User talk:Hurricanefan25/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January[edit]

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours[edit]

Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.

First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.

All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).

Things we'll be discussing include:

  • The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
  • An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
  • An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Owai u?[edit]

You can go ahead and do it if you want. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you do it. I'm busy with Joy. :P HurricaneFan25 — 14:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012[edit]

Your GOCE request[edit]

Hi. I'm just tidying up the GOCE requests page, and I see that Hurricane Debra (1959) has now achieved GA (well done!). Are you still seeking a copy edit for it, or may I remove the request now? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the request. HurricaneFan25 — 17:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to my talkpage[edit]

This edit to my talk page made me giggle :P I think I've had the sig more than 6 months before and you're the first person to comment! (Kind of made my day in a strange and nerdy way... Did not mean for that to rhyme.) I was expecting more people to think it was the {{unsigned}} template than not. Oh well... :P — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Irene GAN[edit]

Pursuant to the merge, I've marked the GAN as failed. I feel bad doing it, as there was a good thing going there, but the way you work, I have no doubt you'll bounce back and have something for me to pass in a GAN in a week or two. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closures[edit]

Hello Hurricanefan25. When redirecting articles as you did here, please remember to include the {{R from school}} template. It populates an important category that is used for statistical purposes. Thanks, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Joy[edit]

Would joy be any easier if i did the MH and you did the impact?.Jason Rees (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. :) (I can only hope we don't edit-conflict each other...) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats fine - let me finish Susan's impact and then i will turn my attention to Joy. (ps if you want to avoid edit conflicts one good way is to put ((In use|section}} on the section your editing).Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'll be putting more attention to Judith and Ike for now, though I'll probably get to Joy in a week or two. HurricaneFan25 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the job training[edit]

Here's the basics of SCV, which may be useful to any talk page stalkers as well. We need all hands. :) Or more hands, anyway.

Very thorough, but brief as possible: When Corensearchbot finds (or thinks it finds) copying in a new article, it flags the article and notifies the contributor and lists the article for review at WP:SCV.

There are collapsed detailed instructions at the top of the page, but the basic approach is as follows. If this looks daunting, please keep in mind that no volunteer has to handle any listing they don't want to get involved with. If you don't want to handle {{Db-g4}} issues, leave it alone. Somebody else will do it. Any and all help you can give will be appreciated, whether you decide to master every task or not!

Please let me know if any of the below can be clarified. I may well turn it into a mini guideline for others, so clarity matters! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCV 101[edit]

  • Is the flagged source another Wikipedia article or a mirror of another Wikipedia article? This is sign of a split or a copy-paste move. Look at the history of the article:
  1. Is it a properly attributed split? You don't need to do anything to it except remove the CSB notice, if it's still there.
  2. Is it a repost of a PRODded article? An administrator may be needed to restore the history for attribution. Feel free to ping me.
  3. Is it a repost of an AFDed article? {{Db-g4}} may be appropriate. Be sure to give the contributor the notice the tag generates.
  4. Is it a copy-paste move? Honestly, I think I'd tag that one like so: {{db-g6|rationale=Copy-paste move of [[Title]]; needs to be deleted for proper move}}.
  5. Is it an improperly attributed split? Follow Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to address.
  • Is the flagged source public domain or compatibly licensed?
  1. If the content is public domain because copyright lapsed (for age, maybe) or because the source is inherently public domain (legal judgment, for instance), remove the CSB notice, if it's still there, but make sure it attributes according to Wikipedia:Plagiarism. (If the content is just not copyrightable - like tracklists or job titles - that kind of attribution isn't needed.)
  2. If the content is compatibly licensed, make sure that proper attribution is given in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Even if it's compatibly licensed, it's still a violation of copyright policy if the license isn't met.
  • Is the flagged source completely dissimilar to the original article?
  1. Check the history of the article; did somebody already clean it? Great. Remove the CSB tag if it's still there. If the vio was extensive, consider if revision deletion seems like a good idea to prevent future inadvertent restoration.
  2. Is there something not immediately obvious? Sometimes websites have hidden text. For instance, CSB flagged a copy of this kind of obnoxious website, but to see the actual text that was copied, you'd have to press "About me" at the bottom of the page. If you find the copied text, skip to the next section.
  3. Particularly if the pages are long, there might be scattered copying that could indicate close paraphrasing. Running the duplication detector (linked from the CSB template or accessed here) can help. If you find evidence of close paraphrasing, skip to the next section.
  4. If there's nothing similar, you may have a "false positive." They happen sometimes. Remove the CSB notice and, if the contributor is upset, maybe try pointing out that false positives can be annoying, but the bot does such good work that we hope it can be overlooked.
  • Is the flagged source an external site that is probably under copyright?
  1. If the article can't survive without the duplicated content and there's no reason to believe the editor who placed it here owns the copyright, tag it for {{db-G12}}.
  2. If the duplicated content can be removed, remove it. Caveat: if somebody will copy from one source, they'll often copy from others. It's a really good idea to look at what remains to see if that may be copied from somewhere else. I do google snippet checks. I find this is particularly likely when an article about a company copies content from the company website; other sections are often taken from other pages of the company website. You don't have to notify the contributor of anything; CSB did that already.
  3. If the duplicated content can't be easily removed and you think the editor who placed it here may own it or you think that the article can be rewritten, instead tag it with {{copyvio}}. It generates two notices in a box in the lower right corner. Drop one on the contributor and the other at WP:CP. It tells you which and where. :) (I've just realized I steered you wrong here. This is true if you find a copyvio not through SCV, but if it's at SCV, you don't have to list it again. So sorry! The SCV listing is good enough. You just put the tag on it from the notation templates saying what you've done.)
  • After handling the issue, note your resolution at WP:SCV. There are templates created to make this easier. When you press "edit" on the page, the notation templates are visible in a green collapse box at the very top. There are quite a few of them, but you'll find that you only routinely use a couple, and they get to be old hat very quickly.

Reverts[edit]

Thank you HF25 for reverting those edits by that idiot while I was away. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second pair of eyes?[edit]

Hurricanefan25, I'm helping out with the Katarighe reviews.

I ran into one that I think is fine, but could use another pair of eyes. It is from 12-23. The Gun laws in South Carolina article.

Here's what I can tell:

  • The content does match this site
  • A claim is made that the "source" was copied from Wikipedia.
  • I don't see anything on the source saying so.
  • However, the WP article is a split from Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • One key word “alter-ego”, was added in August 2010 here.
  • I don't think the source had that material in Feb 2011
  • There's a relevant discussion here

I think it is fair to assume that if the material was in Wikipedia before it was in FBI Criminal Background Check and Gun Laws, they've copied from us, but I'd like someone else to reach the same conclusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later, when I have the time. HurricaneFan25 18:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, in advance--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a for-profit site, (there's a "please donate to us" link or something like that), and given that their "claim of copyright" notice for the content on that page is from January 2010 at latest (see older copyright notice from the "17 captures" link from the Wayback Machine), and the added content was from August, it looks like the site was using it purely from Wikipedia, as many commercial sites do. See also [1] - the text is not from Wikipedia, so it could be their own work. It's not on any other site, either, so the above article you mentioned could have been a copyvio. It's possible that took it from Wikipedia, though I'm not 100% sure. I'd send it to WP:CP for attention. HurricaneFan25 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for looking into this. (Nit alert - when you said "for-profit" did you mean "not-for-profit"? I didn't see the request, but I normally associate requests for donations with "not-for-profits". However, I don't think this is central, so I won't dwell any more on it.) Second, this item is at SCV, see third item in list.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Hut8.5 provided this helpful analysis demonstrating evidence of the backwards copy when I asked the same question about Gun laws in North Carolina. The whole batch of these split pages (and the main page come to that) should probably have a backwards copy tag on their talk pages.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool - things to do[edit]

Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:

  • We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
  • A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012[edit]

A beer for you![edit]

Many thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page - enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! HurricaneFan25 17:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cup multiplier suggestions[edit]

Oh, forgot to note that I replied at WT:CUP earlier. (Just ignore me if you saw already! :) ). - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Hurricanefan25. You have new messages at Sp33dyphil's talk page.
Message added 00:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low Readership: Low to High Readership: High, while for quality the scale goes from Low Quality: Low to High Quality: High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Trans-Asia   Readership: High Quality: Low Irene Lentz
Readership: High Quality: Low Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward   Readership: High Quality: High 1953 Atlantic hurricane season
Readership: High Quality: Low Entrainment (meteorology)   Readership: High Quality: Low Interstate 210 (Louisiana)
Readership: High Quality: Low 1919 Atlantic hurricane season   Merge
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Irene de Kok   Readership: High Quality: Low Polar cyclone
Readership: High Quality: Low George Dawes Green   Readership: High Quality: Low Sign language on television
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Irini Terzoglou   Readership: High Quality: Low Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica
Readership: Low Quality: Low Tropical Meteorology Project   Add sources
Readership: High Quality: Low Year of Sorrow   Readership: High Quality: Low Covenant marriage
Readership: Medium Quality: Low 1918 Atlantic hurricane season   Readership: High Quality: Low Irene, Gauteng
Readership: High Quality: Low Dave Fennell   Readership: High Quality: High Occupy Wall Street
Readership: High Quality: Low Hurricane Deck, Missouri   Wikify
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Zhetysu (airline)   Readership: High Quality: High Georgian Airways
Readership: High Quality: Low Lotus Flower (song)   Readership: High Quality: Medium Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
Readership: High Quality: Low List of films shot in the Philippines   Readership: Low Quality: Low Haknam High School
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Bob Sheets   Expand
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Tropical cyclone seasonal forecasting   Readership: High Quality: Medium Amagami
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting model   Readership: High Quality: High Transgender
Readership: High Quality: Low Hurricane belt   Readership: Medium Quality: Low Effects of Hurricane Georges in Haiti

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACC interface access request[edit]

Confirmation edit. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 19:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012[edit]

Re: GT question[edit]

Basically, if there are any hurricanes that have their own articles but don't have the information to be a GA, then they should either be merged into the appropriate article, as some have, or would have to go through peer review to make sure everything that can be in the article is actually there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on Scott's page[edit]

Hi!

I didn't see your post before now, but I agree with your points.

At the same time, I noted that Scott's block may have been warranted, arguably, for a short time anyhow, because of the sanctity of ArbCom pages. (See that NW gave a formal warning on my talk page. Such warnings are important in protecting persons from arbitrary blocks, by establishing a standard of fair warning. I didn't think that NW was posturing, but rather protecting future persons by giving a fair warning to me.)

I do appreciate your note, which shows character, because I believe that we may have disagreed before. At least another hurricane specialist and I have disagreed, briefly, before chatting amiably and forgetting about it....)

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YGM[edit]

Hello, Hurricanefan25. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.-- DQ (t) (e) 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read and acknowledged. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your advice on a GA nomination[edit]

I'm a bit worried about an Atlantic tropical storm GAN that I'm doing. I'd appreciate it if you'd please see my analysis at the bottom of Talk:Tropical Storm Colin (2010)/GA1, and share your thoughts (either there, or in private via email). I'm also asking Cyclonebiskit, BTW. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool[edit]

Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Article for deletion[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Article for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: new user warning test results available[edit]

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

  1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
  2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

office hours[edit]

Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low Readership: Low to High Readership: High, while for quality the scale goes from Low Quality: Low to High Quality: High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Solanum cajanumense   Readership: High Quality: Medium Paraguay
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Weatherwise   Readership: High Quality: Low Butterflies and Hurricanes
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Lixion Avila   Readership: High Quality: Medium Ellen Barkin
Readership: High Quality: Low Sternpost   Merge
Readership: High Quality: Low Hurricane engineering   Readership: Medium Quality: High Tropical Depression Ten (1994)
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Dania Beach Hurricane   Readership: Low Quality: Low Index of Economic Freedom 2003–2006
Readership: High Quality: Low Luo Yixiu   Readership: High Quality: Low Junkanoo
Readership: Low Quality: Low Frank Umont   Add sources
Readership: Low Quality: Low Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes   Readership: Medium Quality: Low 1923 Atlantic hurricane season
Readership: High Quality: Low History of tropical cyclone-spawned tornadoes   Readership: High Quality: Medium Spontaneous human combustion
Readership: High Quality: Low Hurricane Electric   Readership: High Quality: High Florida
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Dou Gu   Wikify
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Vinh Stadium   Readership: High Quality: Low Protectorate of the Western Regions
Readership: Low Quality: Low Hurricane (Athlete song)   Readership: Medium Quality: Low Carmelo Arden Quin
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Hurricane Punch   Readership: Medium Quality: Low Courtney Coventry
Readership: Medium Quality: Low David M. Roth   Expand
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Feng Yi   Readership: High Quality: High Hurricane Gordon (1994)
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Minister over the Masses   Readership: Low Quality: Medium Effects of Hurricane Georges in Florida
Readership: High Quality: Low USS Hurricane (PC-3)   Readership: Low Quality: Low Hurricanes (Pull Tiger Tail song)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012[edit]

February[edit]

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter[edit]

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
  • Byzantine Empire Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
  • Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

If you continue removing Rlevse sockpuppet tags, I'm going to open up a thread about you on the administrator's noticeboard. Raul654 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring BarkingMoon's user page. I use his abbreviations and copied the category gnomes there. He was a good one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses[edit]

Why on earth would you publicly discuss details about an editor's IP address? Please don't do that again. 28bytes (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm[edit]

What's up? WormTT · (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Calabe1992 15:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You! December 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
With great appreciation, I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012[edit]

Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Imzadi 1979 → 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metros[edit]

I was just wondering, should I do future Metros to here or your alt? Oh and welcome. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 23:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my alt, thanks. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012[edit]

Talk page[edit]

I've made it 97% instead of 825px as different people have different screen sizes. It was too small for me the box. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012[edit]

Reminder[edit]

Just a reminder to say that we use pressure data from Reunion, not the NRL. :) Bruvtakesover (T|C) 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Category talk:NPOV disputes[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:NPOV disputes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's over, thanks also to you! 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012[edit]

My RfA[edit]

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean tropical cyclone[edit]

With all of the new refs that have been added to User:Atomic7732/Mediterranean tropical cyclone, can we restore this article, and with its contents? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, can I take that as a yes? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to, but IMO that version isn't written very well (no offense). I have a sandbox for the article in my userspace, but I don't feel like working on it at the moment. HF25 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012 Moving images drive[edit]

Delivered by —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:48pm • on 07:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter[edit]

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was United Kingdom Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) and Scotland Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving 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) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March[edit]

Retired[edit]

Any reason why you "retired"?.Jason Rees (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HurricaneFan's edit summary references a lack of time. I know it's a problem that a lot of editors have faced, and I for one hope that in the future HF'll find some time and space to starting editing again. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is sad to see you go. Good luck with your future life. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bye Bye, HF25, I'll miss you. I hope you come back some time. JG (edits · sandbox) 02:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes and good luck. →Στc. 01:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A shame, another good user leaving. We've had too much of that recently. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hurricanefan25/Archive_4&oldid=1148839680"