not we ourselves. So, it will be reasonable to delete your own support, to avoid a negative reaction of potential voters, and until some one else will point it out. We just should see how it is going: our work is done. If some one will ask the question - it will be polite to answer it, but that is all we should do. From now only other Editors can judge if our work is good - not ourselves. In Wikipedia plenty of rules and regulations exist, and many of them we learn, only when some of Editors will tell us about it.

I'm sure that I can rely on your understanding.

All the best.Chris Oxford (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DennisPietras, Thank you for understanding. So, things are so far going not bad at all: two supports and no opposition. For the “independent” Barnstar, I mean - for one, which hasn’t been designed to serve some of WikiProjects (there is no Bravery Project on Wiki), Bravery Barnstar is doing very well. Two supports, already given to Bravery Barnstar, entitles it to be approved, but we should wait another couple of weeks and, if everything will be O.K. - we will go ahead and will add it to the table of Barnstars, and from that moment you can start proudly awarding Bravery Barnstar to the well deserved Editors. All the best, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris Oxford By "we" I hope you mean "you" will go ahead and add it to the table, because I don't have a clue how to do that! I will award it to aspro, who I pinged on my original post, so aspro will know all the history. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras, Yes, I actually meant exactly that. Don't worry, everything will be done in the best possible way. All the best.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras.

Congratulations! Your Star is already on official table of General Barnstars.

If you are interested, you can also have a look on the new Worchester Project Barnstar, designed by me. I will modify it a bit, so better to have a look at the latest version later this evening. If you will like it, say a couple of words about that. All the very best.Chris Oxford (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work ! KEEP it up! you are appreciated! Cool Jordan 16:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

For all you do...

	Bravery Barnstar.
	For standing up for and defending the ground of that which is known and understood. Aspro (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Bravery Barnstar

Many thanks for your kind words and intent. They are appreciated. Just thought that this Barnstar should immediately be awarded to some editors that I consider to be more worthy. Apologies, if I took the wind out of your sales. As they say though, it is the thought that counts and I thank you.--Aspro (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DennisPietras/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Animation

I haven't touched the animation since we last spoke: I spent the whole of today reviewing Wikimania applications, and I'm out tomorrow. Looks like next weekend is more likely. --Slashme (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Slashme:NO problem. I am plodding along on pioneers, reading ref's and angonizing over what to include and how to word it. DennisPietras (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

An academic in Wikiland

Presentation

In case it's useful, I made a short presentation on Wikipedia for academics here. It's based on things I wish I'd known when I first started out on Wikipedia. A lot of it will be a bit basic for you now that you've been around here a bit, but I didn't think of sending it earlier! Anyway, slides 3-8 and 21-31 might still be interesting. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Noticed you have made the same error more than once. Whilst you may have earned through sweat and toil, enough Degrees to get a job as a laboratory thermometer ;-) Our Wikicode may need some further clarification. When pinging it is important to use curly brackets/braces {{- }} instead of [[-]] – square brackets Pinging [[u|jytdog]] just links to the WP article on the letter U and not the editor in question. Do a quick experiment in your sandbox so that it becomes instinctive and you wont have to think about it any more. With [[Help:Wiki markup|Wikicode]] the word 'wikicode' appears (or anything other wording one wishes to place after the vertical pipe). What comes before the pipe is the article location when using square brackets. {{u| pings the editor. Also before saving, use preview to clink on links to make sure and check that your sending other editors to the right places. Sure I could have explained that more simply but I'm having a bad hair day. Regards--Aspro (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

efn

Hi, as a followup to our teashop chat about efn - it seems clear that you're a "serious" content editor, so I wanted to add my personal advice; two things;

1. Harvard-style is actually great; it's used on a LOT of "Featured articles". It can be a pain, initially, but over the longer-term it makes editing things easier and more consistent.

There is absolutely no obligation to use one referencing style or another, but if you find a good one and stick with it, it's a lot less headache.

With {{Harvnb}}, I also use {{citation}} - rather than {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and so on - again, for consistency. It has parameters to cover just about anything.

I just made an example, here - scroll down to the content, and hover/click the refs.

2. To find a good way of doing things like this, look at featured articles, and steal their ideas relentlessly. FAs go through a lot of scrutiny, and are almost always up to a very high standard. If I'm ever unsure of the best way to do anything, I look at those and copy from it.

Hope that helps, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @86.20.193.222: DennisPietras (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Induced pluripotent stem cell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. 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 nominations, 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Extraoccular photoreceptors

Hello, DennisPietras. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Extraoccular photoreceptors".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Polysomesleft.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Polysomesleft.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

Please also consider updating other files you created or uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

File:PolysomesmRNA.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:PolysomesmRNA.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

Please also consider updating other files you created or uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)