spin
Thank you for quality articles for project Tropical cyclones, contributing to Timeline of the 1990 Atlantic hurricane season and Hurricane Carol, for collaboration and brilliant ideas, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the 1990 Pacific hurricane season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hurricane Hernan (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) 11:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Andrew/archive3

Could you please move your replies below my initial comments, instead of interspersed? It appears to have broken up the numbering schema. I wish to reevaluate, but it'll be less confusing once you do that. Feel free to keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1853 Atlantic hurricane season, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that no tropical cyclones made landfall in the United States during the 1853 Atlantic hurricane season? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1853 Atlantic hurricane season. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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) 15:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Texas gubernatorial election, 1998 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 12george1

Thank you for taking the time to review the article Metric System. I have addressed the issues that you raised and no-one has raised any other issues. Are you happy with these changes? If so, are you happy to pass the article or do you have some other view regarding it? Martinvl (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 12george1,

Thank you for your assistance in getting the article Metric system assessed as a GA. Martinvl (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever US Man may have done, you had no right whatsoever to revert their edit to their own talk page. Please see WP:OWNTALK. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Keith, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Auree ^★★ 09:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 12george1. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! INeverCry 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tropical Storm Andrea (2013), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that with the development of Tropical Storm Andrea on June 5, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season became the fourth consecutive season with a named storm in the month of June? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tropical Storm Andrea (2013). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 03:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

On 18 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1899 Carrabelle hurricane, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1899 Carrabelle hurricane was said at the time to be "the most disastrous cyclone that ever visited this section of Florida"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1899 Carrabelle hurricane. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texas gubernatorial election, 1998, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a 1998 election made George W. Bush the first person to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms as Governor of Texas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Texas gubernatorial election, 1998. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1890 Atlantic hurricane season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (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) 10:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 12george1

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, Casliber (submissions) and Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of 1855 Atlantic hurricane season at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1855 Atlantic hurricane season, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1855 Atlantic hurricane season had the lowest Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) total on record until the 1907 season? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1855 Atlantic hurricane season. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Erick (2013), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mph (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) 10:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still working on the article, or you're done with it?—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 04:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Erick (2013), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that despite remaining offshore, the outer bands of Hurricane Erick brought extensive flooding to the Mexican state of Nayarit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Erick (2013). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 20:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1996 Atlantic hurricane season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape Lookout (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) 10:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article 1900 Atlantic hurricane season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Yellow Evan -- Yellow Evan (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1900 Atlantic hurricane season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1900 Atlantic hurricane season for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Yellow Evan -- Yellow Evan (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note but why are you telling me this as you have already deleted most of the work I did on the 1856 season ? The material you replaced it with is amongst the most badly written stuff I've seen on WP. By all means feel free to ask if you have any questions on, eg, how to write a sentence. Best wishes 14GTR (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 14GTR, it's me again. Let me rephrase what I said. Did you want to nominate the 1856 Atlantic hurricane season for GA before I messed with it? At this point, it is what it is. But did I "steal" an article that you wanted to get to GA? If so, I apologize for that. During the previous few months, I was using the 1853, 1854, and 1855 Atlantic hurricane seasons as DYKs and GAs for the WikiCup. When I suddenly noticed that someone (turned out to be you) created the 1856 Atlantic hurricane season, I immediately got to work and ignored whoever whoever made the article and what their intentions were. Again, I apologize for this. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't nominate articles for GA - like the vast majority of WP editors I don't think that process serves much use. What I would like you to do is to restore, and respect, the work I did on AHS 1856. Feel free to add to it, if you have additional material but to delete material I, or anyone else, has written to replace it with your own, badly written and often unreadable version, of the same is not acceptable and indeed deeply insulting. 14GTR (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article 1856 Atlantic hurricane season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Yellow Evan -- Yellow Evan (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1856 Atlantic hurricane season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1856 Atlantic hurricane season for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Yellow Evan -- Yellow Evan (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]