User talk:Hylian Auree/Archive 0

Adoption request
Hello there, ! I'm Netalarm and I have been around for quite some time now. I'm messaging you because I've noticed that you've indicated that you want to be adopted on your user page. I'd be more than happy to help you find a match for an adopter. All you have to do is fill out the survey located here so I can have the necessary information to match you up. Of course, you may also choose your own adopter - the instructions to do so are also on that page. If you have any questions, feel free to message me on my talk page.


 * Click here to go to the survey

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Netalarm talk 20:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopted!
Hi there! Trusilver has agreed to adopt you! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or Trusilver. Netalarm talk 21:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Yeah...
I reported the IP to WP:AIV. Thanks for letting me know.  Darren 23 Edits 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Nicole (2010)
Please refrain from changing the pressure to 996mb; according to the running best track supplied by the National Hurricane Center, it had a minimum pressure of 995mb. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has done this yet
Hi, and welcome to the Tropical cyclone WikiProject! We are a group of Wikipedia editors who help to improve articles related to tropical cyclones on Wikipedia.

Looking for somewhere to start? Here are a few suggestions. If you have any comments, suggestions, or would like to talk about the project in general, feel free to leave a message on the talk page. Thanks for your work in the current Atlantic storm articles. It is very much appreciated. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 19:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can check out topics on the main page.
 * You can re-assess tropical cyclone-related articles to assure they are up to standards.
 * See the to do list for the WikiProject, and opt to try and complete some of those tasks.
 * Check out the guidelines to get an idea of the project's standards.
 * If you want to work on an article, Category:Stub-Class Tropical cyclone articles is a great place to start.
 * You can also check out the newsletter.
 * For further information, you could join the Wikipedia tropical cyclones IRC channel.

Otto
Hi. Your edit HERE was not explained in the Edit Summary. Please summarize your edits in the Edit Summary box provided so everyone will know what you are trying to do. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

If we cannot use the name Netherland/Dutch Antilles any longer...
...for your part of the world, what should we call them? I saw through the BBC that the islands formerly known as the Netherland or Dutch Antilles are not called by this name anymore. This is bound to come up in future hurricane articles. Thanks for whatever answer you can provide. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Shary Image
Done. - HurricaneSpin    Talk to me  00:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That image is off edge, ragged and pretty much blurry. I would wait for an NRL image though, which is flattened and tilted north, since it's an grayscale image, the size is slightly smaller and is around 1-3MB. NRL had been really slow lately so we might have to wait for a little. I can still upload it if you want but idk what it will look like when its done. - HurricaneSpin    Talk to me  15:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: adoption
Yea, I've never done it officially, but I'd love to help you out. I really liked your Shary article, btw. I should warn you that I have high standards. I still pick on some of our veteran editors for when they make newbie mistakes. There really isn't going to be a firm ending for the adoption period, and I do hate to think of it as an adoption. I'll give you pointers here and there, see what I can do to help you become the best editor you can be.

My first suggestion is for you to join the IRC channel. It facilitates communication, although I should warn you that right now there are several immature people on there. There is the option for private chat, though, which I find ideal. Basically it's like IMing someone, only I don't need your screenname. All you have to do is go to this website, freenode, enter your Wikipedia user name, put #wiki-hurricanes under channel, do the reCAPTCHA thing, and press "Connect". I'm not sure how much longer I'll be on there tonight, but I'm on there often enough so I will probably meet up with you eventually.

Either way, here are my next suggestions. Focus on older articles (1994 and earlier), since they are harder to find good summaries of. Remember, we're on Wikipedia to summarize everything. Anyone can find anything on Hurricane Katrina, or Hurricane Mitch, or Floyd, but it's much harder to find good, solid summarizing info on Tropical Storm Alberto (1994), or Hurricane Gilbert, or even older storms like the 1935 Labor Day hurricane. Next, always use edit summaries. It's just a good habit to get into, and it's helpful for someone watching the article.

More later. Lemme know what you think, and thanks for thinking of me in the first place! Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, sounds great! And I heard I missed you on IRC. Blargh, we'll meet up on there sometime. For starters, I made some edits to Shary's article. They were mostly minor, but they are things that would eventually have to have been done. First, there was a simple grammar error in the lede. The usage of "that" vs. "which", can be confusing, but long story short, "that" should be used since it is a restrictive clause. Considering the typical grammar errors that usually appear in articles, it is very minor. Next, when you use units, you should have a non-breaking space between the number and the unit. That way, the number is not on a different line than the unit, basically the two stay together. Next (and this I didn't do), try not to make the lede too long. You say in one sentence:

"A strong tropical storm, Shary was not expected to further intensify since shear conditions aloft were turning adverse."

However, we already know it became a hurricane. Were you trying to say, "At one point, it was a strong tropical storm, and was not expected to intensify..."? Either way, it was initially not expected to strengthen much. When you make the lede, you're basically giving the plot summary of a storm. As corny as it sounds, you have to make it sound interesting. I would have said,

"Initially only expected to reach winds of 50 mph (85 km/h), Shary defied predictions and became a minimal hurricane on October 30." Something like that, which is verifiable from the first discussion.

Another thing. You mention how Shary was only the third "S" storm. However, that sort of info is regarded as trivia, and it doesn't usually appear in articles. Why is it significant that it is one of three "S" names? What makes that important (the active season) has already been mentioned, so not only is it trivia, but it's redundant. You don't need to mention that Shary made the 2010 season the Xth most active (since that is seasonal info). Do you get what I'm saying? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's just the thing. If it's trivia, it doesn't belong in an article. Naming is trivial - it is a human-aspect of tropical cyclones that doesn't really matter. Most of the public (at least people I've talked to) doesn't even know that the Atlantic hurricanes are named sequentially. The fact that three storms were named with the letter "S" is pretty irrelevant. It's the fact that there were 18 named storms (19 now) that's important, but that sort of info belongs in the season article (save for the brief mention "of the unusually active season"). All in all, Shary was a fairly typical October storm, sans how it quickly intensified. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Otto (2010)
There are two things that need your help before I can pass it. -- intelati  talk 22:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * GA passed-- intelati  talk  01:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You around?
Hey man, how are you doing? I'm surprised I haven't seen you around. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 20:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Miyagi earthquake GA nomination
Please see Talk:April_2011_Miyagi_earthquake/GA1. Sorry for not passing it, but I think it really needs some more expansion, improving the flow and addition of another image. Please fix these issues and then renominate. Otherwise, the article is good work. Nanobear (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

GA reassessment
An article that you have been involved in editing, April 2011 Fukushima earthquake has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive update
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work

 * I'd love to work on the 2003 article with you, if you don't mind. I wrote the original article quite a while ago, and would love to see it improved.  ceran  thor 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 Arauco earthquake for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Arauco earthquake 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 Articles for deletion/2011 Arauco earthquake 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Diego Grez (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of June 2011 Christchurch earthquake for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article June 2011 Christchurch earthquake 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 Articles for deletion/June 2011 Christchurch earthquake 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Diego Grez (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Arlene precursor
Over at Tropical Storm Arlene (2011)‎‎ is an image you have uploaded of the precursor disturbance to Arlene. How did you come across it? Do you know the time it was taken or with what satellite? I'm just looking for additional information. At least one other Wikipedian does not find the image very useful (everyone is entitled to there own opinion), but I thought it might be useful with some additional context in the image file, time taken, and satellite, kind of image (IR or VIS) etc. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only have you have you not responded to my inquiry, but you replaced the NOAA EVL image of the day with in infrared image with this edit. How is that image better than either of the images in question? I don't want to change the image back if you are just going to revert it, so I just want to let you know I would like to see the inclusion of a IMO great (certainly in the EVL's opinion), detailed image of Arlene just after organization. Perhaps the "blob" (precursor to Arlene) could be exchanged for the EVL's image? --TimL (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate your feedback. --TimL (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * Thanks once again! ★ Auree  talk 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work!

 * Omnomnom... they certainly were. I appreciate the compliment! ★ Auree  talk 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia article format
As for referencing, Citing_sources explains how wikipedia referencing works. While I did not see an explicit rule saying ref citation needs to lie after punctuation marks, none of their ref formats (outside the floating format used in books) indicates another method. It does mention that articles should be consistent with their referencing. This means that if you prefer referencing in places other than after punctuation marks, this needs to be done throughout the entire article.

For wikilinks, [] explains how liberally to apply wikilinks. Apparently we shouldn't be wikilinking geographical locations at all, but one occurrence won't get us in trouble later on. Experience with the GAN and FAC process indicates that this article will be picked apart if we don't follow these formats, hence the reversion to your reversions. Just trying to help out here. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called inline citations; it's perfectly acceptable. I am doing exactly what I am supposed to do, which is citing stuff to the relevant source. Sometimes, that will be a fragment rather than an entire sentence, while other times it'll be an entire paragraph. As for "this needs to be done throughout the entire article," there aren't many other instances where similar referencing was required. I've been through several GAN and FAC processes, and it's never been picked apart for. In fact, I think it's preferable to cite the adequate piece of text without including non-sourced material, regardless of whether it's preceded by a punctuation mark or not. ★ Auree  talk 22:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting directly from Wikipedia:Citing sources, "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence". ★ Auree  talk 22:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you saw possible contention in the two occurrences that were in the article, revert away. In my opinion, I didn't see anything particularly contentious or controversial in the entire article.  Considering how new it is, it was rather well put together.  Also, NHC does classify systems as post-tropical, like Environment Canada does.  It was a somewhat contentious issue at the NOAA hurricane conference in November 2009.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first source only mentions the acceleration, though the succeeding one mentions the deep flow. Citing the entire sentence using the first source doesn't seem very appropriate to me. Also, that's just a glossary listing the definition. The NHC doesn't release statements and explicit classifications for systems considered post-tropical. Even so, read the respective source; it strongly implies that the storm was declassified as a tropical system, not that it was classified as a post-tropical one. ★ Auree  talk 22:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't true, they clearly have "Post-tropical cyclone" listed here. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a Cindy example. Here's the Bret example. They were the ones fighting for it in 2009.  Just FYI.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say is that they don't release statements to issue the formation or classification of a post-tropical cyclone. I never implied that they didn't consider systems post-tropical. In general, saying that a previously tropical cyclone was declassified as one seems much more appropriate than saying that it was classified as a post-tropical one ★ Auree  talk 22:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * NHC fought for this capability, and uses it in their final advisories for systems. HPC will follow suit whenever a system becomes post-tropical over land.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just going with what the discussion in the source says, really. The only place it mentions post-tropical is in the title. ★ Auree  talk 22:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...which means NHC is initiating the classification of systems as post-tropical. No one else wrote those advisories...and OPC was still posting that NHC terminology on the Unified Surface Analysis this morning.  The loop shows the post-tropical terminology both with Bret and Cindy.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But you see, that's just making things difficult. Why go with saying it was classified as a post-tropical cyclone while that's mentioned no where in the source. We should really just go with what the source gives us, and that is that it was declassified. "BRET IS NOT GENERATING ENOUGH ORGANIZED CONVECTION TO BE CONSIDERED A TROPICAL CYCLONE." Sounds pretty solid to me. They might classify systems as post-tropical, but I'm really talking about this specific instance right now. Besides, if you look at it, it's pretty fruitless since a post-tropical cyclone is per definition a previously tropical cyclone that has been declassified as one. Essentially, the classification of a post-tropical cyclone is the declassification of a tropical one. Can you say the same the other way around? ★ Auree  talk 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because only NHC forces this post-tropical/remnant low wording upon the masses. None of the other RSMCs globally use remnant low or post-tropical terminology (The Canadian Hurricane Center/Environment Canada are a TCWC, which is a subcategory).  You normally don't see U.S. National Weather Service Offices using that terminology at all because of public understanding.  We just wanted your understanding on this issue that NHC does classify systems post-tropical, which included Bret.  Both of us are right concerning whether post-tropical or losing tropical characteristics should be included within the article, so either is viable.  It's not worth a revert war.  Just know that others within the TC project might make the same edit for the same reason.  Normally, when that type of edit (when both sides are correct) is made, a reversion is not made nor necessary.  FYI.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to discuss this and shedding some light on your point of view. While I do agree with you, I think it's appropriate to relay what sources say as accurately as possible; in this case, the current wording coincides with that more IMO. ★ Auree  talk 23:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Interested in talking to you about Hurricane Irene revisions
Hi, I'm Lauren Orsini, a reporter at the Daily Dot (dailydot.com). I'm contacting you and a few other top editor to the Hurricane Irene page to do a story about how Wikipedia pages are built around events as they are still occurring. If you're interested, please contact me on Wikipedia or at lauren@dailydot.com, the sooner the better (I might lose power in this storm). And pardon any mistakes -- I'm brand new. Laureninspace (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I just sent you an email and if you can answer it sooner rather than later, it'd be a big help! Laureninspace (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

More informative edit summaries would be helpful
What were you objecting to here? 76.254.20.205 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

vortex data
I am a pilot who flew into Hurricane Hugo during Operation Hawkeye (President Bush ordered federal forces to St. Croix to suppress the violence, protect property, and restore law and order. Elements of the Army, Navy and the Coast Guard, along with a contingent from the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) formed Joint Task Force (JTF) 40 for Operation Hawkeye.)

I don't see how referenced data from the National Center For Atmospheric Research is speculative. I have two sons in Wilmington and watched the data all night. I stopped when it passed Wilmington While watching every buoy live I never saw anything anywhere near 100. The most I saw was in the 40's gusting 50 I saw every drop from the hurricane hunter The time and position are all there.

This is the actual report from the Hurricane hunter just as the storm went from SC to NC Vortex Data Message You can see in D the max wind at the surface and f is the max wind at flight level If you don’t understand this Vortex Data Message you can find out what everything means online. If you don’t understand it, does not mean others don't too

000 URNT12 KNHC 261724 VORTEX DATA MESSAGE  AL092011 A. 26/17:06:00Z B. 31 deg 02 min N 077 deg 29 min W C. 700 mb 2660 m D. 68 kt E. 049 deg 43 nm F. 137 deg 92 kt G. 050 deg 84 nm H. 951 mb I. 14 C / 3046 m J. 18 C / 3055 m K. 8 C / NA L. NA M. NA N. 12345 / 7 O. 0.02 / 3 nm P. AF306 2709A IRENE             OB 22 MAX FL WIND 105 KT SE QUAD 13:36:40Z MAX FL TEMP 20 C 251 / 11 NM FROM FL CNTR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.207 (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion
>>>>Please stick to the official sources, i.e the NHC, (which had the storm at 85 mph at landfall; not 100mph) and weather buoys. and should not be mentioned. Last warning

How is the national center for atmospheric research speculative?.... while you let Dr Jeffs Wunderblog stick as an official source just saying an offical spotter reported? Who When Where ??? http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.207 (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)