User talk:Inks.LWC/Archive 7

Mapping the Global Economy
Hi Inks.LWC,

Would you be willing to duplicate this model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States for another country? There has been some work done on China also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is it for? Are any of these ever going to be moved to the mainspace? Inks.LWC (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is meant to be a new Wikimedia sister project focusing on economic data down to the local level. The goal is to have an entirely new wikimedia project instead of replacing the already extensive wikipedia articles.Mcnabber091 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're able to get the project off the ground, I may help sometime down the road. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Would you be willing to sing your name in the support section? That would help. Mcnabber091 (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Where? Inks.LWC (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Under the 'Support' section on this page. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map Mcnabber091 (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
- J-Mo Talk to Me   Email Me  23:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

19 April 2013    (diff | hist) . . m Ontario Provincial Police‎; 04:40 . . (-351)‎ . . ‎Inks.LWC (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Ground: clean up, rm irrelevant, unsourced info using AWB)
Hi,

I'm relatively new to this so please keep that in mind.

Just curious as to how you came to be a censor on Wikipedia? I notice you have a plethora of titles but censor is the one giving me some trouble. If you could please explain what you mean by "... clean up, rm irrelevant, unsourced info ... " because the info is quite relevant, and proven to be correct by the photos that are already there and cited in the material I added. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act is also mentioned as further proof of the contravention of law taking place.Now if you feel police breaking the law is irrelevant please let me know as I think most people don't.

Thanks for your time - but not your censorship :)

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelawforall (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I did not censor anything, so assume good faith when you come to my talk page, or you will find yourself getting ignored next time. Second, the information is not sourced, because proving something through a photograph is original research, which is not allowed. You need to find a reliable source that says that the OPP's vehicles violate the law.  Third, it was irrelevant in that section, because the way it read was out of place and awkward.  The section is talking about what cars the OPP uses, then it says that some cars violate the law, and then it goes on, in the same paragraph to talk about the types of motorcycles used.  It doesn't flow, and is a minor issue in the "Ground fleet" section.  It would fit better in a controversy section if you can find a reliable source. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

19 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . m Ontario Provincial Police‎; 04:40 . . (-351)‎ . . ‎Inks.LWC (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Ground: clean up, rm irrelevant, unsourced info using AWB)
Okay, so clearly you are offended by your offending me and my not appreciating it, or you removing my contribution. Who do I now talk to? My comments were about the illegal modifications to hundreds of the vehicles and you think they are irrelevant, I must admit I find that odd since you don't seem to have a problem with the benign little comment regarding the fact that the one car has a manual transmission ... is it okay to comment on vehicle equipment or not ? What about the last sentence in the section "The OPP has 2 Cambli International Thunder 1 armoured rescue vehicles since 2012 for shared by 3 Tactics and Rescue Units in the province", It is very poorly put together and doesn't "flow" either. "has" should be "have" and "... for shared by ... " makes no sense. How do you decide what should be "cleaned up" and what gibberish can stay? Regarding "OR", you claim you can't prove or demonstrate anything with pictures, yet there are 2 pictures claiming to prove or demonstrate paint schemes ... help me out here, as I said I am new, a picture can be used to prove there is paint on a car but not a bumper guard ? is that correct? So, since according to the H.T.A. (Highway Traffic Act) these vehicles are with out doubt breaking the law with their illegal modifications, and I'm citing the section and article, what other way would you suggest as proof if the law isn't? Considering what you let by, and what you felt must be removed, I'm not sure I see why you feel so strongly that you didn't censor me. I get that there are rules, and that's great, I just think if they are to be cast in stone you need to exercise them to the fullest on every single line of the page, because - no offense - picking and choosing is censorship in my humble opinion. Considering the titles and power you hold on this site I would also expect you would have been a little thicker skinned when it comes to comments made from newbies like my self, in fact I think those titles require you be so, and not be so quick as to threaten to ignore people. You called my efforts irrelevant, you don't find that provoking? I think actions and threats such as yours are very negative and discouraging to people who want to be part of this site, a site that asks every visitor to join in the adding of content to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelawforall (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended by what you said. I'm simply not going to waste my time discussing the issue with you if you're going to rudely come on my talk page and accuse me of violating policies while not actually understanding the policies yourself.  I can clean up whatever I want; there is no rule that when I edit a page, I have to clean up everything.  I noticed that what you had added was original research, so I removed it.  Looking at a picture and observing that there is paint is not original research, as anybody can do that without synthesis (although it would be better if you could find a source that says it); however, looking at a car, and reading a statute, and then determining based off of those two observations that the car violates the statute does violate WP:SYNTHESIS.  But there is nothing in the article that is claiming there is paint on the cars based on the pictures, so I'm not sure why you asked that.  If you want to include the information, find a reliable source that says that the OPP's cars violate the HTA. I am not required to do anything; Wikipedia is a volunteer website.  Furthermore, I never called your efforts irrelevant, so please do not misconstrue my words. Inks.LWC (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies ... I though "RM irrelevant" meant "remove irrelevant". Could you please then explain your use of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelawforall (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because, in my opinion, a discussion about alleged violations of the Act is irrelevant and off-topic in a section talking about the details of the fleet. But even if it is relevant, it had to be removed because it was controversial, unsourced material.  Also, please sign your comments by placing ~ after your posts. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Signed by Sinebot
Just letting you know that your talk page got signed by Sinebot. Seqqis (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Quebec Municipalities
Good day, Noticed a few edits you did with select Quebec municipalities. Just asking if there is a true format for these pages as all other 8-way geographic boxes in Quebec articles are located at the bottom of the article (without headers) just before the subdivision template. If that is the case, then you do realize that there are easily hundreds more that would have to be altered. Let me know your opinions on this when you have a moment. Thanks! Gordalmighty (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles that I'd come across had headers and then the navigational box before the references. After doing some investigating, the more common way appears to have the nav box without a header after the references, so I have gone ahead and reverted my earlier edits.  Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem...and thanks for clearing that up! Gordalmighty (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Earth100

 * Thank you :) Inks.LWC (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Inks you have new messages on my talk page.-- ✯Earth100✯  (talk✉)  08:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Tropical Depressions
They were all TDs. In the North Atlantic basin, many were numbered operationally, then renumbered after the season, and sometimes renumbered again. Some TDs gathered up to four numerical designations, with a couple being named with names off the list, and others getting named by the Navy. The Northeast Pacific should be much easier, as for most years they were only numbered once by the EPHC, then NHC from 1988 onward. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jason Rees (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

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

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Big news!!!
, will appear on the commons MAIN page on June 10 2013!! Please view it on that day! The flower was photographed and grown by me, and is now also considered a Quality image! -- ✯Earth100✯  (talk✉)  05:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane season bar/button
Honestly, I have no idea. The parameter is a legacy parameter from hurricane season bar button that I left because I could not figure out what effect it was having. If you want to eliminate it, go ahead. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Any chance of getting the scales to show up in the buttons now?.Jason Rees (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can work on that. Did the project ever decide where in the template we want the scales to show up? Inks.LWC (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it has always belonged @ the end of the button bar.Jason Rees (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The end as in the right side? The only problem I envision with that is that now that sometimes the template is a lot longer, it may end up getting cut off. I was thinking the bottom? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ill assume you mean just above the books category and other links, which would be fine by me subject to a rework of the scales.Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok the rework i was thinking of was to them running left to right wit a gap between each one to describe what it is. eg: (A1 = Category 1).Jason Rees (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds good. I thought I had it all figured out, and then my trial didn't work, so I got frustrated and took a break.  I'll take a look at it again. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah id guessed as much, BTW try using the Fiji template for any tests you do - its not really deployed anywhere atm so it may be usefull.Jason Rees (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
United States Man (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent vote at Mattythewhite's RFA
You can't !vote twice at an RfA. I indented your most recent !vote. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 23:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. It appears that as I kept putting off !voting, I somehow forgot that I already had. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Button bars
I cant see it myself - see if you can get one of the guys at the technical help desk to help.Jason Rees (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I didn't know there was a technical help desk... would've saved me from looking like a madman as I pulled out my hair while yelling, "Where's the frakking bracket!" :P Inks.LWC (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But of course, the answer to that question is that it's in the frakkin' ship. 10 bonus points to the first person to get the reference. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Earth100
You may wish to comment on the section entitled Reblock on Earth100's talkpage. Regards.Jason Rees (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply regarding Earth100
I agree with you. I was simply telling Earth that there is a definitive way to check for the real identity behind Earth200. Because both of the accounts were indefinitely banned, SPI wouldn't provide much help to the situation regardless of what Earth100 might say. - HurricaneSpin    (Talk)  21:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, just to tell you, Earth200 is a confirmed sock of someone else. -  HurricaneSpin    (Talk)  00:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's currently leads overall, while Pool B's  is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,, with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by, and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by, and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wise
Was this and this wise bearing in mind the history of the page?.Jason Rees (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that was controversial. I was just going through to do some maintenance to make some stuff I want to work on easier later.  Self-reverted as I really don't care that much and don't feel like starting WWIII over a dab/list fight. ;) Inks.LWC (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :).Jason Rees (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
 * , a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
 * , another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
 * , 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
 * , a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
 * , the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
 * , who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
 * , a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
 * 1) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

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

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

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak
I have started a discussion myself to formalize this naming convention at WT:SEVERE. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for you trying to help, at this point though I do not want to bring the issue to WP:ANI unless more disruption happens. I do not agree with some of the behavior that took place on the talkpage in the discussion but have chosen to just let it go and move on now that the discussion is closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Blizzards
Hey, judging by the name of the template, only systems that produced blizzard conditions in the United States should be up there. I went through and removed the few I saw that did not meet blizzard criteria; you mentioned there were others? If so, feel free to remove them or let me know which ones so I can get rid of them. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That works too. I'll check the template later. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Only using talkback here because of the importance of the situation-- I know you're probably watching my talkpage. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've been busy with some law review stuff, so if you need me to respond urgently, TB is probably best for the next 5 days. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
Since you participated in the discussion here, I though you may be interested in this discussion. United States Man (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I may get involved in them, but for now I'm staying out.  I really don't have a big stake one way or another. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Nathan, I undid your edit on the PTS timeline as you removed two or three duplicated references, that were not supposed to be duplicated. I just hadnt got around to chucking the proper advisories in yet. Also there are a couple of CN needed tags on the page to remind me to find a reference for a fact like the PTS started at 0000UTC on January 1 as the precursor depression to Sonamu formed.Jason Rees (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW I dont know if you saw but our article on Cyclone Evan was cited by the WMO in a technical report - i chucked a link up on the talk page a few days ago.Jason Rees (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your message (Irte)
Apologies, but I am finding it difficult to send you a reply by the other options recommended on the website. (I am happy for you to contact me directly by email i.roulstone@surrey.ac.uk )

I have indeed posted some links to my book, and I have also read the guidelines about self-citation, so please allow me to explain my reasons for inserting these links. My book deals with the history and mathematics behind weather and climate forecasting, and it is unique in the sense that there is not, at present, another book that deals with this particular subject matter at a level accessible to a general audience. The pages that I have chosen to include the book in the Bibliography/Further Reading sections are those that contain material that my book expands upon, and therefore it is genuinely 'Further Reading'. I started to edit some of the page content too (Rossby Waves, Potential Vorticity, Vilhelm Bjerknes), and I intend to do further work on this. Indeed, I am lecturing a course on this subject matter early next year and, having prepared some new lecture notes, I shall add some of this material to the relevant Wikipedia pages as appropriate.

My book is published by an academic publisher, and it is not a 'popular work'. I have also only linked the book to Google Books, not to any commercial website. I have written several articles for the online media (especially the Huffington Post), and I have linked to Wikipedia pages so that readers can get a more in-depth appreciation of some topics I discuss.

I trust that you will appreciate that my aim is the dissemination of knowledge. If you feel I have over-stepped the mark, then I shall of course remove the links as you wish. However, I would appreciate further discussion if you feel that necessary.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Roulstone (Professor of Mathematics, University of Surrey)

Irte (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is. Our final nine were as follows:

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


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

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

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

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA
You recently commented on the use of commas after dates in MDY format when used as an adjective. I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates with a proposal to clarify the position at MOS:COMMA. Please feel free to add your views. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 22:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)