Jump to content

User talk:Exoplanetaryscience/2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

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.

2013 TX68
added links pointing to Lunar distance and Lunar distances
List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2016
added a link pointing to Lunar distance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates

[edit]

376 at User:Tom.Reding/Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates. Enjoy!   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  08:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do an AWB run to add "yyyymmdd" sortkeys to Category:Astronomical objects discovered in yyyy

[edit]

Assuming "discovered on/in <day> <month> <year>" or "discovered on/in <month> <day>, <year>" exist. It's not ready to go yet, but, all the explicit cases should be accounted for when I'm done, leaving only the (hopefully few) exceptions. I don't know how you're keeping track of which ones still need sortkeys, though, so let me know if you'd like me to wait or to do something extra while going through these.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minerva asteroids has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Minerva asteroids, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peter James (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking

[edit]

What made you say this? I think you're confusing me with someone else.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wololo

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wololo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Round 1

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, all.

The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already,

If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here).

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

[edit]
Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories (Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia!

I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

2016 GA Cup-Round 2

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points.

In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here

Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Round 3

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points.

In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall.

We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Finals

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points.

In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [4]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue.

To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round.

We wish all the contestants the best of luck!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:wikipedia listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:wikipedia. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:wikipedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up

Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors!

Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [5]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [6]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal.

The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both!

The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup.

MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition.

Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Yo - This is Mohammad Alavi... please forgive my ignorance on how to use wikipedia. I know I'm doing it wrong, but I can't figure out how to send you a message like you sent me one. You asked me for proof that I am who I say I am, I have no idea how to do that. Feel free to contact me at my work email. It's my first name at where I work .com - shouldn't be that hard to figure that out ;). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxbadmofoxxx (talkcontribs) 22:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Per aspera ad astra! Fomeister (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizons

[edit]

Hi EPS. For this edit, can you provide a source for the orbital parameters? Also, given that it is on a hyperbolic trajectory, of what use are those elements, especially periapsis? Cheers! Huntster (t @ c) 09:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My source is JPL horizons (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results) barycentric orbital elements for 2017/01/01. Of all values, I believe eccentricity would be the most useful, but I added them because I imagine it would be interesting to compare NH's orbital elements to that of typical asteroids and comets. Feel free to remove it if you want, I just thought it would be somewhat useful to include. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent magnitude of Dragonfly 44

[edit]

Hello Exoplanetaryscience, I couldn't find the source for the apparent magnitude. Where have you found it? --Fb8cont (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, the source is the NED search results for the object (here) the specific object SDSS J130057.99+265839.7 is the only identified SDSS object relating to the galaxy- magnitude 22. Technically this magnitude is slightly off for the Gmag- the two other SDSS IDs relating to the galaxy are magnitude 20.7 and 21.0. The actual Vmag of the galaxy is something around magnitude 20.5, but the sheer thinness of the visual part of the galaxy would make it appear around magnitude 22 to an observer anyways.
For proof that this is indeed the galaxy- here is an image of it in SDSS, with a small 4-arcsecond cutout of that image here which should be seen as similar to the unsurprisingly more high definition image provided by the Keck observations on the article. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed answer! Yesterday, I've found a link to the first article for the Dragonfly-galaxies, that explaines the word "galaxies" in footnote 1: Van Dokkum, Pieter; et al. (7 January 2015). "Forty-seven milky way-sized, extremely diffuse galaxies in the Coma-Cluster". The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Retrieved 31 August 2016. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help) --Fb8cont (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited X/1106 C1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SOHO. 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) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parallaxes

[edit]

I just reverted a couple of edits which changing stellar parallax values but gave no reference. Then I saw who had made them and vandalism seemed less likely. What is happening? Lithopsian (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaia DR1 catalog is happening! The values are from Tycho-Gaia astrometric solutions, accessible here http://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/ exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we're gonna see a lot of updates stemming from the Gaia catalog over the next while. Just remember to provide some kind of citation when you make those changes. That said, I'm not a fan of the Gaia release because, as has been pointed out elsewhere, there is an additional systemic error of 0.3 mas not presented in the actual data, which in my mind makes the data much less useful for us. Huntster (t @ c) 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even with that added, the average sigma has been about ~0.3 mas (0.4 mas for closer stars) as I've found, and with an extra 0.3 added, we're looking at 0.6 and 0.7 mas- still a noticeable improvement over Hipparcos's ~1 mas errors.
Of course! I should have guessed ;) I'll add the parallaxes back with the appropriate citation. Given the trickiness of this halfway house data, this might be a good time to determine whether we just blindly take the error range from the DR1 tables or do something extra with it. Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but I'm not entirely happy with the citation. Currently there is a bibcode for the Vizie database, but it isn't yet properly established and comes back as non-existent in the template or Citation bot. There is an arXiv preprint bibcode which I've used but it doesn't link to the online data which is unfortunate. Probably all will be sorted in a week or two. Lithopsian (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup Announcement

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 3 October

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergal listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sergal. Since you had some involvement with the Sergal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]
I just figured out what this does. Enjoy my crappy friendship. James Kevin Martindale (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone articles

[edit]

Invest 90W does not currently qualify for inclusion because it is still a disturbance. Were it to develop into a tropical depression or tropical storm, then it could be included (either as its own section or as part of the "Other storms" section). I just thought I'd mention it for future reference. Dustin (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Just getting into cyclone articles, so things are a bit new to me. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem. I've been editing weather articles (including tropical cyclone articles) for years, so I've gotten a bit more used to the tropical cyclone project's customs. Dustin (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar topic, would the cyclone currently in the Mediterranean Sea qualify for its own section here? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to already be a bit of information in the "Other storms" section: Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone#Other storms. Dustin (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it was you who added that. Few storms are included at that article; if you are unsure of whether or not the storm in question should be included, then it would be in your best interest to bring it up at the article's talk page. The source you provided does refer to it as a "Mediterranean cyclone", but it does not mention the word "tropical". This page linked from one of your sources does mention that the cyclone could develop warm-core features (two days ago), and tropical cyclones are warm-core systems, but that doesn't ever directly say the storm is tropical or warm-core. I'd personally wait to see if any sources come out showing stronger indications of tropical / tropical-like characteristics in the storm. Dustin (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

[edit]
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Exoplanetaryscience. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia

[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

[edit]
Many thanks for keeping an eye on the John Bowman Lindsay article and reverting the maniac who keeps trying to change the spelling. Given the DNB, his grave stone and signature (and every other reference) all spell it Lindsay, I can't imagine what the mystery "changer" is trying to prove! Dorset100 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1

[edit]
WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break.

There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll.

  • If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA).
  • If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December.

We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase!

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

[edit]

You're doing a great work in the wiki. Continue like that!--MASTER+MATES (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also go to this link of es.wikipedia--MASTER+MATES (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]