User talk:Inks.LWC/Archive 6

1950-1959

I'm doing research on the Korean War, and found your 1950&51 info very helpfull. Do you plan on finished 52-53? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.11.83.5 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Winter Storm Brutus

I noticed that you were a part of the Winter Storm Athena/2012-13 U.S. winter storm season fiasco. So, I thought you would like to stop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutus and offer your input. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude you guys deleted my Winter Storm Brutus Article! All my other articles suck! PageInformer (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

New Message

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at Earth100's talk page.
Message added 28 October 2012. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry

I am just a bitter eagles fan; having some fun. I figured someone would quickly fix the 'joke' . Once again, I apologize. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.228.98 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Meow edit war

Inks.LWC, mind if you can help solve the dispute between Meow and Me?! Meow keeps on replacing a image of Bopha seen from space in bad quality, while, i'm replacing it with a larger, brighter, more high def image. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Typhoon_Bopha_(2012)&action=history -- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 04:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really understanding what's going on there. I'll talk to him and see if I can help. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand, Inks.LWC. Thank you for the message. It shall not be done in the future.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 08:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Tornadoes of 2012 revert

I don't know how that happened. It is possible that I accidently pressed the rollback button, but it would have showed up that I had reverted after the rollback had been done. Anyway, sorry and thank you for fixing my mistake. United States Man (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it was something like that. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

New version of AWB

An updated version of AWB is now available here. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm having a hard time finding a page that says what all was changed in the new edition? Any help, if you know where it's at? Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at Jason Rees's talk page.
Message added 22:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jason Rees (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at Earth100's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 04:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Cyclone tracks

Windows 8 since about a month ago. But with old MinGW32 DLLs dated 2001.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Typhoon Bopha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palawa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Inks.LWC. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

Hello, Inks.LWC, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Freda

My temptation for Freda and its article is to publish after the storm has dissipated and we have a better idea on the damage in the Sols and New Cal.Jason Rees (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright... sounds good to me. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

2000

Your Template:Sandbox2 seems to have an allergy to the year 2000-01 and a less severe one to 2010.Jason Rees (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I know how to fix it. If I get my law school reading done, I'll try to finish it up tonight. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well let me know when you do manage to "fix" it.Jason Rees (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had more reading than I thought I would. Tomorrow nigh will be the night. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated and depressingly long response from Tenebris (216.254.156.17)

Yes, I do check my user talk pages, but fairly rarely, owing to (1) dial-up Internet (no consistent talk page) and (2) much other work -- although possibly not as much as a law student soon to discover articling and bar examinations. I prefer the non-consistent talk page (or preferably no personal talk page at all) for the same reason as I prefer board-based discussion over blogs and Facebook. Honestly, to me, any structure (Internet or otherwise) designed to be dominated by a single person feels like little more than self-gratification.

I am not and will never be registered at Wikipedia, and yet I sign my comments. I am grateful to another Wikipedian who has taught me to do so with five tildes, which gives time and date and thereby avoids a confusion which actually does have a relevance for discussions.

As to my determined IP status, Wikipedia is said to be open to all. You must know it is not, through protection and semi-protection, but most importantly through common member attitude and assumptions. Have you never noticed the strong member bias against IP editing? Have you never noticed how frequently IP contribution to discussion is ignored or belittled for no other reason than that it comes from an IP?

I give a visible identity to IPs beyond the common member uneasiness of "potential vandal" and equally common member assumption of "uncommitted". By signing my username on talk pages, I am no longer an anonymous IP -- yet I remain an IP nevertheless.

You wrote "Since you're not registered, this can be somewhat confusing to editors, and other editors cannot directly click that to access your contribution history." Yet editing history can be traced as clearly through IP as through registered username, if there is a need for it. Change the last couple of digits in my IP, and you can easily trace all my editing history should you so wish. The only reason to speak of confusion is to insist that my actions are not transparent enough to others -- and yet, by allowing my IP to be seen by all, they are actually more transparent than yours or any registered member's.

If we set aside the "confusion" of other editors, what other reasons possibly exist for me to become a Wikipedia member? In the absence of a nice clear editing record, I won't get any barnstars or other awards for my editing work. Yet at Wikipedia, the only real measure is whether others accept one's work or find it incomplete or flawed. One's work thus either stands on its own legs or it is edited by others. The basic cooperative raison d'etre for Wikipedia is to create a resource which is useful to others. Ego has nothing whatsoever to do with that, especially if one truly does accept that one's own text may possibly not be perfection incarnate. So why would I need barnstars?

As a determined IP, I have another curious advantage most might not recognise as an advantage -- independence of viewpoint. I have contributed positively to Wikipedia for more than half a decade now. I probably know the pillars and rules of Wikipedia as well as some of the administrators. I think that speaks of some degree of investment in Wikipedia's ideals. And yet, I remain an IP -- and so I see much of the interaction at Wikipedia as many non-member contributers see it, albeit with some understanding of why some members react as they do. Occasionally this has allowed me to act as interpreter between two who both clearly believe in Wikipedia's purpose, although they have different understandings of it. (*laugh* -- I am the quintessential Libra. I always automatically try to see all sides of things.)

Incidentally, the automatic impersonal Sinebot messages which "welcome" IPs in the same breath as they invite IPs to become members may have some use -- for potential members who have never received such a message before. So, once, maybe twice, by way of information. But after the first couple of times, a person has either become a member or does not wish to become a member. At that point, they rapidly become an insistent irritant. I wonder, has it ever occurred to any Wikipedia member to code in a limit to the number of automated membership messages which can be sent to any given IP?

(As you notice here, I do answer personal messages, although not all that promptly. I don't answer e-mail messages all that fast either. (No smart phone, no desire for one. If I am away from the computer, I am fully away.) But if a person takes the time to write me, some genuine effort has been put into the message. It is only courteous to acknowledge that effort and reply.)

Btw I do like your take on "winter storm Athena" etc. I will add just one more note to your symphony -- branding. A brand need not be registered to be effective. If TWC/NBC can get enough people even talking about its names, that automatically points those who hear and are curious toward increased viewership of TWC/NBC. What is the bottom line of any private business? (If a government department can be subverted in the process, so much the better. Views wasted on the NWS don't bring in profit for any private business.)

Now, take it one step further. Think about how often you have heard the reification that 75% of United States residents get their weather news from the Weather Channel; and the related reification about how often the NHS got it wrong and TWS got it right. Who gains most from this?

As a curious psychological fact, most people have already forgotten the source of any given information less than thirty minutes after they encounter it, whether that original source be fact or fiction. In our hyper-social media sphere, possibly all it took to plant the idea was for someone to originally mention that "fact" as "fact" on Twitter or a board somewhere. How many people would question it in the slightest?

• laugh* And so we return (indirectly) to your future law career. Courtroom lawyers have something in common with scientists, in the need to find an explanation which fits the observed evidence. In the court of science, at least in theory, scientists are held to account by other scientists, so that explanations which turn out not to be so are constantly revisited and retested, and in time the original wrong explanation is forgotten except by historians. In the court of law, however, the explanation which sways the first jury or judge carries a unique weight, which even subsequent overturning by higher courts may never completely overcome. Every legal decision, even the most routine, carries with it the hidden weight of people's hopes and horrors, dreams and despairs, futures, lives. (After all, you already know that 2+2 is not nearly as simple and straightforward as most people think!)

May your future career grant you all that you seek. - Tenebris 01:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.85 (talk)

Thank you for the response. I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that IP contributions are often seen as inferior. My one suggestion is that perhaps in your edit history you mention that you are signing something as Tenebris, at least on pages that have a lot of quick responses (heavy traffic articles at the time). The reason I suggest this is that I remember when trying to figure out who "Tenebris" was, I had to compare a lot of diffs to figure it out, and it was somewhat time consuming. If you at least connect the name to the IP in the edit summary, someone wishing to contact you on your IP talk page for some reason or look at your contribution history could do so without having to compare dozens of diffs (which is a potential problem on articles with heavy discussion). If you decide not to do this, fair enough... I just thought I would give the suggestion. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, I tend to avoid articles with heavy discussion (usually a synonym for controversy) until the topic has receded enough into the past to allow more objectivity. The avoidance is not perfect (grin), but it is fairly close to it. Based on discussions I have read, the usual reason to check back along past edits during these kinds of heavy discussions is to see if there is a pattern of edits and opinions (often by way of identifying bias during a debate). Since I do not care about proving right or wrong on Wikipedia while an issue is hot (see Stephen Colbert and Wikiality), I mostly just wait for those kinds of discussions to die down before I make my edits. That also keeps me clear of many semi-protected pages which (may be) legitimately semi-protected. (Official Wikipedia policies aside, I suspect we both know that the default preference of many member editors is to keep semi-protection on articles indefinitely.)

Where I do get involved with a discussion, everything relevant to that discussion is directly on the discussion page for all to see. Nothing relevant to that discussion is said elsewhere. If someone wishes to contact me about things said on that discussion page, it can be said right on that discussion page. I may possibly not reply unless addressed to me directly -- especially if someone else has already addressed the point -- but I will see.

People may want to search out my edit history for other reasons. That is their prerogative. As there is no rule-related need for it (I do not get involved in edit wars/RR3s etc), the primary valid reason for a history search is personal curiosity. If that curiosity is strong enough, the record of my edits is there to be found. I see no particular reason to particularly enable searches made for the reason of curiosity. (Although for the record (and for the curious), there is no particular consistency or pattern to the topics I edit or the depth of edits made to any given topic. One day, I rewrote and expanded an article about a historic train station. Another, I doubled the amount of text about seismology and geothermal drilling. Although I hold advanced degrees, I continue to be a determined generalist in an age of specialists.)

As a curious note, I have on occasion overlapped IPs with at least one other vandal, and been temp-banned for their actions. This happens when you have a non-constant IP and edit as an IP. In those cases, I wait it out if I happen to be on a working streak; or sometimes I check back if I have had to go off-line and then on-line again to see if I still fall within the banned range. Now, imagine if I were to take your suggestion and identify myself specifically as "Tenebris" on each IP edit page. I identify my own discussion statements, but should I take responsibility for the edits of others as well? (Broadband is so standard these days, many people forget the quirks of dial-up.) - Tenebris 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.136 (talk)

Sandy

Id hold fire on GANing Sandys MH article since its TCR should be out by early February and "could according to Hurricanehink dramatically change things if it is a hurricane landfall".Jason Rees (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, OK, I didn't think about that. I'll withdraw it. Inks.LWC (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, when I made the article, I always planned on waiting for the TCR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Inks, why do you report a user who hasn't done any significant things? I can't stand your behavior. --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 11:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I never made an attack INks, and i'm really tired of you getting in to all of my business! --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 00:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Inks what you did in the southwest Indian ocean cyclone season was terrible! You cn spanned a sourced text, you changed the dates, WHY?--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 00:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that you're blocked, but just in case you come here to read this, I want you to know why I did that. I cn-spanned the "sourced" text, because a Wikipedia talk page is not a valid source. I changed the dates because the dates were incorrect. All three of those sources were published before the sentence that they were supposed to be referencing, some by even more than one day. Something published on December 28 cannot be referencing something supposedly done on January 1. The reason that the article dates were wrong is that when you wrote that part of the article, you used the date that the source was archived, not the date it was published by the JTWC. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyclone tracks program

No I haven't used it in Linux, but I can offer some suggestions based on using it in Windows. This is a typical run command:

track --name GARRY  --output output\Garry_2013_track.png  --input c:\jdk\apps\hurtrax\trackspac.prn --bg whole.png --extra 1 --negx 0 --negy 1

track is the name of the executable. This may need to be ./track in Linux even if your current directory is the one the executable is in.

--name GARRY is the name of the storm, exactly as in the input file (case sensitive).

--input and --output file names can include any necessary path.

--extra 1 you are unlikely to need. It is only necessary when a track contains only not-fully-tropical points.

--negx 0 interprets longitudes as E; --negx 1 interprets them as W (default).

--negy 1 interprets latitudes as S; --negy 0 interprets them as E (default).

track --help lists all the available parameters.

It's easiest to collect your data in one or more HURDAT files; this is the format of the numbered lines in e.g. Talk:2012 Pacific typhoon season/Tracks. Data for storms back to 1997 can be obtained from NRL here - drill down to your year, basin, storm and trackfile.txt and use my webpage here to convert this to HURDAT format.

Hope this is of some help.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 13:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And what directory do you run the command in? Inks.LWC (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Scott Menville

A link was provided (before today's revisions) but was removed. The article has been nominated due to the content dispute and notability of the subject. 201.229.38.2 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But that link did not work either. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please help me learn how to resolve difference of style & opinion

Dear LWC,

I've posted a response to your recent handling of my edits on Talk:High-pressure area in which I've tried to lay our my reasoning and understanding. Apparently, I'm not handling myself well; my experience in WP is trivial compared to yours.

So, please , when you have a chance (no rush) consider responding to the arguments laid out in my earnest but novice attempts.

GreggEdwards (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at PinkAmpersand's talk page.
Message added 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

First deadly U.S. tornado since June 2012

Here are a few articles... 1, 2, 3. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if you knew there were articles, you should've added them to the article. You can't just put stuff like that in unreferenced. I've added it in. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN for February 2013 nor'easter

--Spencer^T♦C 05:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

LWC, please accept my thanks for your support during my RfA. It did not end as hoped, but I will endeavor to show myself worthy of your support in my future editing. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work! Inks.LWC (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edie Sedwick Andy Warhol update 17 February 2013

I am an artist and film maker. My cousin, Dr Tom Flynn, is an art historian who has written several books on art. My inclusion concerning Edie Sedgwick is a matter of history to those who have studied Warhol will attest to the significance of Edie Sedgwick as a figment in the development of the Warhol cultural idea.

Andy Warhol and Edie Sedgwick can be found all over You Tube as is the Merv Griffen TV show I referred to. Also here is my film : http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?ns=1&video_id=hfhg66Yz5vw&feature=vm

To not specify Edie Sedgwick in regard to Andy Warhol is leaving out a major piece of history and rendering an incomplete tale.

P James Flynn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.243.136 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But your information still needs to be sourced. (My apologies - in some sort of mental brain fart, I said it violated WP:BLP, which is clearly wrong, as Warhol is not living; so while the edits should have been accepted and then reverted instead of rejected, the information cannot be included unless it is sourced. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The living and the dead

Not meaning to pick on you, but "WP:BLP"? Surely not. Rivertorch (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yikes - that was really stupid of me. I'm not sure what went through my mind at that point. Thank you for pointing that out. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

THAT WAS SO UNFAIR!

I worked like 4 hours on that article! Maybe you should've asked me before you deleted it! 2013 Adairsville, Georgia Tornado

(PageInformer (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC))

I didn't delete any articles; I cannot delete articles, since I am not an admin. But your article had major problems - specifically that it did not add anything that was not already in the main article. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I prefer templated messages, while they may seem impersonal, because they are uniform, so there is less of a chance of the other user misconstruing your words or feeling like you are treating another user better or worse. But no, I wouldn't say that it feels "cold". Cheers! :) Inks.LWC (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Andy Warhol

A slip of the save button. Happens. No problem! Cheers, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Winter storm naming

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at Nthep's talk page.
Message added 09:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NtheP (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at Nthep's talk page.
Message added 21:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, many thanks for your support at my RFA NtheP (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Inks.LWC

User:Inks.LWC, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Inks.LWC and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Inks.LWC 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. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to do April Fools jokes (which AFD April Fools jokes were never funny), at least adhere to the unwritten rules:

I'll eventually be going to sleep at some point, so I won't be able to babysit the kiddies all night. So, if someone decides that they want to make a joke AfD (even after acknowledging that nearly every joke AfD is not funny and just makes you look like an idiot), and you don't want Snotbot to add the AfD template to the article, you have to make sure that the AfD is not in CAT:AFD. You can do this by removing the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template from the AfD page. It goes without saying that you should also remove any notices from the talk page of the article's author (if you used Twinkle to start the AfD) and you should remove the {{Old afd multi}} from the article talk page after the AfD is closed (if the closer uses a script to close the AfD). ‑Scottywong| express _ 03:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Inks.LWC (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: JECatt

Hi! Just to let you know that I have declined the speedy deletion of JECatt as it has previously been nominated for WP:AFD, and the consensus was keep. Whilst speedy deletion is permissible under some criteria for articles that have been kept through discussion, WP:CSD#A7 is not one of them. If you still believe it should be deleted, I would suggest renominating it for deletion through WP:AFD. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard that before (especially for a procedural close at AFD). Where is the policy on that? Inks.LWC (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly explicit, I'll grant you, but the implication is there if you read the last part pf the introduction section here: WP:CSD#Introduction to criteria. If you know otherwise, please let me know - I would hate to go against policy! Stephen! ^Coming... 21:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's only implied, it seems a bit odd that something can't be speedy deleted when the AFD close was "The result was procedural close as keep, no deletion rationale supplied." There wasn't really "consensus to keep"; the AFD was closed because it was made improperly. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ioby PROD

As the original poster of Ioby is INDEF'd (after much discussion from numerous editors), I think a better route is AfD. Also, User:Erinbarnes should be notified as the genesis for the article came from him. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mapping the Global Economy

Hi Inks.LWC, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What is it that you want me to do? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)