Jump to content

User talk:Cyclonebiskit/Archive16

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


Reference errors on 18 October

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) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Article for Typhoon Mujigae Tornado Outbreak

Do we need an article for the Outbreak in Southern China on October 4th? Many news pages have said it's rare. HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@HurricaneGonzalo: Damaging tornado outbreaks from tropical cyclones are certainly uncommon, especially in Asia, but I don't think there's enough to warrant making an article for the outbreak itself. The information can easily be covered within Typhoon Mujigae's article (which could certainly use some love) as currently only a half sentence is dedicated to the tornadoes. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: I found this though. [1]
@HurricaneGonzalo: There's a general criteria that needs to be met before sub-articles with tropical cyclones are made. Admittedly it's a bit arbitrary, but if the main article is of reasonable size we'll keep most information related to a storm on a single page with a summarized section on the season article. This is the case with Mujigae. Its article is still fairly short so you're more than welcome to expand on the information pertaining to the tornadoes within it. Since it's explicitly mentioned, the rarity of the tornadoes should be included within the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: I think we'll just add it into the article for Typhoon Mujigae. HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
Good work today taking care of the sockfarm responsible for those hoaxes at the 2015 AHS article; I figured you deserved this. --Dylan620's public alt (I'm all ears) 23:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Serious vandalism

Hey, CB. I've got a fairly serious case of ongoing vandalism over at the Amy White article about the Olympic swimmer. I've got an IP and new registered account attempting to re-task the article for shits and giggles about a student of similar name. Appears to be a couple of kids trying to get one of their names on a Wikipedia article. Looks like a short-term lockdown and perhaps a block or two for our SPA vandalism accounts would be appropriate. Can you help? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: looks like Cyphoidbomb already covered page protection, indef blocked the SPA, and temporarily blocked the IP so things should be fine now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. All my favorite "CB" administrators in action! I was just checking my Olympic swimmer watch list when I saw that nefarious "activity" had been going on for a good bit of the day. I've got several thousand Olympic athletes watch-listed through one of my alternate accounts (User:Dirtlawyer2: Olympics), but I usually only log in once a day to that account to check its watch list. God only knows how much of this sort of thing goes on and isn't noticed for some period of time afterward. I've found vandalism edits that were several years old on obscure articles. I appreciate your willingness to help. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

26W track map

Sorry if I'm interrupting you for updating Hurricane Patricia, but is it alright that the 26W track map needs to be put up? 26W had dissipated two days ago and I was waiting for you guys to create a map, but there's still none somehow. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Early-May 1965 tornado outbreak sequence

I am sorry to say Cyclonebiskit. I didn't make that comment. If you notice my history of edits are limited to Royalty, and Ancient Egypt. It has also been a long time since I have made any. I hope you catch the fake poster using my name and have a nice day. Lotfinia (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was...

...sorry about that, hadn't even noticed! --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 03:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries~ I accidentally hit the rollback button from time to time as well. Wish they would make it so you can't automatically do it from your watchlist but oh well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing Hurricane Patricia

Why are you promoting a fictional event as true? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Patricia

Either provide eyewitness accounts, video, of the storm and the destruction or delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:27A8:0:1:922B:34FF:FE45:EDA3 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm amused by your revert of my division of the long first paragraph in the article. A long paragraph like that one at the start really discourages readership, in my view. So be it. I appreciate being called a good faith editor, but the MOS calls for a 4 paragraph limit, and I divided the long opening at a good spot, and being reverted, I hereby withdraw. Jusdafax 22:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Hall, Virginia. 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) 09:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I could use your help

There has been a major increase in vandalism in some of the Pacific typhoon seasons as of late. Many anons have added false names, meteorological statistics, image swapping, etc. It is mainly within the 1960s articles but it is at such a volume that it has become tedious sorting through what is constructive or vandalism. If you can help me go through some of the edits I would be very appreciative. Supportstorm (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

CPAC HURDAT

Hi, Cyclonebiskit. Regarding the information about the discrepancies between CPHC and HURDAT, including only cyclones that achieved at least TS status, these are some I could dig up:

  • Typhoon June of 1958, that briefly crossed the dateline from Western Pacific, isn't included on HURDAT;
  • Many unnamed tropical cyclones from 1961 to 1964 weren't included on HURDAT, but these ones have incomplete data;
  • Hurricane Connie of 1966 had some 55-knot and 65-knot datas per CPHC (JHWC). HURDAT jumps directly from 45 knots to 75 knots and vice-versa, not showing those 55 knots and 65 knots in the middle. Also, per CPHC Connie peaked as a Category 2 hurricane, unlike per HURDAT that shows a 75-knot peak;
  • HURDAT data on CPAC part of Hurricane Blanca of 1966 is incomplete. CPHC has a higher peak and more intensity fluctuations;
  • HURDAT data on CPAC part of Tropical Storm Ramona of 1966 is incomplete. CPHC has a higher peak and more intensity fluctuations;
  • Tropical Storm Gretchen in 1966 was mostly a depression while in CPAC, but HURDAT shows it as a storm in all its duration on CPAC;
  • Tropical Depression Twenty-Two of 1966 is not shown on HURDAT;
  • Hurricane Sarah peak was 95 knots per CPHC, but per HURDAT Sarah peak was 65 knots;
  • HURDAT data on CPAC part of Tropical Storm Denise of 1968 is incomplete. CPHC has a higher peak and more intensity fluctuations;
  • Tropical Storm Estelle of 1968 crossed 140°W, but HURDAT shows it until 139.6W;
  • Tropical Storm Virginia of 1968, that crossed the dateline from Western Pacific, isn't included on HURDAT;
  • HURDAT data on CPAC part of Tropical Storm Maggie of 1970 is incomplete. CPHC has more intensity fluctuations;
  • Tropical Storm Hilary of 1971 almost crossed back to EPAC per CPHC, but per HURDAT it never went eastward;
  • There are many discrepancies between CPHC and HURDAT about Hurricane Celeste of 1972. Although they both agree about its peak intensity, they disagree on how much time Celeste mantained the peak winds and the rates of intensification and weakening. And for CPHC, Celeste had a secondary peak as a major hurricane that HURDAT doesn't show;
  • Hurricane Diana of 1972 in CPAC was weaker for CPHC (55 knots) than HURDAT shows (60 knots) for many advisories;
  • Typhoon Olga of 1972 isn't included on HURDAT, but for CPHC it was a tropical depression while crossing to WPAC;
  • Tropical Cyclone Ruby of 1972 peaked as a category 1 hurricane while being in CPAC for CPHC, but for HURDAT it was barely a tropical storm;
  • There are many discrepancies between CPHC and HURDAT about Hurricane Doreen of 1973. For HURDAT, Doreen crossed into CPAC as a tropical storm and peaked there as a category 3 major hurricane, but for CPAC it crossed 140°W as a hurricane, but never attained major status while in CPAC. And for CPHC, Doreen's intensity was more steady than in HURDAT, whose Doreen's status fluctuated greatly;
  • Many points assigned by CPHC on Hurricane Ione of 1974 were omitted by HURDAT. For CPHC, it was a category 2 hurricane for more than a day before becoming a major, and for HURDAT it became a major while entering CPAC. And for HURDAT Ione dissipated one day before CPHC;
  • Tropical Storm Olive of 1974 formed earlier for CPHC than HURDAT, but it was weaker for the former than for the latter;
  • According to CPHC, the Unnamed Hurricane of 1975 became extratropical before crossing into EPAC, but for HURDAT it was still tropical after crossing 140°W.
  • Hurricane Kate of 1976 peaked as a category 2 hurricane for CPHC, but for HURDAT it peaked only as a high-end category 1;
  • According to CPHC, Tropical Storm Gwen of 1976 reformed on CPHC days after it's first degeneration, but for HURDAT it never happened;
  • Hurricane John of 1978 lasted a day longer for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • Tropical Storm Lane of 1978 was 5-knot stronger for CPHC than for HURDAT in almost all points;
  • Tropical Storm Kristy of 1978 was 5-knot weaker for CPHC than for HURDAT in almost all points;
  • Tropical Cyclone Miriam of 1978 beacme a hurricane for HURDAT, but for CPHC it never deepened beyond TS status;
  • Hurricane Susan of 1978 lasted longer and stronger as a major for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • Per CPHC, Tropical Storm Carmen of 1980 formed on CPAC (although it was monitored by JTWC), briefly became a storm before crossing into WPAC and later crossed back into CPAC as a tropical storm, but Carmen isn't even included in HURDAT database.
  • Tropical Cyclone Miriam of 1982 was a hurricane just after crossing CPAC, but for CPHC it never deepened beyond TS status;
  • Tropical Storm Hana of 1982 peaked 5-knot weaker for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • Hurricane Raymond of 1983 peak was 10-knot weaker and lasted less for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • Tropical Storm Kenna of 1984 dissipated a day earlier for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • Per CPHC, Tropical Storm Skip of 1985 formed on CPAC (although it was monitored by JTWC), briefly became a storm before crossing into WPAC and later crossed back into CPAC as a tropical storm, but Skip isn't even included in HURDAT database;
  • Hurricane Rick of 1985 weakened faster from peak for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • Hurricane Nele of 1985 recurved northeastward and had a secondary hurricane peak intensity per CPHC, while for HURDAT it mantained a northward movement and never went below hurricane status until dissipation;
  • Tropical Storm Georgette of 1986 attained a TS status while in CPAC for CPHC, but for HURDAT it never became more than a depression while in CPAC;
  • Hurricane Peke of 1987 attained a weaker category 2 peak on CPAC for CPHC, and it weakened much earlier than for HURDAT;
  • Hurricane Uleki of 1988 peaked 5-knot weaker for CPHC than for HURDAT, but for more time;
  • Tropical Storm Winona of 1989 was considered a full tropical storm for six days after reananalysis while in CPAC, but HURDAT doesn't even included it;
  • According to HURDAT, Tropical Storm Erick of 1989 briefly crossed 140°W before dissipating, but CPHC doesn't considered that it crossed while being tropical;
  • Tropical Storm Aka of 1990 had much less intensity fluctuations per CPHC than per HURDAT;
  • Tropical Storm Polo of 1990 entered into CPAC 10-knot stronger for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • According to CPHC, Hurricane Enrique of 1991 mantained tropical cyclone status all the way from exiting EPAC until entering WPAC, including a reestrenghening to TS status north of Hawaii, but for HURDAT Enrique dissipated shortly after crossing into CPAC;
  • Hurricane Georgette of 1992 dissipated almost 2 days later for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • According to HURDAT, Tropical Storm Madeline of 1992 briefly crossed 140°W before dissipating, but CPHC doesn't considered that it crossed while being tropical;
    • The final advisory package on Madeline was written by NHC while the system was at 140.7W, but the CPHC did not take over because it had weakened below the warning level and was looking like an open wave. As a result I think the CPAC activity for that year may need to be increased by 1. Also refer to my general note below.Jason Rees (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Still, CPHC didn't included it on their Best Track, so we can't say that it was a official tropical cyclone on CPAC since the official RSMC didn't considered it. It's the same case with Hurricane Loke: CPHC issued it's last advisory already west of the dateline, but JMA never considered it a tropical cyclone after crossing into its AoR, so we can't consider Loke part of the typhoon season. ABC paulista (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hurricane Roslyn mantained TS status and lasted 5 more days in CPAC for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • Hurricane Emilia of 1994 mantained category 5 intensity for 18 hours per CPHC, but for HURDAT it only maintained that intensity for 6 hours;
  • Hurricane Gilma of 1494 mantained category 5 intensity for 12 hours then weakened steadly per CPHC, but for HURDAT maintained that intensity for 18 hours until it had a abrupt weakening;
  • According to HURDAT, Tropical Storm Oliwa of 1997 formed 3 days earlier than according to CPHC, but it was 10 knots weaker while in CPAC for the earlier than for the latter;
  • According to HURDAT, Tropical Storm Paka of 1997 formed 4 days earlier than according to CPHC;
  • Hurricane Dora of 1999 weakened to TS status prior crossing to WPAC for CPHC, but for HURDAT it mantained hurricane status all the way in the CPAC;
  • Tropical Storm Wene of 2000 peaked stronger for CPHC than for HURDAT;
  • According to HURDAT, Tropical Storm Barbara of 2001 lasted 3 days more than according to CPHC;
  • According to HURDAT, Hurricane Ele of 2002 formed 2 days earlier than according to CPHC;
  • According to HURDAT, Hurricane Huko of 2002 formed a day earlier than according to CPHC;
  • According to HURDAT, the remnants of Tropical Storm Felicia of 2003 crossed 140°W before dissipating, but CPHC doesn't backed it up;
  • Hurricane Ioke of 2006 peaked 20-mbar higher for CPHC than for HURDAT;

There are many more, some minor differences I didn't cited and many CPAC depressions weren't included in HURDAT.

Some sources:

Regards, ABC paulista (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow nice list @ABC paulista: and I hope that Cyclonebiskit gets the NHC/CPHC to act on several of these notes, However, I do feel that you are being a bit strict on one or two of them especially since 140W could be 140.5W rather than 140.0W. This is especially because the reports section of the CPHC's website, should be considered a list of the systems that they issued advisories on during the year, rather than how many systems occured in the CPAC during that year. I am going to do a bit of digging and see what I can come up with on them though. It would also be useful if the first link could be replaced with a webcited copy of whatever it is as its expired/dead.Jason Rees (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: I based myself mostly on the second link, because it's like a updated version of their Best Track, that contain some info that the third link don't, but less detailed. But we are talking about the RSMC of that region, they have total authority in that region, so if they didn't issued a advisory, report or Best Track on said system, so officially it never happened on that basin, even if another RSMC said otherwise. Exampled above.
There were many more discrepancies about a system position, but I only included in this list the ones that involved basin crossing and/or status as a storm of said basin, and when the difference was too big to be ignored (like 1971's Hilary). The minor ones I left behind.
About Webcitation, I don't know how to do it. ABC paulista (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@ABC paulista: Here's a link for webcitation, instructions are straightforward and included on the site itself. Needs to be done before a link expires, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I will be using the BT that the CPHC supplied to the IBTRACS project here to look into the corrections you suggest, but bear in mind the history of HURDAT that i wrote here and that HURDAT is the CPHCs BT as well as NHCs. As a result i disagree that Felicia 2003 or Madeline 1992 are not a part of the CPAC season offically, in fact i have always thought and considered the JTWC, CPHC and NHC BT are or should be the same in a very similar way to the BoM, Jakarta, PNG, Fiji, and New Zealand BTs are since they all work together behind the scenes. This is why i stripped a system of a JTWC label in the WPAC per the CPHCs TCR on the system. Jason Rees (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: I looked on this CPHC IBTrACS, and its pretty much a detailed version of this source, and both Madeline and 2003's Felicia weren't cited on IBTrACS. I didn't looked it in details, but it doesn't seems to me that there are inconsistencies between my list and IBTrACS, even Winona is listed there.
About the RSMCs and TCWCs, we shouldn't consider them the same in no hipotesys, since they aren't the same agency regardless the nation where they operate. It's not uncommom to see CPHC and JTWC disagreeing on some crossover storm (Omeka comes to mind, also 2003's Jimena and the already cited Loke), the same can be applied to BoM and FMS (Raquel, Ului) or FMS and Wellington (Susan). ABC paulista (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not say that there were any inconsistencies in your list and I respect it for what it is - When I saw it I just fancied going through and checking it and making sure that its rock solid. Im sorry if you feel that this is treding on your toes but its just something i fancied doing.Jason Rees (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: No, no it's okay. I just said that I didn't find any inconsistencies at all since the second source is based on CPHC BT, and both Madeline and 2003's Felicia weren't there, regarding our initial discussion, but I didn't do a detailed verification. If it's not going to be a nuisance, please do a second verification. More verifications will only add quality for it, and maybe you can find even more inconsistencies. ABC paulista (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ABC paulista I just wanted to make sure that we were both singing from the same hymn sheet before proceeding, despite our difference of opinon over what the warning centers can and cant do with systems moving out of their area of responsibility. Anyway I feel the best way to procede for now is to split your list in to 3 groups. The first group should be pre 1982, the second group should be all of the EPAC to CPAC Crossovers and the third is what we are left with.Jason Rees (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What about Ward 92? It entered the CPAC but IIRC isn't in HURDAT nor the CPHC AOR. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan: According to JTWC, Ward formed in CPAC before crossing the dateline, but CPHC don't acknowledge it. There are no mention of Ward on CPHC archives or Best Track, TCR, ATCF, IBTrACS, not even HURDAT, so we can't say that Ward was part of that CPAC season.
And frankly, there are many storms that, according to JTWC, formed in CPAC but aren't acknowledged by CPHC, or they consider that it actually formed west of the dateline. ABC paulista (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Using the IBTrACS data that @Jason Rees: brought here, I've included some more discrepancies that I've found. Even 1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane status as a CPAC-to-EPAC crosser can be disputed. ABC paulista (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Category 5 example image

I thought I should consult you regarding edits to Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale: You opted to use the image of Hurricane Patrica, but as intense as it was, I disagree that it is the best image available. The storm is far too bright to make out any features in the thumbnail. Maybe Gilbert isn't the best example, but surely there is a better image somewhere? Dustin (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see them just fine. The image was modified from the original MODIS file to fix the over-exposure and is darker than most images of the same kind. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that Haiyan and Oliwa have clearer images. Or maybe Gay (1989 or 1992), or Angela. ABC paulista (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@ABC paulista: The page is meant only for Atlantic and Eastern Pacific storms as the SSHWS is not officially used outside of the NHC's AoR. That's also why none of the examples are of storms from other basins. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Then, Hurricane Allen, maybe? ABC paulista (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@ABC paulista: All of the images for Allen are blurry to an extent. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bucharest nightclub fire

I understand the deletion of victims table you've done on Colectiv nightclub fire. Sorry for embarrassing you. I really appreaciate your contributions on the article. – Alexandru M. (talk · contribs) 16:06, 4 November 2015 (EET)

@Alexandru M.: No worries~ Glad we met an agreement quickly :) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Restore oldest blurb to ITN?

The Main Page is currently outbalanced. I see that the oldest is the American Pharaoh. Or maybe add back Turkish election results. --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hurricane Patricia
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Patricia 2015-10-23 1730Z (Worldview).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You have a reply

As I said at WP:ITN/C, no need to regret removing the event from "Ongoing" ticker. The process should have been appropriate. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

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 Smithsonian Institution 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. Wales 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. Belarus 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 United States 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:

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)

Your GA nomination of Tropical Storm Trudy (2014)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tropical Storm Trudy (2014) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Paris attacks

Can we update the numbers of people killed in the news? Its unfortunately at least 60 killed now... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anastan: We're trying to be as careful as possible with this event so we're opting to use statements from the French police which have only confirmed ~40 deaths. Once they make a statement of 60+, I'll update it accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure semiprotect is warranted right now, there are lots of eyes on the article at the moment. -- Luk talk 23:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Luk: I stand by my protecting the page, but if you wish to feel free to request input from other administrators at WP:UNPROTECT. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Cyclone, very tragic event... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 Paris attacks

Re- your revert: "Perpetrators: not confirmed, report is just going on a hunch it seems". It would be on a hunch if the article claimed that ISIS was responsible. In this case, the article simply point to what ISIS itself claimed, regardless of who is the true perpetrators. MarkYabloko 07:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@MarkYabloko: Unless I'm missing something in the source your provided, it's all conjecture based on ISIS-related twitter handles. There's no outright statement from the group, just disgusting tweets praising the attacks. The claim isn't backed up at all by the evidence in their article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Well yes, we are talking about the same thing, you are not missing anything. No evidence, no hunch, The article is pointing to the disgusting tweets by ISIS.
Thank you for your response. MarkYabloko 08:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

An alert was issued

Reference 2015 typhoon season

I have been tracking what will become typhoon In-fa closely for 48 hours. An alert was issued in Guam

http://alerts.weather.gov/cap/wwacapget.php?x=MZPI1253CC1F5130.SpecialWeatherStatement.1253CC2C4980MZPI.GUMSPSPQ.ffd5f22d8ff7398ee48a97fc7e382ec6

This will be very big and I want to get this information across as soon as possible. Can we compromise and leave off name of typhoon or say it is expected to be named.

thanks for your most excellent work

@Pbmaise: Unless a system is monitored as a tropical depression by either the JMA or JTWC, we avoid listing them on the page. Countless tropical disturbances develop every year and it would overload an already very long article otherwise. The same general policy is applied to other basins. This particular system will likely be added in the near future when the JMA classifies it as a tropical depression. But until then we can't include it. Your interest in the system and willingness to edit is greatly appreciated, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Meteorological history of Hurricane Dennis

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meteorological history of Hurricane Dennis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meteorological history of Hurricane Dennis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Naughty Jeffrey -- Naughty Jeffrey (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ACE rating of 1992 season

OK, about that ACE edit I made that you reverted you said that the 1992 season had 296 ACE units. But when I checked that page, it said 262 ACE units. Could you please update that number or fix any calculation mistakes made to get that. Contact me when you're done. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have three questions. Firstly, you say that 296 ACE units was the total number for the whole season, so shouldn't it show as the main number at the bottom of the table? Why is it showing "Total=262 ACE units"? Shouldn't the total for the whole season be stressed more than the total for just the EPac hurricanes? Secondly, you say that you recalculated the number, so why aren't you updating the article? Thirdly, I was looking at some other seasons' articles for fun, and I couldn't even find any mention of the ACE number in some of them, like in the 1991 and 1993 Pacific hurricane seasons. Why is that? Please respond quickly. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Jamaica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Thomas Parish. 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) 10:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Linda (2015)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Linda (2015) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Haiti

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class/FA nomination request

I would like to nominate 1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane for either A-Class or FA review. Is that possible, since I created the article? Please let me know how the chronology works (i.e., whether I need to have A-Class or FA done first), as well as whether I need others to nominate the article for a review. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@CapeVerdeWave: WP:WPTC only assigns A-class to articles that have passed WP:GAN but are just below what's needed for featured status. It's an optional assessment, but given how few long-term editors the project has we can't really do proper A-class assessments anymore...it's more of a fly-by thing now but still reserved for GA-quality. That being said, WP:GAN isn't necessary for featured, so you can go ahead and nominate the article at WP:FAC—the procedure is listed at the top of the page—at any time. It's possible the article won't get many comments (I've had several nominations fail simply because no one reviewed the article) as everything is volunteer work, and we need to dedicate several hours to carefully reading through and quality-checking a nominated article. If you need any help getting the ball rolling, feel free to ask. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to join in, but if you nominate it for GAN, I will review it. That is an important first step toward later classes. In addition, as it is part of the 1933 AHS good topic, it technically needs to be at to GA status within three months of the article being published. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

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) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Three Things

Hi. I have three things to say. Firstly, I really need an answer for my above question (see the second reply of ACE rating of 1992 season) that I posted a month ago. Secondly, I loved the edits that you made to Timeline of the 2015 Pacific hurricane season. You even added the coordinates for everything! I think it is on the verge of becoming a good article. I just wanted to let you know that you left out the November section there. I put the events for November as many as I could. But I did not know the times or the coordinates so I didn't put those. Could you please put the times and the coordinates and also put a picture in that section, as that section could also use a picture. Thirdly, could you please tell me how to do a merger? I proposed a merger one month ago of Katia and Katia (disambiguation) and it is not going anywhere. Please reply quickly. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about missing your question before, not sure how I overlooked that. The ACE tables are a bit of a sore point within WP:WPTC. We came to an agreement several years ago that dedicated sections to ACE would no longer be used as it's a relatively minor metric only utilized publicly by the NHC (hence why we don't actively calculate it for non-NHC basins). However, it's still a viable metric for activity so it would not be removed entirely. As such, it would only be mentioned in passing either in the lead or in a season summary section, depending on available sources. Simply put, we just didn't get around to implementing this entirely either due to reverting by new users/IPs or a lack of focus. Same thing can be applied to why I didn't update 1992's ACE: I forgot to and got lazy :P

I'm glad you enjoy the 2015 Timeline article~ They're pretty fun to write but are truthfully some of the least viewed articles in the project (next to obscure storms in non-NHC basins). Since it's not looked at terribly frequently, I felt it fine to just wait until Tropical Cyclone Reports are released to add missing storms as every entry would require re-writing to match the refined data. Central Pacific storms will still be added without their TCRs, as it's unlikely the CPHC will release their reports in a timely manner.

Lastly, the Katia merger thing is not within the scope of the meteorology projects so I was unaware this was even happening (neither of the pages are on my watchlist). You could leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy to notify interested users to speed things up. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


78.26's RFA Appreciation award

The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Blanca (2015) has been nominated for Did You Know

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Cyclonebiskit, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:02, 25 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 April to May 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lindsay, Texas. 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) 10:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Jamaica

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Jamaica you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2016 (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 2009, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Storm chaser. 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) 09:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Cyclonebiskit. I'm just posting to let you know that Timeline of the 2010 Pacific hurricane season – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 29. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Hurricane Blanca (2015)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Tags

Thank you for your patience. Can you speak with the editor who placed the tagsand see if they can be removed? That tagging may have been a disruptive action. While we figure it out the article is pulled but I hope it gets resolved quickly. Jehochman Talk 02:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I would like to AGF and say it was merely coincidental, but the timing of the orange tag placement makes me think otherwise. LoveToLondon (pinging for sake of openness) commented on the nomination at ITN/C (1/6, 17:41 UTC) nearly 8 hours before it was posted and only once it was posted (1/7, 01:15 UTC) did they tag the article (1/7, 01:31 UTC). I get that they want to ensure quality of articles that go up on the main page, but the route taken is not appreciated. I've already asked why they didn't fix up the article when they did the research on the article's talk page but still awaiting a response. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have some time?

Hello Cyclonebiskit. I just wanted to know if you had some time to delete the page User:Typhoon2013/Archive1. Typhoon2013 does not need this page. Sorry I had to ask you, I would have deleted it myself if I could have. But I read somewhere that only admins could delete wiki pages. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's up to Typhoon2013 if they want that page deleted as it's within their userspace. Unless they make a request, there's no reason to delete it at the moment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
He blanked that page. Doesn't that show that they want it deleted? (He didn't need it because it is an exact copy of User talk:Typhoon2013/Archive1.) So yeah. 73.223.175.207 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm probably being a bit rigid here, but it's still their userspace so they need to make an actual request—whether it's a message on an admin's talk page or a {{db-u1}} template on the page—for something to be deleted. Not our place to determine what to do with their userspace. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Ilona

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Ilona you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Ilona

The article Cyclone Ilona you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Ilona for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Ilona

Materialscientist (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Alex (2016)

The article Hurricane Alex (2016) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hurricane Alex (2016) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Juliancolton -- Juliancolton (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Track map request

Hi,

I was wondering if it is possible you could produce a storm history map for the January 2016 United States blizzard, if possible.

Thanks. --100.8.142.93 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@100.8.142.93: sorry for the late reply, took a little break from editing yesterday. I could make a track for it, yes, but extratropical cyclones are far more convoluted than tropical cyclones and don't like to maintain a single circulation. Based on surface analyses, there were at least four distinct circulations with this system and a fifth one developed once it cleared the coast. The map would only serve to confuse readers so instead, I'm just waiting on an official snowfall map to tack on to the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: There is a snowfall map now on the article. --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Jonas

Listed in opening, similar to February 2013 nor'easter. I think it has a place in both spots? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just my two cents but WP:OSE can apply. The last thing we need is to put a naming controversy in bold letters at the top of the article which should be about the storm, and its impacts. As I have said before, the info is already in the lead section as well as a section devoted to it. That being said if you are to include Jonas in bold then you have to include all of the noteworthy names in bold per WP:NPOV, it is too much of a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tofutwitch11: Everything depends on interpretation of policies (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OSE, WP:NPOV, MOS:BOLDTITLE). As I see it, the January 2016 United States blizzard takes the most neutral route by giving no undue attention toward The Weather Channel's unofficial (and controversial) name. Other names have been tossed around for the system (Snowzilla, Snowmageddon 2016, Blizzard2016, etc.) so we're avoid bias toward a commercial name. The names are covered appropriately in their own section plus the two most common names in the lede. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

February 2013 nor'easter

With regards to the change made to that article, I checked the the editing histories of both the IP and MarioProtIV as well as Talk:February 2013 nor'easter and, failing to find any relevant discussion, I reverted the revision. Even the talk page of the January 2016 storm doesn't seem to go into major specifics regarding other articles, so I hope you understand my reasoning. Dustin (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: No worries, there really wasn't a blatant, all-encompassing discussion. Either way, the underlying agreement—at least how I've interpreted it—was that we'd avoid bolding the unofficial names to better adhere to WP:NPOV (overriding WP:COMMONAME) so it can be reasonable extrapolated to other articles. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MeetPulpet

Be advised that there is another editor, SochPulpet, who has also made... interesting edits to Censorship in China: [2][3][4]. That page has received a lot of traffic from new editors (not sure if this is a joke), at least a half-dozen by my count. I would appreciate your advice in this situation. GABHello! 02:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Looks like clear sockpuppet abuse to me, best to start up a sockpuppet investigation. I've semi-protected the page in the meantime to limit the damage they can cause. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I will. It's very complicated and messy, but I'll see what I can do. GABHello! 02:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

China SPI

The SPI for Censorship in China is here. Thanks for your help, GABHello! 03:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Typhoon Fran

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Westerly wind burst

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Storm Gertrude

Storm Gertrude is derived from the US Storm, Jonas, why did you revert my edit? An explanation would be welcome. Pablothepenguin (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin: They're wholly separate storms. The system that became Gertrude formed behind Jonas and tracked farther north. On this surface analysis loop you can see Jonas' two centers (it split into multiple circulations) impact the British Isles on January 26 and 27. Another system, Gertrude, comes in from the west soon after. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case, then why wasn't Jonas named as Gertrude by the Met Office?, Surely the storm now called Gertrude should be named Henry or Imogen. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pablothepenguin: Could be that since it already had a name that was well-known they opted to use Jonas instead of adding another one. News reports prior to the storm reaching the British Isles referred to it as Jonas, so suddenly switching to Gertrude would lead to confusion (ex: "I thought Jonas was heading here, now they're saying Gertrude is?"). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cyclone Ula

Hello! Your submission of Cyclone Ula at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit, it has been a week without a response from you. Please stop by your nomination at your next opportunity; I'd hate to see someone close it due to lack of response. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Last call for a response on the nomination page. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: sorry for the absurdly late reply. Been trying to muster the drive to finish up the article, but I keep getting sidetracked. I'm busy for the rest of the weekend and won't have time to revisit this until Monday. If that's too long and you wish to close the nomination, I understand. Thank you for taking the time to remind me multiple times and my apologies for inadvertently ignoring your comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Cyclonebiskit, thanks for letting me know. I can certainly give you until the end of Monday, but I can't control what others might do. If you can post even a line saying it's taking much longer than you expected, that would probably satisfy others who work in the DYK space. I'll keep my eye on it either way. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Like it!

I don't know if it was intentional, but a very apt closure here Optimist on the run (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Protection changes

I would appreciate it if you would restore the 6-month protection placed on Cyclone Laurence. As a Checkuser I placed the protection due to the excessive amount of sockpuppetry on the article after determining that range blocks would not be appropriate for this particular sockmaster. Nearly every edit on the article since October 2014 has been vandalism or socking. Of the last 50 edits to the page approximately 24 have been either vandalism or sock edits. Approximately 18 have been reverts of those edits. The remainder have been minor cosmetic changes, my protection, and then your change of the protection. As you have edited the article extensively, you should not be using your admin tools on the article as you are clearly WP:INVOLVED. It would have been appreciated if you had approached me to ask about the length of the protection, but that ship has sailed. Please restore my protection as requested. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, just chiming in as I have both Cyclone Laurence and this talk page on my watchlist. For what it's worth, I thought the six month semiprotection was a little heavy-handed, as well. I'm not sure if you were acting in your official capacity as a CU, and if so, it would have been helpful to specify that in the log summary. I've spent quite a bit if time patrolling WP:RFPP in my time as an admin, and I'd never consider three vandalism edits over the course of eight months to require such a long protection period – especially since all three of those bad-faith edits were reverted in under one minute each, and a relatively obscure tropical cyclone article doesn't need quite the same level of safeguarding as, say, a controversial BLP. I'm not sure where WP:INVOLVED comes into play, honestly; Cyclonebiskit started a basic skeleton of the article over seven years ago, and hasn't been involved in any sort of content disputes that would make it inappropriate to adjust protection levels. (I doubt the creator of an article would have a vested interest in seeing that his or her article remain unprotected, but that's not the point I suppose.) Given how easily editors have been able to manage the occasional abuse of this article, I agree with shortening the protection duration. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Articles targeted by sock accounts are regularly semi-protected when other means of protection are not available, which is the case here as range blocks aren't feasible. I don't understand why you would leave a heavily targeted article (nearly 80% of the last 50 edits have been sock related) open to further abuse by an LTA sockmaster. A look at the history also shows that the last account blocked was a checkuserblock, but the caveat about undoing such blocks does not extend to protection and other related actions. If Cyclonebiskit had concerns about the length of the protection then I would expect they would approach me to discuss as opposed to unilaterally undoing the protection, especially on an article they created (which I maintain has all appearances of being WP:INVOLVED). I obviously have no intention or desire to restore my longer protection, but would hope it would be restored in order to protect the article from further long-term disruption. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ponyo, foremost I wish to apologize for not consulting with you first. I didn't expect this to be an issue which is why I went ahead and reduced the protection duration. As Julian stated, the number of malicious edits is relatively sparse given how long a period we're talking about here. Assuming the 80% ratio you mentioned, that's about 0.05 malicious edits per day, or once every 20 days, since October 2014. From a WP:RFPP standpoint, that's not frequent enough to warrant protection. It can easily be handled by users simply watching the page. The most recent spree of three new users on January 30 – February 2 vandalizing the article does raise some eyebrows, but that's more related to Cyclone Stan, which struck the same area as Cyclone Laurence, rather than a long-term vandal issue. This type of activity happens almost every time there's an active tropical cyclone. I do my best to be objective with any tropical cyclone article rather than add personal views to how I handle things, but if I have devoted considerable time to an article I'll opt to defer admin actions to others. Hopefully this clarifies my reasoning for truncating the protection period. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

removing bold on other winter storm articles

If we're bidding to this new rule, can you remove all the other bold names in the other winter storm articles? --100.8.142.93 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

More info to an article

If you have time, can you contribute to the article Thanksgiving 2014 nor'easter? It currently is sort of bland at this time and I would appreciate if some more info were to be contributed. --100.8.142.93 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying to your comment above, slipped my mind. For that one, anyone can help out doing that, not just me. For the Thanksgiving 2014 nor'easter, I'm not entirely sure an article is needed and I went ahead and redirected it to 2014–15 North American winter since it's been sitting around for a week with no substance. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for 1934 Muroto typhoon

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Patricia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Patricia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Winston 2016 track.png

Are you sure Winston has become subtropical? The final warning from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center describes the status as becoming subtropical not subtropical, and the track from NOAA still uses TS, not SS. -- Meow 01:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Meow: Oh, I must have misread the advisory. I've gone ahead and fixed it. Thanks for catching my mistake! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Well the TCWC Wellington has considered it as non-tropical so I do not dare to change it by myself. (Actually I am at work so I cannot do it.) -- Meow 01:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016 North American winter storm

I meant to tag February 2016 North American storm complex as the one to be deleted as it was the original title; however, I neglected to pay attention and tagged the wrong page. Do you think it should be reverted back to "storm complex" or would it be alright to stay as "winter storm?" United States Man (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Patricia

The article Hurricane Patricia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hurricane Patricia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), and New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by There's always time for skeletons Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with Lancashire J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

El Reno tornado

Primetime638 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC) I noticed you just changed my edit of the May 31, 2013 El Reno tornado page. I will have you know, I am a meteorologist and the tornado was officially rated an EF5 tornado. Primetime638 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC) My qualifications are completely relevant. The first rating was EF3 due to damage, but it was later raised to EF5 after radar-indicated readings and wind speeds. What are your sources?

The EF5 rating was based on windspeed, however, because the winds occurred over a rural area of open terrain basically, and the Enhanced Fujita Scale rates tornadoes based on damage, not windspeed. The maximum damage they could find was equivalent to that of an EF3 tornado, so thats why the tornado was downgraded back to an EF3 in August 2013. --MarioProtIV (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Hurricane Danny (2015)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Petite Savanne

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Your GA nomination of 1934 Muroto typhoon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1934 Muroto typhoon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1934 Muroto typhoon

The article 1934 Muroto typhoon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1934 Muroto typhoon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Joaquin importance

I think that if the name gets retired, it should be upped to high importance because of the El Faro controversy that is ongoing and the devastation caused in the Bahamas. The forecast errors are also quite notable.

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2

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)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink mobile -- Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia

The article Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink mobile -- Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for William M. Gray

On 17 April 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article William M. Gray, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyclonebiskit/Archive16&oldid=1159210733"