I read your message. I must have got excited and "jumped the gun". It makes me look like an idiot. Sorry again. United States Man ( talk) 02:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for understanding. My stupidity got a bunch of non-project people involved and almost got both of us blocked. I will fix this now. United States Man ( talk) 02:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

To answer you question: When an administrator makes a stupid edit, he deserves to be reverted. United States Man ( talk) 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

If you read the sources it should be very clear the numbers you posted are from early December, and are only preliminary. The narrative makes it very clear it is written in December, not only that but in narrative the NJ PATH train is still down, while in the TCR report the PATH train been restored. The TCR is clearly written after your sources and is more updated. -- 98.255.215.7 ( talk) 03:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

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) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Sorry, thought it was vandalism with it being an explained change on an old article by an IP. Bevo74 ( talk) 21:17, 15 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) 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC) reply

What difference does it make about that stupid timeline. It's not like I am moving it three or four days ahead. Why do you change it back, knowing that in a few hours, it will have to be changed again? It makes absolutely no sense. United States Man ( talk) 01:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Would you mind showing me how to correctly update a track file on Commons. I was just trying to update Henriette, but to no avail. I seem to have done everything right, but the new track doesn't pop up. United States Man ( talk) 15:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Seems like I can't correct the problem either – the new track is on Commons and the other Wikipedias, but even after purge cache in both Commons and Wikipedia I can't seem to be able to render the new track on en.wikipedia. TheAustinMan^{( Talk· Works)} 16:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 ( submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber ( submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata ( submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth ( submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa ( submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden ( submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus ( submissions), Figureskatingfan ( submissions), ThaddeusB ( submissions), Dana boomer ( submissions), Status ( submissions), Ed! ( submissions), 12george1 ( submissions), Calvin999 ( submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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) 06:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata ( submissions), Hawkeye7 ( submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber ( submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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) 23:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth ( submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions)
2. Hawkeye7 ( submissions)
3. Sasata ( submissions)
4. Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions)
5. Casliber ( submissions)
6. Adam Cuerden ( submissions)
7. Miyagawa ( submissions)
8. Piotrus ( submissions)
9. Ealdgyth ( submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

• Casliber ( submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Another Believer ( submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Adam Cuerden ( submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Sven Manguard ( submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Hawkeye7 ( submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• ThaddeusB ( submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Ed! ( submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E ( submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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) 01:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2007 Pacific 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The article 2007 Pacific hurricane season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2007 Pacific hurricane season for comments about the article. Well done!

Message delivered by 
Legobot, on behalf of 
Hurricanehink -- 
Hurricanehink (
talk) 
02:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of the 2012 Pacific hurricane season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• sustained winds of 50 mph (85 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 29.39 inHg).<ref name="Htcr"/>

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of the 2012 Pacific hurricane season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *0000 UTC (5:00 p.m. PDT July 10 – Hurricane Emilia weakens to a Category 2 hurricane

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot ( talk) 22:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

While I would normally agree, in this case, I'd argue that given we've merged tons of timelines, so discussion would simply be redundant and a waste of time. To be honest, it's time for you to accept that most of the project does not like non-featured timelines. FYI, you have broken the WP:3RR. Y E ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply

No, discussion is not always needed for a merger. Ill give you an example. Timelines are redundant to season articles and to be honest, the only reason we're adequate with keeping the featured ones is well, out of convenience. If we merged timelines on similar seasons of similar quality, doesn't common say sense it is best to merge 2000 AHS timeline? Y E ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply

That makes sense. I just did a quick scan of it and saw that it was longer and was mostly sourced. I guess I should have taken time to read it. United States Man ( talk) 17:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello TropicalAnalystwx13, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn ( talk · contribs), The ed17 ( talk · contribs) and Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC) reply

United States Man ( talk) 04:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply

What evidence do you have that the author of those entries are the NWS offices. The WFO section is just informational; it does not credit the NWS. As I said on my talk page (to which you failed to reply), even if I gave you information to write a book, you still wrote the book and would be credited as the author. In this case, NCDC lists no author, so you fail to be in compliance with WP:OR. Now, regarding IEM, they do nothing except relay information that is published by NOAA's NWS offices. Unlike the NCDC, they do not put out anything of their own. United States Man ( talk) 03:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

But you still don't give any evidence of an author. There is no author listed on the entry pages, so how can we list one on Wikipedia without anything to back it up? United States Man ( talk) 04:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Since you haven't answered my question, I feel inclined to remove it again. Do you have any evidence? If so, where? United States Man ( talk) 22:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Jason Rees gave me this, which solves half of the problem. I don't care either way; I just wanted the evidence. United States Man ( talk) 23:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

What about the graphic was misleading? (On a side note, I also don't see any record of it being removed in the past.) Inks.LWC ( talk) 23:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• You'll be writing a three-paragraph lede and a short paragraph impact header for 1846 Havana hurricane by the 14th of January

• I'll copyedit the entire article and send it to GAN.
• After that, feel free to claim GA credit for it in the WikiCup. (Yeah, I know you declined, but I'd appreciate it if you did it.)

• In exchange, I'll collaborate with you, as we discussed, on Hurricane Frances. We'll plan this out sometime later, probably over IRC – we'll wait and see, I suppose.

I'm posting this on WP 'cause I'm holding this to you. You better do it with me or I'mma hunt you down, TA.

See ya. Cloudchased ( talk) 03:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oi; any update on this? What should we be doing for Frances? Cloudchased ( talk) 23:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

This is surely worthy of an article but I don't feel confident enough to write it.

I heard someone describe the "polar vortex" as "Ion", but unfortunately The Weather Channel's one article proving there was such a storm only exists as a link which doesn't go anywhere on their web site. So I'm not sure if the cold air, which is worthy of its own article, counts as part of Hercules.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Most the tables that I deleted were not properly done. they need to have areas effected, instead of landfalls and direct hits.

Sutowe12 ( talk) 19:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Greetings! I apologize for the late getting-around, but this had slipped my mind till you reminded me. Well, I've almost completed this review, but there are a couple of little details I would appreciate clarity on before I go any further. I have them noted in a comments section in the review page; when you have a moment to do so, it'd be great if you could look into them. Thanks! :) Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! ( talk) 06:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply