User talk:Groupuscule: Difference between revisions

Hello and welcome to groupuscule's talk page.

I ask because I've noticed you using the plural "we" and "us" on multiple occasions when discussing various issues. Could you shed some light on that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a bad faith question! I see Groupuscule using "we" and "us" when referring to himself as a member of various Wikipedia editors who are looking at the same thing. It's normal English, normal behavior.

If you have any serious concerns about Groupuscule's editing behavior you can file a WP:RFCU. Your own behavior here might become a discussion item. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, instead of just running to whatever noticeboard is around, I would ask and see if it could be sorted out. You know, not jumping to conclusions. Something you could use a lesson in, for the record. And be sure that, in the event I do escalate it further, I will let groupuscule know. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Groupuscule has described her/himself elsewhere as a dolphin brain controlling a human body to explain the "we" (which G regularly uses). FWIW, I'd chalk it up to running gag rather than account abuse. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like that template. That's...weird. Where? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a handy one. I don't specifically remember where the comment was at this point (Maybe on 13th amendment or Thaddeus Stevens); you could search G's user contributions in the Talk space if you're interested in running it down. I've worked with G on several articles, though, and I'd be surprised if they turn out to be a joint account; their contributions are consistent in style, interests, major strengths (terrific research) and minor weaknesses (typos, repeated words, etc.). -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groupuscule, is your continued use of "we" dolphin brain or something else? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really tired of being harassed on my talk page because I contest the GMO industry's talking points. Are you concerned that I'm pulling the ol' "reverse sock puppet"? We'll use whatever pronouns she wants, thank you very much. groupuscule (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one's harassing you. Multiple use of accounts is not allowed is all, and part of the reason why is because, if multiple people are using an account, it's impossible to keep a consistent conversation going. Is it a yes or no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't owe you an answer. Are you having trouble understanding my position on the statements you advocate? Does it seem inconsistent to you? You—and those marching in lockstep with you on the GMO issue—are harassing me, and other users who disagree with your perspective. Kindly excuse yourself from my talk page. groupuscule (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

countering systemic bias
Thank you for quality articles on cybernetics and civil rights, letting us know the Poor People's Campaign and the Year of Africa, for countering systemic bias, for inventive reviews, - a horn proclaims that you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh herzlichen dank!! Congratulations yourselves for bringing F.K. to the main page. We love/are "Up in the Gallery". your groupuscule (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 534th recipient of my

Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 534 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I also remember F.K. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now, and a K reminder on the Main page, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and nothing. enjoy petrarchan47คุก 19:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow project participants. Not sure how many users are still active as normal Wikipedia editors but felt the need to attempt to get a gauge on who can be called on for help with articles falling under the umbrella of the African diaspora project. According to the project's article table there are over six thousand articles related to the African diaspora; there's not a hundred at FA/GA grade and there's over twelve hundred that are unassessed. With Wikipedia being one of the major information reference points in the world today we should consider this unacceptable. Much work needs to be done on the rating of the importance of articles as well. With more communication amongst participants and a dedication to addressing the articles on the to-do list I believe we can make this WikiProject one of the most well organized and thorough on the site. If you are interested in collaborative work with some of your fellow project members, have certain expertise on any particular subjects, ideals on/about the WikiProject, etc. simply drop your name under the "Project revision" section I've created on the project's talk page and state your intentions and main points of interest in our WikiProject and we can attempt to move forward from there. Hoping to hear from everyone soon! WikiGuy86 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "funny piece" you referred to at Tiamat seems to be either egregiously outdated, totally misinformed, or perhaps even outright satirical. I have actually been doing a great deal of research on the origins of Greek mythology and all of his proposed etymologies in the introduction are completely off the mark. The etymologies proposed by Plato are, needless to say, not taken seriously by modern scholarship. If you are curious for some real theories about mythology origins, here are a few sources I have been using that I highly recommend:

ISBN 978-0-521-29037-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help

)

Mallory, James P.; Adams, Douglas Q. (2006). Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. London: Oxford University Press.

ISBN 0-8018-3938-6

.

ISBN 978-0-19-928075-9

.

ISBN 0-8122-1047-6

.

Wolkstein, Diane; Kramer, Samuel Noah (1983). Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth: Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer. New York City, New York: Harper&Row Publishers.

ISBN 0-06-090854-8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help

)

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/

These last three sources are the only ones listed here directly dealing with Mesopotamian myth, but I suspect you probably already saw all of them listed in the bibliography for Inanna when you reviewed it. For general information on ancient Sumer, I would recommend:

Kramer, Samuel Noah. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. Chicago, IL:

ISBN 0-226-45238-7

.

Unfortunately, since I cannot read cuneiform myself, I cannot really help you on that front. You are on your own when it comes to that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's satirical; the author (whose invocation of Plato is totally fanciful, as far as I can tell) is trying to show how easy it is to construct a false etymology out of whole cloth. I think he does it pretty cleverly though.

Thanks for the recommendations! I have History Begins at Sumer but I'm guessing that the works you mention here are a little more serious. I will check these out ASAP.

On the topic of mythological origins have you ever come across Black Athena (expanding on the mentions in Herodotus that Greek religion derives mostly from Egypt), and if so what's your opinion of it? groupuscule (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of Black Athena. Its central claims (such as the idea that Athena was based off the Egyptian goddess Neith) have been largely debunked by modern scholars. Nonetheless, it is partially correct in pointing out the unacknowledged role that Near Eastern civilizations played in the development of Greek culture. If you are interested in how Near Eastern cultures influenced Greek culture, I highly recommend M. L. West's The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth, which is a spectacular work of scholarship examining the frequently downplayed contributions of Near Eastern cultures and their influences on Greek literature and mythology. It is often considered West's magnum opus and is truly a worthwhile read. Some of its conclusions are still controversial, but many of them have become accepted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you thanked me for an edit on Amnesia (Chumbawamba song), and was wondering if you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Chumbawamba. At the moment, it's basically just me, but I've been hoping to find any other editors who are interested in the topic. If you don't want to join, that's fine; I just wanted to make you aware of the project if you're interested. —12:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for joining! And great joke, by the way. —Anotheronewiki (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Another One, thank you so much for the kind personal invitation! How can I do otherwise than accept this unique opportunity to instantly double the membership of a worthy wikiproject?

(When do we get cool userboxes with chumba iconography?)

I don't usually focus on music articles but I will try to make some contributions to Chumbawumbiana. And thanks again to you for all the work you've done. groupuscule (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! And I'll get to work on those userboxes; I've already finished the first one; here it is: Template:Tubthumping What do you think? (I'll try to get to work on some more interesting ones later!) —Anotheronewiki (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, perfect. groupuscule (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement on this article. I've also made additions to related articles Frederick Douglass Kirkpatrick, Jonesboro, Louisiana, Bogalusa, Louisiana, and Robert "Bob" Hicks House; and to T. Gillis Nutter. Am planning an article on Robert "Bob" Hicks and others of these local LA activists.Parkwells (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Admirable research and writing. Looking at your contribs I see you have been on a real tear. Is there any way you would like me to help? groupuscule (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying to my edit on African Americans. Can I suggest that the statistics go in the genetics section as you stated with a subsection to explain the genetic makings of African Americans? Sarahann26125 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I can integrate those studies with the material that's already present under "Genome-wide studies". Maybe I can also use the source you cited on the talk page. groupuscule (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I was wondering if you could help out in the peer review on George Town, Penang. I would like some third-party feedback as this article has been vastly improved and I want to see if it can be pushed to GA status.

Thanks. Vnonymous 22:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure. I may even be able to work on it tonight. groupuscule (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Really appreciate your help on this. Vnonymous 04:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your mediation efforts on the

Thanks for your notice. Did you send it 7 June? That debate ended badly and embarrassingly for me. I've cut my editing way back, and try to stay out of controversies, though another has just arisen. The result of the YouTube notoriety discussion it was part of shows that, at its worst, Wikipedia is a consensus debating society in which groupthink can easily shout down any idea that disturbs it. Interestingly, I discovered that my idea was empirically wrong. People who already have notoriety dominate YouTube hit/clicks, and the artist who I thought might deserve notoriety has pitiful numbers, by comparison. But none of my interlocutors were empirical enough to look it up. Tapered (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Tapered (past tense of taper? or inverted red tape ... perhaps suggested by your red link...) Yes, I just sent that "thank you" because I enjoyed the reference to payola. As it happens, Wiki-payola is a recurring area of concern for me. Yes, in some parts of this website it seems hard to get along. Meanwhile other parts feel like ghost towns.

All in all the music notability discussion was a little funny (to me as an uninvolved reader) but didn't seem to go anywhere. Personally I don't have a strong sense that YouTube celebs need Wikipedia articles, but I try to keep my mouth shut (fingers immobile) on these topics, as I do regarding the need for such articles as

Engagement announcement dress of Catherine Middleton, etc., ad nauseam. groupuscule (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, there's currently a discussion at Taxila talk page to determine consensus for changing that page to Ancient Taxila, and another for Taxila (modern). Please take a minute to include your input. Thanks!Willard84 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Taxila (modern)? A disambiguation page seems unnecessary considering the circumstances. groupuscule (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the review; I have resolved the ambiguity of Heliopolis and hope to complete my review soon. (I think my comments escaped the nominator's notice; I was not so considerate as to leave a talk page message.) Please let me know if you have other ideas about how else the article could be improved. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort put into making that page, it was quite interesting! Just ping me when you're done with your review and we'll wrap this up. Daß Wölf 13:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the dyk review of Template:Did you know nominations/Owusu Afriyie Akoto. I have made some edits so please go through and offer your opinion. Thanks.CrossTemple Jay 15:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is not the correct place to ask for help. I recently created an article for David Benac, but it needs reviewing. Any help would certainly be appreciated. It is wonderful that you offer your time. Thanks Nicool9 (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Nicool9[reply]

Hi Groupuscule, I hope you're doing well! I just submitted the Astronomica article for FAN here. Since you provided a very thorough peer-review of it, I was hoping that you might be able to drop by and leave a few comments/suggestions? I'd really appreciate it! Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think it looks great, and I went there to say so. I was going to object to the new translation of ignorantissimus omnium viventium but having seen Seadowns's explanation I can understand the rationale. Basically I'm running out of things to complain about. groupuscule (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi, groupuscule. I want to award you this barnstar for going out of your way with the ✉ • ✎) 18:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you very much. I enjoyed meeting you also. Do you sometimes work on translations between en.wikipedia and es.wikipedia? groupuscule (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rarely. I'm pretty busy finishing a series/topic on a major Mexican crime group. And once I'm done with that, I'll move on to the next one and so forth. When I used to do articles out of the blue, I would often translate them to Spanish. However, I didn't have a fun experience with some members of the community over there, so I'm almost fully retired from Spanish Wikipedia right now. Finishing what I want to write here will probably take me years. Ideally, after that, I would translate everything into Spanish (the main reason why I write in English is because it can be easily translated to many other languages, including Spanish, by other editors).
  ✉ • ✎) 15:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, Groupuscule, I looked at the stuff you linked for me about consolidating references, and my eyes glazed over about three points in. It occurs to me that there's nothing to stop you from improving the article by taking care of that since you're clearly more tech savvy than me. What do you think? Awien (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Awien, I will happily take a crack at it, sometime over the weekend. groupuscule (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Génial! Awien (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article ABC (Cuba), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a middle-class terrorist organization known as el ABC successfully lobbied for two cabinet positions in the 1933 provisional government of Cuba? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ABC (Cuba). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ABC (Cuba)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnGUF2jBWdg For your enjoyment... Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Groupuscule. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. User:Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic-banned (

genetically modified organisms

. You are invited to appeal the ban after three months and explain how you intend to change your approach to editing in this topic area.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  08:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Sandstein, as well as Bishonen and GoldenRing. I must say this decision disturbs and saddens me. As Dialectric wrote very kindly (and for which I will be forever grateful) on the enforcement request page, I have been here for a long time and contributed a lot to this encyclopedia, without experiencing anything like this situation. Could you please clarify some things for me, for the sake of my peace of mind?

1. First, did you get a chance to read my response to all the new accusations made against me? I am not able to edit Wikipedia around the clock and I'm not sure you and the other administrators got to see my side of the story on some of the important issues.
2. For example, jps and Capeo accused me of misrepresenting the sources in a certain edit. I take such an accusation very seriously and replied directly yesterday but only after you three had begun your discussion. For what it's worth, the previously-uninvolved
   article talk page
   . (I also hope you got a chance to read what Dialectric wrote yesterday.) If truly I did misrepresent my sources, taking my article writing "into the realm of pure fabrication", then I apologize and must simply plead to the community that I did not do so intentionally. If, however, I have represented the sources fairly, then I think the scrutiny should perhaps turn towards my accusers.
3. Next, can you comment on the following. Trypofish wrote yesterday "Sandstein correctly describes the situation as weighing conduct so far, that really hasn't been that bad, against a high probability that future conduct would likely just end up back here at AE". Is this really how you perceive the situation? Is acceptable reasoning for an indefinite topic ban for a wide range of pages? Humbly I must tell you it feels like conviction for
   precrime
   .
4. Finally, can you please clarify what policy I violated to earn this extremely severe sanction? I feel that I cast far fewer aspersions on my fellow editors than they cast upon my in the course of this somewhat informal and rushed "trial"! Furthermore I feel I did not violate the letter of the law, since I did not accuse "another [editor] of misbehavior without evidence", nor did I edit war. Therefore I would appreciate it if you set down an explanation in black and white, if only so I can understand the situation completely.

Thank you very much, and I hope you all have a good week and a happy Thanksgiving. groupuscule (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Groupuscule, I think that the answer to your questions are apparent from the AE thread linked to. In short, it is forbidden to cast aspersions on other users by accusing them of being paid sockpuppets of Monsanto or whoever without evidence, and it is also forbidden to edit Wikipedia to promote a particular point of view, rather than to write a neutral encyclopedia (see

WP:TE).  Sandstein  13:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I basically agree with Sandstein here. Your editing on this subject in the past couple of weeks gives the distinct impression that you are here with an anti-GMO agenda. Whether that is your intention or not, it is how you've come across. There are many topic on wikipedia where you would have been cut a lot of slack to figure this out; GMOs is not one of htem. DS are authorised by the arbitration committee to quickly quell disruption and that is what has happened here. You can ask for review of the sanction in three months, but my advice to you is that any such request should show that you understand very clearly why you have been sanctioned here and how you will avoid the same editing pattern in future.

I will also advise you that any discussion of this topic is a violation of your ban, including on your user and user talk pages. You are cut a bit of slack to figure out the terms of the ban, but that does not extend to relitigating it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I am very disturbed by this as well. Groupuscule has a very long history editing a wide range of topics - something that cannot be said for his accuser. And GoldenRing admits here that the behaviour resulting in a topic ban was only observed the past 2 weeks? A topic ban for supposed behaviour that obviously does not represent the editor in general strikes me as harsh. What look to be witch hunts are always coming from one side; the goal seems to be eliminating the "other side of the story".

Wikipedia deals with a lot of contentious topics, so we are used to dealing with editors on both sides of any topic (as well as the rare, truly neutral parties). If the Monsanto suite is left with editors who shy away from criticisms of Monsanto's products and practices, the articles will not inspire faith from our readers that we are giving them an encyclopedic view of the topic. We should be looking for ways to allow editors from all "sides" to edit peacefully together. During the BP oil spill, a good-sized group of us edited the BP article alongside an BP employee, a PR rep. We all got along fine, hashed out our differences, and made good use of tools like RfC's. We didn't ever consider taking each other to 'court', as is the case with Monsanto related pages. Yet our talk pages and the heated topic at hand drew far more drama and passion, heated conversations, than Monsanto pages have in years.

Groupuscule is one of the most measured editors I've run across here, and I'm sure many would agree with me. Topic banning him on such flimsy grounds does not look good for Wikipedia.

Thank you for hearing me out. I hope it's still legal to speak freely, but I also wouldn't be surprised if someone decided I too should be banned for saying these things. petrarchan47คุก 02:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brutus (Michelangelo), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that opposition to tyranny in 16th-century Florence led Michelangelo to sculpt a heroic Brutus (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brutus (Michelangelo). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Brutus (Michelangelo)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Groupuscule. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Wikipedia Editor Retention Project )

Over 20+ DYK articles; the most recent ones being about Cuba:

Sergeants' Revolt, Directorio Estudiantil Universitario, and ABC (Cuba). I first crossed paths with Groupuscule in August of 2017, when he reviewed an article

I was working on at DYK with a new editor. His review was very thorough and I appreciated that he asked me about a very clear issue in the article rather than pointing fingers and making his own conclusions. Judging by his interactions with other editors at his talkpage, I can tell Groupuscule is very respectful, understanding, and works with fellow editors to make this encyclopedia a better place. I know Groupuscule works extremely hard with Cuban articles since I've crossed paths with him there too. I am happy to nominate Groupuscule as Editor of the Week!

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 05:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]