User talk:Inks.LWC/Archive 8

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thank you! You as well! :) Inks.LWC (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

December 25–28, 2012 North American blizzard

Hey there. I wanted to let you know that the article, which you have up for GA nomination, I proposed it to be merged with the tornado outbreak. Any thoughts you have would be good. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Hink. I've thrown up a quick blurb, but I can add a bit more tomorrow after I've arrived in Baltimore if needed. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: May 26–31, 2013 tornado outbreak graphic

Yeah, I went through the edit history -- maybe it wasn't that article that I removed the graphic from; it might have been the actual El Reno tornado page. At any rate, the graphic lists the tornado intensity as an EF-5, which is misleading to those who look only at the picture. The tornado was downgraded to an EF-3 in September. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I see that now - I was too focused on the image itself I didn't even notice that. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for leaving a detailed comment in my RfA. I do not believe there's anything I can do in reply that would satisfy all parties, I am afraid. Responding to oppose votes is discouraged in Wikipedia:Advice_for_RfA_candidates#During_your_RfA 4 times - points 4, 5, 10 and 11, as well astwice in Wikipedia:How_to_pass_an_RfA points 1 and 2, and is not recommended anywhere I can see. Also, during and after last RfA I received several emails from editors who clearly told me "next time, answer questions but don't be seen in the !votes section at all". Whether an answer is antagonistic or not is often in the eye of the beholder, whereas it's much easier to judge whether the answer is there at all. Would this response there change your mind? That I don't know. Would it change anyone else in a positive way? I doubt it, but it seems more likely some people would see this as badgering, or too long. So yes, I'll chose to follow the advice mentioned above and not reply directly to oppose comments there (through since I do appreciate the time some editors put into their good faithed advice in the first place, I'll respond on the participant talk pages in those few, select cases).

Regarding other issues you mention, I can certainly try to respond to those, if you would like. On an ending note, I hope you have not found this post inappropriate, antagonistic or otherwise problematic, but if you did, I apologize in advance and I'd love to hear how you'd try to reply if you were in my shoes.(If you reply here please WP:ECHO me). Cheers,

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus, I understand the general "rule" that it is a bad idea to respond to !votes, but even in the first essay you linked to, it is implied that some replies can be appropriate. It's fine to give clarifications or correct gross mischaracterizations, but what you were criticized for the last time was responding to virtually all of the beginning oppose !votes, and often doing so in an antagonistic way. My feelings on administrators is that it does not matter whether the author intended to be antagonistic or not, so you are correct in saying that whether an answer is antagonistic is in they eye of the beholder; however, administrators need to interact with regular users on a frequent basis, so it is my belief that intent is largely irrelevant, and the more important factor is whether others view answers as antagonistic. Even if an administrator is well intentioned, if he frequently comes off as being antagonistic, this will create problems. In general, I have found through this RFA and your last RFA that you seem to lack an understanding of how administrators should come across and interact with people. I realize that that seems harsh, and I do not mean it as an insult to you; the unfortunate part of the RFA process is that honesty about one's hesitations in promoting a user to administrator can seem a bit harsh, depending on the reasoning. I think you are a very good user, and you make great contributions to the project, but your overall attitude at the RFAs has been one that leads me to believe that the admin role is not the best fit for you. This does not mean that you won't change or cannot learn, but it is something that typically takes time, and I would need to see both specific and general attitude changes before supporting you in a future RFA. Feel free to respond to other issues if you wish, although I do not anticipate changing my mind at this time, so if you want to focus your time on other things, that's perfectly understandable. I also take no offense to your response here, so there is no need to apologize. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I unfortunately lost temper during the last RfA. I'd like to think, however, that it is an exception to the rule, if unfortunately high profile - it's not like I have a habit of doing so. I was simply unprepared for a certain type of oppose vote that occurs during the RfA; I don't participate in them much and I wish I had read Dariusz's book before I did (see what I mean in the fourth para of my review of his book here). And perhaps I worded my note c less than perfectly this time, but I still try to engage with helpful criticism as my presence here indicates - I just am trying to keep the "dramu" off the RfA page. On a final note, you may want to look at the recent comment by DGG at the RfA, I find that he said many things better than I could've. In either case, thank you for taking time to consider my candidacy in good faith. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC comment

Oh no no, I think not. You see last time Piotrus was de-sysopped was by an ArbCom motion, generally ArbCom decisions are pretty nasty. I did'n't want to lose out on an excellent content-contributor because of the mop. Soham 11:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Winter Storm Boreas

I appreciate your figuring out what the name should be. I just wanted to see if Wikipedia had an article on each "named" storm, and when I saw this one, I was pretty sure it was notable enough but it sure needed work. I'm still a long way from finished (unless someone else wants to help), but I have a feeling without my contribution it would have been on its way to deletion. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

At some point when I get a bit more free time I'll try to help out. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Climate Page Format

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology.
Message added 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dustin talk 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Climate Articles

Your over thinking that guys question on the met page. :-P He literally means like the hurricane articles do met stuff-preps-impact-etc.Jason Rees (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK that makes a lot more sense now. I was thinking he meant something with text formatting and I was totally lost. Thank you for that. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Constructive criticism can is always appreciated. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of iPhonehurricane95 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

This blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.