User talk:Cyclonebiskit/Archive17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cyclonebiskit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There's an unblock request at User talk:Stt13, relating to a block you placed 8 months ago. I am inclined to give the editor another chance, and see whether he or she will fulfil his/her promise not to be so silly again. Do you have any opinion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I have no strong feelings either way, but (almost) everyone deserves a second chance. Having them come back and ask to be unblocked, while accepting their actions were wrong, after a talk page block for 6 months is a good sign, at least. If you think it's worth giving them this chance, go ahead and unblock them. Just keep a close eye on their actions for a little while, particularly talkspace edits. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your comments, including the need to keep a watch on edits for a while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Sandra (2015) 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 KN2731 -- KN2731 (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested that 1970 Bhola cyclone is at PR. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The article Hurricane Sandra (2015) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hurricane Sandra (2015) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. ~ KN2731 {talk} 08:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: if they're willing to handle things with a level head and refrain from personal attacks/harassment, I don't see the harm in giving them a second chance with condition that if they do so again the ban will be permanent. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Related, but new topic, how do you like these admin notifications?--v/r - TP 02:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've never used it before but seems interesting. Guess it's a more formal way to handle certain requests rather than an off-the-cuff message on a talk page. I'd have to sit down and look at it a bit closer to give a more useful answer, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jdcomix (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jdcomix (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Would you like to join in the poll/consensus/contribution of the Season forecasts table in the Wikiproject talk page? I would appreciate it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [4]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Four years ago ...

work on cyclones
... you were recipient no. 148 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Today: Satoru Iwata, "widely regarded as one of the main (if not, the main) people who brought video games to the general public en masse." Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

In this picture, the frame selected for Patricia was 0415z. The TCR caption said this was at the time of its 185-knot peak intensity, but 0415z is almost 8 hours before the analyzed peak intensity. I'm just wondering what's up with this discrepancy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect April 27–30, 2014 tornado outbreak/Map. Since you had some involvement with the April 27–30, 2014 tornado outbreak/Map redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about getting a perfect so-called blurb at TFAR; that's just to give people something to vote on. I've applied a few TFA rules to tighten in up, and now it's down to 947 characters, so it could use between 125 and 225 more ... anything you want to add? - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dank: Thanks for cleaning it up . First thing that comes to mind that should likely be included is the financial downturn after the success of the Wii (evens out the positivity and yields a more neutral blurb), but I'll need to skim through the article another time just to be sure of what the most important pieces are. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Great idea. That gets it up to 1150, so I'm not sure if we have room for anything else, unless you want to trim something. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dank: I think it's perfect now! Anything else that could be added is probably not major enough anyways. Thanks again for this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [5]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [6]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The article 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Shmuplations just translated another excellent Iwata interview here that could really flesh out some of the early sections of the article. Indrian (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Indrian: What perfect timing! Have a few days before the article appears on the main page. I'll definitely give it a read soon and add whatever information I can. I'm a bit busy keeping up with Typhoon Nepartak (2016) at the moment, but I should be able to make time for this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Pokemon Moon boxart.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am planning to help in making storm tracks for the project. Ok, so far I have 1) Created a GitHub account, 2) went to [git clone git://github.com/titoxd/wptc-track.git this] and 3) Clicked 'Clone or Download'... Am I doing it right so far? If so, since I've already downloaded it, I have 3 files (data, png and tracks). Where do I go and what do I do now? Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, some people have some suggestions for us in the first section at WP:ERRORS. I'd appreciate it if you'd read over it and let us know there if you want to make any changes. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, that thread has been deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dank: sorry for the delayed response, been busy most of the day and haven't had time to check wiki. Read through the thread and it seems like more of personal style than an actual issue so it didn't seem worth changing imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why add a break after Pali? You do have a point about "because of no systems within February-May, but I'm sure we did go over something like this with others a long time ago. There are many timelines similar to this now like the 2013 PTS, possibly the 2015 PHS and the current 2016 AHS. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: It's mainly for aesthetics and to avoid unnecessary space wasting. The rows are there mainly so that text doesn't overlap, and with such a huge gap between Pali and One-E there's no reason to have to start from row 3. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Either we break after Pali or not, there will still be 'space wasting'. And yes the rows are there for to avoid overlapping of text. I clearly remember someone doing the same for the 2013 PTS article, and someone said no need to break after the storm. I have made a lot of these timelines and everywhere else, the timelines are/should be the same by breaking in even columns. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

They don't need to be, should just be a case-by-case basis. I've been here for nine years, remember Having things be overly rigid is off-putting and makes things a bit boring. Having some differences gives a subtle addition to any page. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Let's try and see what happens with this timeline. Ok I agree with this now, but are you still fine with the timeline breaking in evenly amount of columns (about 6-8 storms per column)?? Like most seasons? Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I have no issues at all with that. My only change was regarding periods of little activity when the storms are spaced out far enough that they can be brought to the first line. Having regular, even spacing during the active periods is definitely preferable. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How about the 2016 AHS timeline? Alex was the only storm forming well outside the hurricane season, which Bonnie formed 5 months later. Do we still do the same? Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Over a year ago I got in contact with Dr. Landsea about position errors within some of the tracks published in the 1951-55 HURDAT update. He responded saying those tracks did contained topographic errors and it would be fixed in the next release of the dataset. Well those errors are still there with the 1956-1960 update. Maybe you could give him a reminder to fix the following tracks whenever you get the next chance.

• Hurricane 13 1954
• Hurricane Diane 1955
• Tropical Storm Carla 1956

Thanks in advance Supportstorm (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Supportstorm: I'll write a note to remind him when I get into the office on Monday, but we likely won't add them until the next HURDAT update since we'll need to check over the data again and make sure the corrected positions align with the data. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pokémon Go, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sweetwater, Florida. 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) 09:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, on Pokémon Go I may have messed with your most recent edits, could you double check to see if I didn't break anything you did? Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I don't see any accidental changes, looks fine to me! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please create the track for Celia? Celia dissipated 2 days ago and still doesn't have a track. Thanks! Ok it's been nearly 2 day since Celia dissipated. Can someone please publish the track for Celia?? Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: It's up now. I've been a bit distracted by Pokémon Go lately and haven't been paying as much attention to TC articles :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

All goods, just reminding you. Same with me lol, I've been playing Pokemon Go lately and I'm addicted to it. Unrelated, what team are you in? I'm Valor. Typhoon2013 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Same here! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yay, hehe! :P Typhoon2013 (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please could you upgrade tracks from Juliette and Lorena in the 2013 Pacific hurricane season still they do not have the trajectory according to the TCR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel1779 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Miguel1779: Thanks for letting me know! I've gone ahead and updated both of the tracks. If you run across any others that need to be updated, just let me know. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cyclonebiskit, did you have any words from NHC about that discussion that we had some months ago? ABC paulista (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@ABC paulista: ah yes, I forgot to message back. This is something we likely won't look at until we gear up until next year's HURDAT update. The primary focus at the moment is active storms and TCR writeups. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks for the attention. ABC paulista (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Cyclonebiskit. I'm just posting to let you know that Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 26. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Ella (1970), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abasolo. 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) 09:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You called the $34 billion damage estimate questionable. Why is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@September 1988: The $33 billion claim for Florida is not backed up by a linked report in the provided source and all major sources that I'm aware of indicate damage in the state to be $25 billion. It's basically an outlier total that needs additional support to be worth mentioning. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)It seems that the Groundhog storm of 1952 is been re-classified to a Subtropical Storm, right? Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T.: It has not be reclassified. There was not enough evidence to support reclassification and it was left as tropical in HURDAT2 ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)OK, I agree with you, but I can still say that it's subtropical. This isn't my first time editing, but I edited the 2008, 2009 and 2012 Pacific typhoon season articles to include replaced names. Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)also, I edited the "List of Atlantic-Pacific crossovers" to include Earl and Javier, but Hank Dolce removed my edit, however, "CycloneYoris" restored my edit but in an other way.

@Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T.: Claiming it's subtropical would constitute Original Research. We can't make claims based on our own assessments, we have to follow official sources. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)OK! Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Anyway, I decided to give you this link: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/weather/fl-2015-hurricane-history-revised-20150612-story.html

Hey, I saw that the track map for 2012's Hurricane Ernesto has a mistake, it says that it's a Category 2 hurricane, but in the Track map, I never saw the Yellow C2 Circles. Can you fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T.: The track maps only use 6-hourly positions and Ernesto reached Category 2 between synoptic times. Because of this, the map won't show a Category 2 point. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new summary map with PNG-format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francjñg (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The image needs to be updated to include Fiona and Gaston, would appreciate it if this is done soon. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you update the map again to include more of Gaston's path and newly formed TD 8? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting that you update it again to include the rest of Gaston and Hermine's path. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Julia to be a hurricane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:1102:EFAF:802E:46B7:E50B:96F3 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Julia was a minimum tropical storm, not a hurricane. No reason to add that. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I am working in the field of hurricanes and more generally tropical cyclones, and for tracks of very recent cyclones, I am often relying on what is posted in Wikipedia. In the regard, I would be very interested to know more about the source of the tracking data, and to get full description of the headers. For example, for Hurricane Hermine (2016), this link shows the hurricane track. It mentions that the tracking data is derived from NOAA, but no description of the fields is provided. Would it be possible to have more information on the following: -link to NOAA tracking data page -description of the data fields (headers)

Thanks a lot for your help and your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA16:3301:2C00:DAA2:5EFF:FE8B:75C7 (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Hello, we meet again, someone had vandalized the 2008 Atlantic Hurricane season page by changing the year to 2099, so the summary can't be shown, however, I undid his edit, you should thank me, because I saved the page from Vandalism.

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm new to the tracks tool, and every track map I generate yields a file about 3/5 the size of the one you use. Is there a command-line option that I'm missing, or should I just manually download a high-res background map and use the --bg option?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: you just have to download a high resolution version of the blue marble base map. I'm using the 21,600 x 10,800 version. You can simply replace the "bg8192.png" file in the data folder with the higher res one so you don't have to use the --bg command every time, though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you add the rest of Matthew's track and also remove long-asf precursor plots (e.g Hermine, Julia, Earl, Matthew) it makes it look really cluttered and non-fitting compared to to there other season maps. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Mind adding more of Matthews track and Nicole's? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Requesting the rest of Matthew and Nicole's tracks be added. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Would like more of Nicole's track to be added to both season and individual maps. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Same process again ^^ --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind plotting the point for when Matthew was a category 4 during RI on the 30th? The map shows it going from 3 to 5, which isn't standard of the 6-hour plot intervals. It would go right in between the last cat3 point and first cat5 point. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: per the ATCF, Matthew intensified from 110 kt (C3) to 140 kt (C5) during a 6 hour period. The Cat 4 point is intermediate and not plotted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Bringing this up again as I checked this file of Matthew's track, and to clarify is the ATCF or the one I just linked used? Because IMO I think the "NRLMRY/NAVY" (as I'm calling it) is more accurate as it goes by 6-hour points and only has one C5 point, whereas the current track has 2, which is incorrect since Matthew was only a C5 from 11pm EDT to 5am EDT, not for 12 hours. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Take a look at who is behind the ATCF source @MarioProtIV: - It is for that reason and a few others that it is used here primarily until the TCR is released.Jason Rees (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with your edit summary, there are literally no other images of destruction and/or flooding on Commons or in the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your wonderful work on 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado and 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

While I'm here, I might as well suggest 2011 Joplin tornado as your next tornado GA, if you'd be interested. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Well, I just fixed your Typhoon Yagi article because someone did vandalize it, and I hope that guy learned a lesson that he'll never forget, maybe I can remove anything wrong in your articles someday...

I've noticed you've been busy making the article for the history of Matthew. Very good so far! I am thinking that do you mind if I can move this into mainspace so more can help (as well as me, as I can do the "Dissipation" section pretty easily)? If you'd rather do the rest before moving I am perfectly fine with that, I just wanted to see if you are okay with publishing it soon. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: I would much rather wait until I've finished it to have it published. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Let me know if I can help in any way if needed. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cyclonebiskit.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Mind making Otto's track up till now as well as adding it to the seasonal summary map? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break. There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll. If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA). If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December. We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion right now. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Using JMA weather maps to extend western Pacific storm tracks needs to stop. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December. This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points. We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules. In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Can you update Ian's track (and the season map) to include the subtropical portions as stated in its TCR? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove your decision to close my AFD discussion without consensus. I provided strong evidence why the article may not be notable enough for Wikipedia, arguing with well established notability guidelines. I did not want to "illustrate a point". In fact, I think actual extreme weather events such as the Early 2012 European cold wave which are well reviewed by the World Meteorological Organization and others should have a place in Wikipedia. But for this 2017 alleged "cold wave" all we have is that it's a bit colder in some places. No scientific reviews. No in-depth reviews by media.

As Socrates already knew, no one knows anything for sure, therefore I chose a rather diplomatic / restrained language. You may have misinterpreted this when you said this was all based on a "feeling".--TheRandomIP (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheRandomIP: My apologies if I misinterpreted your wording, but the event holds enough notability to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. It has been widely covered in international media and caused extensive disruption to livelihoods, even if only for a week or two. As for in-depth review, there hasn't been enough time since the event for it to be studied. The loss of 61 lives in a short period of time by weather is generally considered notable, but I do understand where you're coming from with the severity of the overall event. If the event were not as widespread (temperature anomaly map covering part of the event) or deadly, I would be more inclined to agree with deletion for what it's worth. However, if you feel that my assessment is incorrect, you are welcome to ask input from another administrator. If you feel strongly enough that community discussion is warranted, you can also bring the discussion for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Best regards, ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of January 2017 European cold wave. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TheRandomIP (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Cyclonebiskit. I just wanted to ask if the JTWC issues a BT for crossover storms from the EPac/CPac to WPac? I am calculating the ACE Index from JTWC in the WPac and I cannot find a BT for Genevieve within the WPac. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: They're supposed to as far as I'm aware, not how Genevieve fell through though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I was just going through old PTS articles and just found out that you haven't finished updating the 2009 PTS map. They are not in its BT and Nida's track isn't completed. Also to cut Hawaii out as it is in a different basin. Thanks so much! Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mind if I help on expanding the met. history of Matthew draft you made? It hasn't had any info on the storm after it's Haiti landfall and the proposed southwards turn it was expected to do, and I'd love to help expand those. Also, maybe you could move it into draftspace so more people could help? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: I'm just waiting on the TCR to be released before going back to it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: IMO Matthew's TCR may not be out until March, because of it being such a destructive and powerful hurricane (look at Joaquin and Patricia's, although theirs came out in February, but you get the point). I can still help expand it using the advisories like the rest has been so far. Once the TCR is out we can just edit parts of the meteorological history to adjust with that info. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What's up with the 2 day extension of Hermine's Dissipation day? The track looks different too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 01:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Deghop: The NHC released their Tropical Cyclone Report for Hermine today so the track has been updated to reflect their best track. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3. In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I'm not gonna lie, I got a good chuckle out of this edit summary :D --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 14:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Cyclonebiskit, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just an FYI since you've done most of the work on it; I've nominated this article at GAN. If it passes I'm happy to let you have the credit. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is the best track? I can't find. Could you help? --219.79.181.16 (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

How to find the best track from JTWC? --219.79.181.16 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The article 2016 Manzanita tornado you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2016 Manzanita tornado for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Juliancolton -- Juliancolton (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything 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 help keep down 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you offer to be one of the editors to help expand March 2017 nor'easter? It's shaping up to be a big one for the Northeast, and although for some reason preparations by many officials haven't been announced yet or the WPC issuing storm summaries hasn't started, by tomorrow morning/afternoon that should start to take off, as will the article for the storm hopefully. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Also I noticed you did a lot of work on the storm from 2016 so that kind of editing spree might be needed for this storm. WPC has also initiated storm summaries for the storm so yeah. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1993 Storm of the Century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isobars. 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) 09:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much what the title says. I finished the rest of the northward turn to Haiti and landfall, Cuba landfall, the track through the Bahamas and paralleling the SE US and eventually its dissipation. I think at this point it can be moved to mainspace, what do you think? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The TCR isn't even out, so moving it is sort of a waste of time at this point IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, Sandy's met. history page was made during the storm and shortly after it dissipated. And Matthew's TCR has been taking an unusually long time to come out and @Cyclonebiskit: sort of abandoned it in mid-November. Given that it's still not out and I finished the rest, I don't see how moving it is a waste, only a few things would be changed. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you help with expanding Tornado outbreak of April 2, 2017? It's expected to be a significant outbreak and from what I've heard Alexandria, LA is on "boiling water" if you know what I mean by that. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you help style the draft I'm making for Cyclone Ernie into the MH-type article that we have Epsilon and Nadine as? Its the first C5 on the AUS scale since Marcia in 2015 and could be the first C5 on the SSHWS in the Australian region since Ita in 2014. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Wrap Up Hello, GA Cup competitors! Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review. Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively. There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here. Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tropical Storm Erika 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 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there. Can you please generate a track map for the September 2016 Bay of Biscay cyclone? It's something that I and a couple of other users would like to have added to the article. I know that you've been generating storm tracks for years now. I'm sure that the meteorological data for that storm exists somewhere. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Tropical Storm Erika you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tropical Storm Erika for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, 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 help keep down 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Mifter (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Haishen (2008), Karina (2008), Meranti (2004), Karen (2007), do you think they can be merge? --219.79.180.165 (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Those were screen captures I took myself from MY GRAnalyst program on MY laptop. Please restore them as I used them for a subject of discussion on the Tornadoes of 2017 talk page. And I don't know what you mean by privately owned. Radar scans are available, for free download, on the NWS website. If I must I will reupload them myself, but those were MY images, not something I found off the internet. FFS. --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@AVeryWiseWolfy: Having access to GRAnalyst does not make any screenshots you take with it yours. They're inherently property of Gibson Ridge Software (the company that created the program) as proprietary software is used to render the imagery. Screenshots taken directly from NOAA websites are perfectly acceptable to use, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: All radar scans on GRanalyst come from NWS radar stations, thus all radar scans are from NWS, and not property of GR. The program is property of GR, but the scans are not. --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

NWS data are in the public domain, but graphics derived from those data can be copyrighted. In this case, the GR Analyst graphics have not been released under a free license, so are ineligible for uploading to Wikimedia sites (unless you intend to claim fair use in accordance with our non-free content criteria, but as there are free use alternatives – radar imagery directly from the NWS – this is unlikely to stand). Also, for what it's worth, you don't have to ping someone on their own talk page, as they'll receive a notification regardless. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi it is a new Game. We should create a new article. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: almost nothing is known about the games at the moment other than that they exist. Once more information is available they can be split off into a proper article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)