User talk:Jason Rees/Archive3

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making 1995–96 South Pacific cyclone season a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Getting these archived at last.Jason Rees (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Vyom25 (talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Getting these archived at last.Jason Rees (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

– TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Getting these archived at last.Jason Rees (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Category 6 hurricane

There is an ongoing discussion at List of Category 6 Atlantic hurricanes as to whether this page should be kept or redirected to List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Your input on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. United States Man (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.90.51.99

Hi. Would you like some help going back through this editor's history and cleaning things up? -- Bgpaulus (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed

Hello Jason Rees,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! Jeremey Bentham (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Saola

Yes sir! uhm all of the impact I'm putting is 101 percent coming from Saola. Check out my references buddy. If any mistakes were made, you are free to delete it (:

PS: its getting heavy rains here and gusty winds is so strong. flooding already start here in our area and rooftops were flying. weeeee Jpuligan 12 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel so frustrated

I have given some two members editing the typhoon season article many suggestions, but they never accepted. They just keep using ugly structures, wrong grammars, unnecessary information, improper titles and unreal observations. What should I do to them? I feel really really frustrated. -- Meow 07:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Haikui

Hi there! well I'm from Manila and Haikui is very far to us. However, the storm's slow movement enhanced the southwest monsoon which also resulted to be a stationary monsoon. severe flooding already struck us because 472 millimeters of rain was already pour down here. Hope you could help us by simply praying. Thanks co - editor. we will survive this. stay strong! Jpuligan 12 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

SWIO

Hey, where's the link to the SWIO BT from MF? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Cyclone Ernest

Hey, I'm trying to do an article on that cyclone from 2005, but I realize there is no annual summary here. Any suggestions where I could find that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You could find it by nipping over to France. However i wonder if you cant just use GP for the prose, and just make up for the lack of an official summary by threading the BT around it.

Yea, that'll probably work. Could you show me the link, by chance, to Ernest 05? I had trouble with that too :( ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

For the BT post 02/03 go to archives -> Systems data -> Find the system and click.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a good way to link that for a ref? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.meteo.fr/temps/domtom/La_Reunion/webcmrs9.0/anglais/archives/saisons_archivees/20042005/8.html

Hey, any idea where I can get some sources for Cyclone Litanne in 1994? I can't find much, and I don't have enough right now to publish an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:JTWC

Thanks for letting me know, but what is [1] used for then? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited 1991–92 South Pacific cyclone season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue

Please discuss in Talk:2012 Pacific typhoon season#The number of tropical depressions. -- Meow 02:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jason Rees. You have new messages at Anikingos's talk page.
Message added 07:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please let me know if you find any sources reporting this year as the least active (except for the IMD). Also let me know if any sources explain the reason behind the lowered activity in the North Indian Ocean over the past two years Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

IP User:109.90.51.99-very aggressive edit war.

Hello, and Good Morning Jason Rees (10:06am here in Hong Kong). IP User:109.90.51.99 has been changing Tembin 15w Aug 20 2012.jpg, which shows Tembin just after peak intensity, to Tembin 15w Aug 20 2012.jpg, which shows the storm at a Category 1 typhoon(near Category 2). I think the IP finds the Aug 20 image looking better, but it is not the closest to peak intensity! As i find edit/revert wars disruptive, can you please help? -- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 02:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response - ive been rather busy over the last few days. I would recommend that you just talk to him or her.Jason Rees (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, as i added an edit notice thing, saying don't change image...and it worked! Now the 3 pesty IPs are done!-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 02:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

JMA BT

It was actually only Saola which was missing, Vicente was there but the storm numbering on the talk page had gone wrong. All fixed now.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

IP 121.54.32.50 Vandalizing tornado!

Jason, if you are online right now, i want you to think of something to do with this crappy IP in the 2012 pacific typhoon season. The IP must be blocked for doing 9 destructive edits! (Changing cat 4 to Cat 7 and winds).-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, okay, their is no problem now, but i think their should be some discussion on blocking the IP.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 12:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless it is an active ip, we cant block since they slip all the time. Also dont forget an ip is a real person, who may be able to be turned into a postive contributor.Jason Rees (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Always fight bad with love.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉^Talk_Contribs 13:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Atlantic retirees: dollar sign or no dollar sign

When I was making some minor edits to your Atlantic retirees sandbox, I noticed that some cells in the "Damages" section are missing preceding dollar signs. Is this by design, or should we add dollar signs to all of them? –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TBH if there isnt a dollar sign it is probably by accident.Jason Rees (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... adding dollar signs... –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Help wanted

Hello, there is a new article called 2012-13 United States winter storm season that is providing information about the new naming system that The Weather Channel is giving major winter storms. I would much appreciate help from you there. I understand that you might be only based around tropical cyclones, but the way that the page should look is expected to be similar to most hurricane articles. Stop by and comment on the talk page if you would like to help, thanks! STO12 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments on proposed Template talk:Infobox hurricane current changes

Hello, Jason Rees. I am proposing a new version of the Template:Infobox hurricane current template, located in its sandbox. Would you like to comment on this change?

Thank you,

–– Anonymouse321 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: You received this message because you have contributed to tropical cyclone related articles and I thought you would be interested.

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Sasata (submissions)
3. Grapple X (submissions)
4. Casliber (submissions)
5. Muboshgu (submissions)
6. Miyagawa (submissions)
7. Ruby2010 (submissions)
8. Dana Boomer (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 (submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose (submissions) (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Storm colors

Hi Jason, please see Template talk:Storm colour#Colors and accessibility guidelines. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jason Rees. You have new messages at Anikingos's talk page.
Message added 14:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: importance parameter on WikiProject Puerto Rico-cyclone related articles

Hello, Jason Rees. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1997–98 South Pacific cyclone season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Les Echos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WHY BRO

why will i be banned. how long for. and anyway, there are many pcs in this home. i (elizabeth) just got on my win8 laptop after i saw this message and thought what the? then i realized that after i asked everyone it was my little brother simon (10 years old) who just randomly keyed in things so he told me he did it on another computer. so why blame me. -_- --188.223.248.201 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

NOAA Damages

If you click any of the links on the cost of the storms from NOAA website it clearly states how the cost are calculated. They are calculated as 2 times the insured property claims plus an adjusted amount of the National Flood Insurance Program claims. Also when they NOAA list they claims such as Katrina it states:

"Hurricane Katrina of 2005 was responsible for at least $108 billion of property damage and is by far the costliest hurricane to ever strike the United States."

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.156.185 (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hurricane Dolly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2012–13 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reunion

List of Atlantic hurricane records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hurricane Dolly

List of retired Philippine typhoon names (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Typhoon Bopha

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Cyclone Evan

What was your reasoning for overwriting my whole MH section? We both had some stuff that the other didn't have, and mine was more current than just through the 11th. Why don't we merge the two together? Inks.LWC (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Im gonna try and merge it but i personally think some of the bits that you added weren't needed (eg: the tropical disturbance stuff), while other bits need to be double checked.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Double checked for what? It's all sourced. I guess I'll let you do what you want, although we should probably add back somehting for December 12-13 if you don't have anything ready for that yet. I didn't realize you had one going off the Mainspace already. My bad. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be sourced but it needs to be checked for relevance/put in the right place. I mean Nadi's gale storm and hurricane warnings are like NHC's forecast advisories so i dont feel we need to note them, while the stuff about NWS/WS can go in Preps and could even be expanded out to cover most of their warnings. Dont feel to guilty about beating me to creating the article as i should of noted somewhere that i had been doing it in a sandbox and was already tempted to move it to mainspace. As for November 12/13 stuff, i have some of the stuff in there covering the naming but there probably is a bit more to be added.Jason Rees (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well, I'll leave you too it - dinner time. Plus, there's nothing more annoying then getting an edit conflict message while you're editing cyclone articles. ;) Inks.LWC (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok well feel free to help update it, im not gonna be able to do it all as if my suspicions are right we are gonna be dealing with an Aus 5 at Fijian landfall.Jason Rees (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For the non-use of wind gusts in the infobox, I'm not quite sure I understand what your reasoning was ("Gonna refrain form using the Gusts field since nadi isnt giving them out and the infobox hurricane should be using them as a higher priority than 10-min"). I understand that Nadi isn't announcing gust measurements, but I got a bit lost after that, so why does it matter that Nadi isn't giving them out? (Sorry if that came across in a bad way - I'm genuinely curious, and I can't think of a good way to say it that doesn't sound bad, so don't read anything into the wording). Inks.LWC (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that up to a couple of years ago the gusts were used to work out the Aus Cat rather than the MSW, and thus the IH gives them a higher priority to work out the Aus Cat than the MSW, which off course means that if we are taking them from the JTWC we run the risk of committing OR.Jason Rees (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What is IH? Inks.LWC (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Earth100 AN/I

Jason, I just wanted to make you aware of an ongoing AN/I discussion about Earth100. Don't feel like you need to respond or post there because of this message... I just wanted to let you know about it since some of your reverts of his edits have been mentioned there. Inks.LWC (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone pages

Since you reverted my recent removal of disambiguation templates from a couple of pages, I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons, and invite you to add your views. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Earth100

Please stop reverting the user on their own talk page. They are entitled, with limited exceptions that don't apply here, to remove material from their talk page. You may be well-intentioned, but you have no right to revert them. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Freda article

I noticed you have an article going for Freda (yeah, I had the common sense to actually check this time before writing my own ;)); I can add some sources to the MH section, and then do you think we're ready to move that to the mainspace? Inks.LWC (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth it yet? (impact wise).Jason Rees (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's already done some damage and is likely to do more, but if you think holding off is the right move, it's a borderline call now I think. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think for now we should hold off and work on the sandbox so its ready to go if we need it later. If we don't than the MH can be condensed and put into the SPAC seasonal article.Jason Rees (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

Hello, Jason Rees, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The template is ready (I think)

To get the two-year seasons, we'll set the parameter "shem" to "yes". The code is here, and it's all tested here. If you see any problems, let me know. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Jason Rees (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's it at Template:TC Decades, right? Inks.LWC (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep.Jason Rees (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to replace it on all of the season articles, but I see you've already done that (please tell me you at least used AWB or something and didn't do the whole thing manually...). Are there any that you didn't do? And if not, would we be fine to put all the old templates up for deletion? Inks.LWC (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I manually replaced all the templates over a couple of hours since i felt that you would have to keep start/stop with AWB or similar since they were scattered all over the place (Some in see also, some in ext links some in refs), while others were not deployed at all for whatever reason. What made it easier for myself was that i worked out of a list of the templates that need to go and struck them off once i was happy.Jason Rees (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So then I should be good to put up the old templates for deletion, correct? Inks.LWC (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free too shove them up for deletion, the list i worked off is here.Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Typhoon Rusa

This is a note to let the main editors of Typhoon Rusa know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 22, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 22, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Typhoon Rusa, the 10th typhoon of the 2002 Pacific typhoon season, was the most powerful to strike South Korea in 43 years. It developed on August 22 from the monsoon trough in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, then moved to the northwest, intensifying into a powerful typhoon. On August 26, the storm moved across the Amami Islands of Japan, causing two fatalities. Across Japan, the typhoon dropped torrential rainfall peaking at 902 mm (35.5 in) in Tokushima Prefecture. After weakening slightly, Rusa made landfall on Goheung, South Korea with winds of 140 km/h (85 mph). It weakened while moving through the country, dropping heavy rainfall that peaked at 897.5 mm (35.33 in) in Gangneung. A 24 hour total of 880 mm (35 in) in the city broke the record for the highest daily precipitation in the country. Over 17,000 houses were damaged, and large areas of crop fields were flooded. In South Korea, Rusa killed at least 233 people. The typhoon also dropped heavy rainfall in neighboring North Korea, leaving 26,000 people homeless and killing three. Rusa also destroyed large areas of crops in the country already affected by ongoing famine conditions. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Precious

cyclones
Thank you for contributions to quality articles on cyclones and typhoons, such as Cyclone Keli and Typhoon Rusa, and for supplying timelies such as Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Pacific areas affected (Top)

I see you recently changed the Dates Active column to data-sort-type="date". This seems to clash with the ways that editors in the past have made it work as a text sort, by adding {{sort|mmdd| ({{sort|yymmdd| for southern hemisphere seasons) or {{sort|nn| to use the storm number sequence as surrogate for the formation date. I can't find any example which now works (it would still need a {{sort| to work with date ranges, indeed the only one which seems to work is {{sort|mm-dd-yyyy|, which is horrible to my British eyes). I don't want to start an edit war but could we agree to change this back to an ordinary text sort?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 11:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclone Gavin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polynesian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Subtropical storms + ACE

Thanks for the information. It's annoying when NOAA goes and changes their rules and doesn't update their webpages. (There are still NOAA/NHC links that state the subtropical data is excluded) I'll ensure the numbers where I excluded subtropical storms are included, but there a few adding errors on the ACE Talk page. Thanks again!Senorpepr (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Lists of tropical cyclone names".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) WikiCup 2013 February newsletter Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below. Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were: Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition. Other contributors of note include: Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores. Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year. Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition. Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic. Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles... March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome! A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Cyclone Larry Hey Jason! I think we'll have to investigate some circumstances of the artile, concerning the categories. the article is not true with itself – at some point it is saying Larry was a cat 4 at landfall and then a cat 5 as its summit and then coming up with cat 5 gusts at/near landfall and on some points not declaring wether the BoM scale is used or Saffir-Simpson. But that's only one side of the coin – it's contradicted by the BoM in this statement. Could you try to contact the BoM guys please? Your English sounds better than mine so eventually they get it better than in case if I try to. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure about that. The BoM says in the statement linked above Larrry peaked with 110 kn, about 205 kph which is cat 3. However, I don't understand the concept their categories are using. While in that statement they stick to (asumpted) 10 minute wind speeds their website confirms what is mentioned also in our tropical cyclone scales article, that the basic for categorization is the highest wind gust. For that discrepancy are IMHO two possible explanations: either they modified the scale sometimes between 2006 and now or they're using gusts for warnings and 10 minutes for the TCRs. I will try to reasses the issue in the operational manual later today or tomorrow. This is just so confusing. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC) No, I am just trying to clean up the mess. See, within our article we find: The low-pressure area formed into a tropical cyclone two days later and quickly strengthened into a Category 5 storm on the Australian tropical cyclone scale. Larry made landfall in Far North Queensland close to Innisfail on 20 March 2006 as a Category 4 with wind gusts reaching 240 kilometres per hour (150 mph) and dissipated over land soon after. Later in the text (and that is sourced with this article): Larry was a Category 2 cyclone in the Australian intensity scale when the cyclone watch commenced, and gradually intensified to a high Category 4 on that scale. The eye of Larry crossed the coast near Innisfail between 6:20 am and 7:20 am AEST on 20 March 2006. According to preliminary data, the winds near Innisfail may have reached 290 kilometres per hour (180 mph) with gusts to 310–320 kilometres per hour (190–200 mph). However, re-analysis based on land observations indicated that Cyclone Larry was a Category 4 cyclone during landfall, as wind gusts were estimated to have reached 240 kilometres per hour (150 mph) in the area of impact. However the earlier clain with the 290 kph winds and 310 to 320 kph gusts is not sourced at this point. But let's continue, the next sentence says: The Australian intensity scale is based on maximum wind gusts, which are estimated to be 40 percent above 10-minute sustained winds. On this scale, Larry peaked as a Category 5 cyclone. That's unsourced again; the claim in the lines before is related to landfall and is related to the gusts of 240 kph. The text continues with: A 10-minute average wind speed of 108 knots (200 km/h; 124 mph) was reported in Innisfail during landfall – what would be less than the reported peak, according to the BoM report linked above, where we read: Larry rapidly intensified in the following 48 hours reaching hurricane-force intensity at 1200 UTC 18 March and peaking at 56 m/s (110 knots) at 1200 UTC 19 March as it marched steadily westwards towards the coast. what means that the peak was well before landfall (about 36 hours) Give or take some knots during that time but there still stays the statement that the peak was a 110 kn, and the map at the page liked above claims a categor 3 cyclone for both well before landfallas well as for shortly after. And then we have at http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/about/intensity.shtml#WindC Category 3... Some roof and structural damage. Some caravans destroyed. Power failures likely. A Category 3 cyclone's strongest winds are VERY DESTRUCTIVE winds with typical gusts over open flat land of 165 - 224 km/h. These winds correspond to the highest category on the Beaufort scale, Beaufort 12 (Hurricane). Do you see now why I see confusion? --Matthiasb (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the wikilove While removing galleries can be problematic in the older, unimproved articles, I wasn't expecting this morning's activities within the subtropics. Thanks, and some love in return. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Thegreatdr has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the fishy, gooey goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! I've taken the unusual-for-me step of submitting subtropics for peer review. I know it is meant for better formed articles, but you've seen the talk page. The climate articles appear to go through an annual burst of activity, with a similar push back by what seems to be a different editor each time. It's not always me on the editing end either. It reminds me of the movie Groundhog Day. And to think, there used to be an active climate project on wikipedia, though it was mainly before my time. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC) WikiCup 2013 March newsletter We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April. Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal. Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms. A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC) MWL Just let me know what time frame you're looking for. I have partial scans from 1960-1973, and should have the late 1950's and 1974 scanned and combined into individual .pdf files by Friday or Saturday. I'm likely to be unavailable the entire afternoon today. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC) My first e-mail to you was rejected. See if you got the two follow ups. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Ok. The issues between 1960 and 1973 should all be online. I'll check in the paper MWLs for Namu (1986). Thegreatdr (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC) My first personal copy of MWL was from Spring 1985. If memory serves, after visiting NMC in late 1987, I had renewed interest in gaining a subscription to MWL. It took quite a while back then to subscribe...the process took months via snail mail. My subscription started in Summer 1988, so there is a gap covering 1986. Sometime in the next couple months I'll get through the 1980s using materiel at our DC area libraries and be able to tell you something one way or another. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I scanned 1986 and 1988 today...and have the bound books for 1987, 1992, and 1993. Hopefully I can put together 1986 an 1988 as a .pdf tomorrow. The others should follow over the next couple days, weather dependent. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The only MWRs left to scan are 1957-1959, 2/3 of 1976, and 1993-1994. The others should be online. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 1993-1994 should be dealt with. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Oy. The timing couldn't be better, could it? All I had left to scan were issues from the last 2/3 of 1958 and all of 1959, after today. I could have used the last couple months otherwise. Interestingly enough, no one seemed to know about this before within the NOAA Central Library, or at work for that matter. =( However, according to Google, you can't host their digitized document, which apparently removed it from the public domain. That would the related images unusable for wikipedia, no? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC) It was a pretty good publication, until 1994 or 1995. I guess that would mean if you're under the age 30, you may not have been aware. Age becomes an advantage. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Re:HURDAT I can't open it for some reason, so I can't check it out yet. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Alright, I opened it. Thanks for letting me know. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC) The IU-Bloomington Extratropical/Tropical cyclone database I looked through it recently for XT stuff, but only see transcribed versions of MWL articles. I don't see any tracks. Do they have any? Otherwise, this isn't NCDC's version of the database. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I have a copy of NCDC's original extratropical/tropical cyclone CD...but it is 1995 vintage. I do not think it runs on Windows systems beyond Windows 95...which is a problem. I believe the disc may have those TC reports. If the CD had XT reports, I wasn't able to view them. NCDC sent me the first decade of the 1965-1995 database, but apparently the rest was never converted to a modern database format...at least by NCDC. I have received a Pacific XT database covering the cold seasons second decade, and an Asian XT database for that same period, but am looking to avoid repeating their work...merely expanding upon it. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Big news!!! This image, will appear on the commons MAIN page on June 10 2013!! Please view it on that day! The flower was photographed and grown by me, and is now also considered a Quality image! --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 05:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC) WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Question relating to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/1958 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1 So I'm not 100% sure if your concerns in the nomination has been addressed or not. Do you still think some of the articles shouldn't be? Need to know before closing the nomination. GamerPro64 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC) I still think that Cleo needs to be merged before it is passed and as you will see from a look on its talk page it hasnt been resolved yet.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC) June 2013 Hello, I'm Robert McClenon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 1998 Pacific hurricane season‎ without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Please do not remove references from articles without an explanation on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Okay. You reworked the reference. In that case, please provide an edit summary next time. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)