Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, 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. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I already said I have a draft and that Tornadoes of 2015 should just be made a section at Tornado because it has no information. Please read the entire AfD before saying things like that. Dustin (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Revert unhelpful edits; unknown cells are never darkened in that manner; a simple "Unknown" will do ." That logic is completely unfounded and simply makes no sense. Provide further justification. Further differentiation of "unknown" cells from other cells is helpful, so your logic does not reasonably apply. The {{Unknown}} template exists for a reason. Dustin (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please respond. Dustin (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If you do not respond or elsewhere, I will revert you. That is the only way to garner a response if another editor fails to respond in situations such as these, so please just respond. Dustin (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't care to sit here and argue with you about a simple matter. It has been a standard and simple practice to just put a simple "Unknown" as a temporary placeholder. Using that template does nothing but draw attention to cells that have no information, so there is no since in it. You made a change, it got reverted, and I explained why. There you go. United States Man (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of United States tornadoes in January 2015

added a link pointing to Rose Hill, Mississippi

Tornadoes of 2015

added a link pointing to Rose Hill, Mississippi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just created an essay on what I believe reflects the consensus of the naming of winter storms by The Weather Channel please have it a look over thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Billy Mackenzie. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brisbane Roar FC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbia. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Los Angeles Fire Department. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of economic thought. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

From NWS Norman - The tornado formed in southwestern Oklahoma City and dissipated in Moore. Here is a permalink: http://imgur.com/rJZ38Bp. I thought you might find it helpful. Dustin (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Thanks. I had already figured that it was probably about that track, but it is nice to have a visual. United States Man (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rape statistics. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand why you have concern with regard to the totals in the template, but I would rather use the most accurate total even if it is inconsistent with what the other parts of Wikipedia say. I noticed that Wikipedia's list for the month of February 2014 still uses Storm Reports (which is only a preliminary source of information), so perhaps, if you would be willing, you could update that to use Storm Data then see if the template is different? Dustin (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to give more precise location info for the April 25-28 2011, outbreak by removing the vague "area" tags next to some of the town names and replacing them with more specific information. You have ruined all the progress I've made on this TWICE now with your NCDC updates, causing me to painstakingly go back and fix it. Please be less careless of other people's edits so I don't have to keep cleaning up after you! Thanks. Sharkguy05 (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not being rude by reminding people to remind people to keep to the topic per wiki rules, since the topic in question had already been disrupted by Dustin stating he was going to be away for a couple of days. While Brenden's job is unusual the PHS page is not the page to discuss it with him - his user page is.Jason Rees (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Rude or not, I don't appreciate you calling me disruptive. That extremely minor subdiscussion about me possibly losing internet access only had three comments. It was just minor and I doubt another word would have been said on the issue after United States Man's comment, so your interjection was unnecessary in my honest opinion. Dustin (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(Ec) Im sorry Dustin if i offended you but I do not appreciate a topic about running best tracks, being disrupted by irrelevant messages like the ones you posted about your internet access. Especially since the way i am reading it this is a project consistency issue, with the people that work on the JTWC basins doing something that the NHC basins do not like.Jason Rees (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you that such an edit is unhelpful. It seems ludicrous that we should have a chart which extends into the future. That's a bigger issue than certainty that the storm will exist etc. in any given circumstance, so as a result, I find it preferable to wait until the actual current time is 00:00 UTC. That was hours ago now so this specific instance no longer matters, but for future reference, I hope you will understand my position. Dustin (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leo Frank. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Jobs. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sustainable energy. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Cosby. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Luis Vernet. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Irataba. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (software). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you could have instantly resolved much of the issue with these infoboxes by just adding an alias to the main template. Dustin (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: – Well, by doing it this way, I can also correct other errors that I find and add the injuries if they are not already listed. United States Man (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. That's understandable. If you wouldn't mind my asking, how do you know which articles have infoboxes with broken parameters? Thanks! Dustin (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: – I noticed that User:Alakzi had been the one to shift all of the old tornado infoboxes to Template:Infobox storm back in May, so I am just going through that list of articles that he edited using AWB to see which ones I need to hit. Otherwise, I wouldn't have had a clue about where to start. United States Man (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the storm infobox parameter to casualties! I've been thinking of doing it for a long time but have simply been too lazy to follow through with the necessary changes to all the articles attached to the template. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Haven't seen you for a long time now. But, why in the Atlantic infobox for Ida, there's no comma but 17E has? This is since both storms are monitored by the NHC. However the WPac infoboxes, monitored by JMA, we don't use commas as we follow them (as shown in Dujuan's infobox and analysis). Yes, I know that we use commas if we are already in the thousands digits but I just wanted to confirm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013:That is an oversight by me that I will fix. I just feel that it looks better, but I suppose it doesn't matter one way or the other. United States Man (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but you demonstrate a bit of hypocrisy when you act like it isn't a big deal to prematurely increment the dates, see someone revert that edit, then follow up by reverting that edit back to the prematurely updated state. The general goal is that at 0000 UTC the date will be incremented, so since it will be incremented anyway at that time, you say there is no benefit in reverting edits incrementing the date after 21Z but before 0Z. I disagree with the reasoning there, but I still understand it. Going in and reverting someone who reverted such an edit back to the premature state goes back on what you originally seemed to be implying, that it isn't such a big deal... right? Also, you aren't going to make anyone less likely to revert your revert by issuing commands such as "Do not revert". That makes me want to revert in all honesty. I don't mean to cause problems, and I don't question that you may have good intentions, but I do question your reasoning. I believe that I am not the only one who holds this stance (based on certain edits I have seen). Dustin (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to keep you in mind, are you still following what Dustin said? About updating timeline boxes after 00Z? Because it seems like in your latest edit about this in the 2015 PHS article, you edited at 23Z. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: - Just to keep you in mind, Dustin V. S. has not ever been, is not currently, and will not ever be the timeline police (or the police of anything else for that matter - I hate to say it and don't mean anything malicious, but he comes across that way sometimes). Anytime after the 2100z advisories is fine for updating the timelines, as they will certainly last until the next day (because another advisory to state otherwise will not be issued until the NEXT day). I don't know what the big deal is, it looks to me like it is just easier to update them when every thing else is updated at 2100z. The only occasion of waiting would be for a weak storm that has an intermediate advisory coming out at 0000z that may be declared a remnant, but even then, the NHC usually waits until 0300z (or the next full advisory time) to declare it dissipated. So, once again, I fail to be convinced of the problem of updating them when it is convenient (as long as it is after 2100z, it shouldn't be a problem). Thank you, United States Man (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't fair that if someone undoes your change/increment of the timeline day (or a change made by someone else, 90% of the time being an IP) with the intention of reapplying the change at 0000Z, you will revert. If it's not a big deal, why can't you trust anyone? Dustin (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Where do you pickup that this is a trust problem? This is not a trust problem, this is a common sense problem. I don't care when you or anyone else updates these timelines, but if I happen to be around at 2100z, I will update them. The problem I have with someone changing the timelines back after they have been changed is that it makes absolutely no sense. It is useless to undo a change to something that will inevitably be changed in about two and a half to three more hours anyway. If I or anyone else go ahead and change them, I don't see why it is such a big deal. And before you ask why it is such a big deal to me to change them a little early, it goes back to what I said about convenience for me. If you want to wait until 0000z, then great, but I don't like being jumped on for something that doesn't matter. United States Man (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: However what's the point of timelines? Do we need timelines at all? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Funny you say that seeing as how you have a rather large one in your userspace. But yes, I think they are a very helpful part of the article. They conform to policy (as far as I am aware) and I don't see what is to be gained by removing them. That seems to me like a bit of a way around what I have been saying. "Well, we'll just take them out. That way USM can't update them at all." (Just joking here...8P) United States Man (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok. Also yes, I have a huge timeline in my userspace and I am kind of like an agency and classify storms by myself (Example: as shown there, I classify/think that Mekkhala is a cat2 typhoon). I am just really addicted to storms and I joined wiki to help out. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trưng Sisters. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I have been leaving 3 messages in your talk page in a week, which is pretty unusual to do to a user like you. Seen your comment btw about the geostationary image in the 2015 PHS article. I really don't know where to put this message because I believe that we need everyone like Meow, JR, Cyclonebisikt etc to 'make a vote' on this. So the question is, why don't you like Geostationary images? Well I am a person who edits most on the PTS articles and we use Geostationary images for current TCs like Dujuan. So I decided why not the EPac nor the Atlantic? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the messages (makes me look more popular), but to me that image appears to be of less quality that the one that was already there. If you can get a consensus on the Project talk page, I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to it, but as of right now, we should keep it as is. United States Man (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'll start making a consensus in the Project talk page and while I am doing that, I'll just put these '< !-- -->' around the geostationary image file name beside the current image in the infobox just in case. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the geostationary images while the storm is active. Sure the IR variant is less than stellar, but it's only a temporary visual meant to show a relatively recent state of the storm. The higher quality images return when the storm dissipates so the quality concerns are alleviated then. Only caveat is that they only provide extra value if they are updated frequently. Otherwise the (usually) daily images from MODIS would be preferred. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: and US Man (if it's alright to call you that), I started a consensus thing in the Wikipedia talk:WPTCs. Just saying. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kansas River. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eshhar. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Firefox for mobile. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Internet phenomena. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greco-Italian War. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liberland. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atlantis. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2015_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series#Broadcast_networks_tables. Thanks. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 01:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marching Chiefs. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Canada. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States tornadoes from November to December 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spring Hill, Alabama. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)