Jump to content

User talk:CyclonicallyDeranged

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

ITN recognition for Don Talbot

[edit]

On 4 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Don Talbot, 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 22:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Jeanne Little

[edit]

On 10 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jeanne Little, 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. —Bagumba (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new leaf

[edit]

Hi there. First, let me thank you for being interested in editing in the first place. There are a lot of storms, but only a handful of editors, and we could really use each and every one. I just wanted to reach out, hoping that we can move forward productively. I didn’t like how everything went down, and I hope the incident doesn’t cause you to leave. This has been a stressful year for everyone, and here on Wikipedia, we’re all trying to do the same thing: write about these destructive storms. In this era of misinformation and climate change denialism, our job (as volunteers) is so important. So here’s hoping we can start a productive dialogue.

I’m curious: is the Australian basin the one you’re most interested in? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hurricanehink. Yes, first and foremost this blatant hostility I'm receiving from multiple editors lately has definitely caused me to consider withdrawing from Wikipedia – for good. My ideas at large have been rebuffed by most of the community and I am much better without this sort of reaction of pushing me around. I saw the article, Aussie cyclones 2020–21, and can spot a number of problems. Unfortunately, most of them didn't like the ideas at all and insist on having things their way. As a result I'll likely go my own way relying on BOM's website which I know from years of browsing is fantastic.
While I am interested in all cyclones including hurricanes and typhoons, Aussie cyclones definitely mean a lot more. Largely because I am Aussie and have been closely watching those cyclones as a hobby for decades. Reading through the Wikipedia articles on historic Aussie cyclones and I see they are largely neglected with many gaps. The info from the BOM website remains superior to Wikipedia's info. It's sad to see a bare few editors here on Wikipedia editing Aussie cyclones, most of whom don't seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject. Only Aussie I could pick out had a name ChocolateTrain – I haven't had an interaction with this editor yet. The fact that BOM's personnel can get everything together so well to create a fantastic website, while I see so many disputes on Wikipedia, particularly on the Atlantic hurricanes articles, tells me the source of info I really should rely upon. I feel Wikipedia was, is, and probably will be in tatters.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply - I do see where you were coming from, and I'm sorry the whole dispute got so heated. Before you leave, I hope you hear me out. You're right that Wikipedia's coverage of Aus cyclones is rather lacking, especially compared to the Atlantic. There are very few editors in the AUS basin, and so some things might not be too set from year to year (unlike Atlantic articles which have been very heavily edited since 2005, and where a lot of the disputes in content occurred from 2005-2012). You're also right that BoM's coverage of storms (particularly recent ones) is superior. That doesn't mean they're the only source, obviously. Check out the article for Cyclone Lam, which hit Northern Territory. I worked on this one, and had to rely on a lot of news and other sources to complete the article. If we had some more regular AUS editors (not saying it has to be you, hopefully a whole community of AUS editors!) then I'm sure Wikipedia's coverage would soon be superior to the BoM. Check out older storms like Cyclone Ada, Cyclone Althea, or Cyclone Joy, all three of which are featured. They show the potential for what a really good article could look like, and be an even superior source to the BoM (which is a great agency, but they don't have the time to look through every newspaper to get every nugget of detail). They are also the rare exception of really good AUS articles, but are a good example of what could be. And maybe check out 1940s Australian region cyclone seasons, which has a lot of info on a decade's worth of storms, and could be expanded with newspapers, local governments, and other resources. No one has gotten around to it on Wikipedia yet, and the BoM is lacking for older storms. I hope we don't lose you as an editor, both because there aren't many tropical cyclone editors interested in adding content in general, and second, because you're from Australia, and our coverage is bad! You're right that you should use the Bom for reliable information on records and current storm data. I just hope you consider adding that content to Wikipedia too :) If you need any guidance/assistance with anything here, I'd be glad to help. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Absolutely, there are a handful of articles within this realm of Aussie cyclones that have been well covered and well researched as you have given, more detailed than from BOM's site. Meanwhile, other Wikipedia articles exist that look different, for example I spotted Cyclone Sigma today, which has ugly tags all over, in my opinion some of the tags are unneeded. Can the article be improved? Yes of course, I am sure there is info hidden in the net, or it is possible the state or national library has archives on the historical cyclone. Those libraries are a long, long way from my location. As for editing the article myself, I am not so sure – I will bet I will get rebuffed from past experiences here. So I'll save my energy instead. Elsewhere, I can pick out several other articles that do not yet exist in Wikipedia for more notable historical Aussie cyclones. Regarding the current season article, I was interested in keeping it in good shape which is why I have been targeting that article so much lately. It is a pity that few editors are there to watch the article, while everyone else ignores it altogether. I was hoping more editors could step in, such as ChocolateTrain who has been absent throughout this time, or anyone else out there. After all, there are more than 25 million people in Australia. Wikipedia still has problems with its consensus mechanism.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the few I picked are the rare exception of good AUS articles. Sigma indeed is a rather ugly article. As for editing the articles, I doubt you will get rebuffed in older articles, especially if you're adding info that wasn't there before. Some people are more protective of the recent articles, because they're so highly visible, and people turn to them for up to minute information. On the other hand, older articles tend to get ignored, such that they often sit in the same state for years - Sigma basically looks the same as when it was created in 2016. We could certainly use some suggestions for historic AUS cyclones that Wikipedia is missing - we have an article request page here. As for consensus, yes, you're right that can be a problem on Wikipedia. That's especially an issue for active season. I proposed a compromise text between your version and Jason's version on the 20-21 talk page - I wondered if you could take a look. And also, I hope here on your talk page you now see the upside potential of Wikipedia's community, which can be rather nice at times (when it's not tearing each other apart over minor disagreements). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At large it is all right. Will be looking at it more closely shortly.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cyclonically. I would like to sincerely apologize on behalf of me and any editors that have provided hostility towards you. I did not intend for things to get so out of hand, and for this whole ordeal to become such a major issue. It should have never come to this. I understand where both sides of this lay, including yours, and Jason Rees'. I only hope the best for you on Wikipedia, and I do sincerely hope you decide to stay as there are plenty of great editors out there who only want the best information on Wikipedia, as you do. I wish this could be longer, but unfortunately I am too busy to provide a more lengthy reply.
Cheers, 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 18:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Weatherman27, it was nice to have met you and to have interacted a few times during my short time here. Unfortunately the ANI had three people negatively targeting my behaviour, plus Jason Rees' comments put on behalf of one of the three, without anyone else commenting to justify my behaviour, and this led to admin putting my account on hot water. From that I believe the community as a whole does not want my contributions. May Wikipedia be forever unreliable and a failure.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that it had to come to that. It was nice to meet and interact with you too. I am also sorry that the community didn't really listen to you and what you said, things should have been neutral, but instead things got out of hand. Thank you for the contributions out have made, and I hope things get better. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 01:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider meeting with ChocolateTrain to seek help. SMB99thx my edits 03:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for being uncivil and comparing you to an LTA, which you are not. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, it was excellent to see your ideas and passions for the Australian basin over the last little while. I'm sorry if you found malice in any of what was said, know that I have absolved myself of malice towards you. I too am an Aussie editor, and am too finding my feet on Wikipedia (if anyone wants to suggest a place to start or give advice beyond the Teahouse type do reach out). I have the privilege of access to an excellent set of libraries and the unfortunate drawback of having not much time, it would be excellent to develop a strong group of Australian editors to bring Ausr and to a lesser extent Spac storms where relevant up to the Atlantic/Wpac standards, even if that means starting with 2020/21 storms and working our way back. There is scope for us to reach out to ChocolateTrain and from here we could see where this goes. If wikipedia doesn't seem like the place for you anymore, that is fine, ultimately it's up to you, but getting 1 more from 25 million might give us a chance to make this corner of wikipedia a little more encyclopedic. ThePelicanThing (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia certainly and desperately needs more editors.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Cyclonically, it is wonderful to have new editors participating in the realm of southern hemisphere storms. There has been a lack of new editors in the SHEM, especially in the Australian and SWIO regions. I am happy to see that you're here to help improve these articles. I am sorry for any malice imposed on you during your first two months here on Wikipedia, as you are still quite new and haven't read all of the policies yet. I am sorry to hear that you considered leaving Wikipedia. I is great to have more Aussie editors in helping with the cyclone project, as I am from the US of A (as you said it on ITN) and I do not know much about Australia. I am willing to cooperate with you in the future, and please reach out to anyone if you need help.

Regarding the dispute, I am sorry it got so heated. I encourage you and Jason Rees to apologize to each other for rapidly reverting each others' edits and for possibly insulting each other. Then I hope you and Jason peacefully talk it out and let each other express your opinions. I am reverting the season article to the revision before the edit-warring started, so it is fair and we can have a clean start. Also, I'm archiving the previous argument on the talk page.

I'm happy you chose to stay. Here, have some

Cookies!

Destroyeraa has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you. Cheers. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invite! (very, very serious)

[edit]
Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept!

I'm seriously and honestly want you to consider that you must take this offer. We need more editors on SHEM like you. I came from SHEM myself (Indonesia), and you deserve to be in Wikipedia. SMB99thx my edits 14:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also giving you a barnstar (once again) in order to convince you to join this WikiProject.
The Resilient Barnstar
Giving this again for willingness to clean yourself up after an ANI discussion. Please stay with us. SMB99thx my edits 14:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, that this WikiProject is willing to give you a space to finally succeed. Just look up Chicdat and Cristianpogi678. I'm hoping that you didn't reject this invitation, and you will get a second welcome from us. :-) SMB99thx my edits 15:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like your eager passion. I will join when I want to join, when I feel it is the right time. All right?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good! SMB99thx my edits 08:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
We need more new editors with new ideas. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Now I can contribute.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. We appreciate your ideas at ITN too. Though I still think 50 deaths is too much though...but 40’s fine. We can also base it on significance, such as Cyclone Ianos, which only caused 5 deaths, but it flooded a major city and people thought a hurricane hitting Greece was rare so they posted it. Cheers. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (Btw I would have opposed Cyclone Ianos from ITN too.)--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The posting was arguably rushed, as even the poster didn't know what a "medicane" was at the time. The article had the name Medicane Ianos before, and most people supported because they didn't know a hurricane can hit Greece. Also, we haven't posted 10 storms in the last month. We posted 5: Typhoon Goni (2020), Typhoon Molave (2020), Typhoon Vamco, Hurricane Eta, and Hurricane Iota. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said there were 10 storms posted in the last month. I said the "10 storms" was based on that guy's proposed criteria for posting cyclones on ITN. It would include other boring storms like Zeta, Delta, etc. Heck, even a crybaby like Beta would pass based on the proposed criteria. At this pace, a storm like Arthur 2020 would be posted on ITN (groan).--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posting 5 in the past month is still way too many. I would have opposed Molave, Vamco and Iota. Too many on ITN.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Delta and Zeta were nominated, both failed to post. "A storm like Arthur 2020" - lol! We'll try to cut down the number of TCs we post in the future and try to nominate more things like the Brereton Report. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, in the future, feel free to nominate something yourself! Just copy the ITN candidate template from any other blurb, and start a new level 4 heading and paste the template in with the new blurb. Cheers. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it is worthy of ITN, otherwise it is a waste :-) By the way, I nominated articles for ITN in the past, they got posted.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw! Those were RD articles. Anyway, who is the murderer you're talking about? If it is a notorious person who broke out, then an article should be already written or should be created. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Brereton Report

[edit]

On 23 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Brereton Report, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

44th edition of The Hurricane Herald!

[edit]

Volume XLIV, Issue 44, December 1, 2020
←(Previous issues) 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 →


The Hurricane Herald: Happy Thanksgiving Edition!

The Hurricane Herald is the semi-regular newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The newsletter aims to provide in summary the recent activities and developments of the WikiProject, in addition to global tropical cyclone activity. The Hurricane Herald has been running since its first edition ran on June 4, 2006. If you wish to receive or discontinue subscription to this newsletter, please visit the mailing list. This issue of The Hurricane Herald covers all project related events from October 5–November 30, 2020. This edition's editors and authors are SMB99thx, Weatherman27, Chicdat, Hurricanehink, Cyclone Toby, Typhoon2013, and ChessEric. Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve the newsletter and other cyclone-related articles. Past editions can be viewed here.

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: News & Developments

New articles since the last newsletter include:

New GA's include:

Featured Content

From October 5 to November 30, two featured articles were promoted:

From the Main Page documents WikiProject related materials that have appeared on the main page from October 5–November 30, 2020 in chronological order.

Today's Featured Article/List

There is currently one featured article candidate:

WikiProject To-Do


Here are some tasks you can do:

Current assessment table

Assessments valid as of this printing. Depending on when you may be viewing this newsletter, the table may be outdated. See here for the latest, most up to date statistics.
As of this issue, there are 164 featured articles and 70 featured lists. There are 133 A-class articles, and 1,010 good articles. There are only 71 B-class articles, perhaps because because most articles of that quality already passed a GA review. There are 415 C-class articles, 788 start-class articles, and 182 stub-class articles, with 23 lists, and 9 current articles. These figures mean that slightly more than half of the project is rated a GA or better. Typhoon Warren was the 1000th GA in the project.

About the assessment scale →

Project Goals & Progress

The following is the current progress on the three milestone goals set by the WikiProject as of this publishing. They can be found, updated, at the main WikiProject page.

Storms of the month over the last year
Month Storm
November 2020 Hurricane Iota
October 2020 Typhoon Goni (2020)
September 2020 Cyclone Ianos
August 2020 Hurricane Laura
July 2020 Hurricane Isaias
June 2020 Tropical Storm Cristobal (2020)
May 2020 Cyclone Amphan
April 2020 Cyclone Harold
March 2020 Cyclone Herold
February 2020 Cyclone Damien
January 2020 Cyclone Tino
December 2019 Cyclone Ambali
November 2019 Cyclone Bulbul
October 2019 Typhoon Hagibis

Storms of the month and other tropical activity for October and November

SotM for October: Typhoon Goni / Rolly
Typhoon Goni formed from east of The Philippines towards the end of October, just as Typhoon Molave ravaged the country. Taking in the plentiful favorable conditions, Goni, known as Rolly in The Philippines, explosively intensified into a Category-5 equivalent hurricane just three days after it became a tropical depression. An eyewall replacement cycle managed to curb its intensification. Goni finished the cycle a few hours before it made landfall, and explosively intensified again into winds of 195 mph (JTWC) and a pressure of 884 mbar. This allowed it to tie with typhoons Haiyan and Meranti as the strongest typhoon by wind speed. Goni made landfall at peak intensity, killing 25 people and causing US$368 million in damage.

SotM for November: Hurricane Iota
Hurricane Iota developed in the central Caribbean Sea in mid-November. Like Goni, it explosively intensified, strengthening 120 mph in 48 hours, and deepening 81 mbar in the same amount of time. Iota explosively strengthened late on November 15 and early on November 16, becoming a Category 5 hurricane at 15:00 UTC on the 16th. By the time Iota had achieved C5 intensity, three people were already dead in Colombia due to landslides. As the storm made landfall, and subsequently weakened and dissipated, adding to the destruction from Hurricane Eta. Iota killed at least 61 people.

  • Atlantic - Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Zeta, Eta, Theta, Iota.

The active Atlantic hurricane season continued. In early October, Tropical Storm Gamma dissipated over the northern Yucatan and was absorbed by powerful Hurricane Delta, which was the season's third major hurricane. Delta weakened before hitting Quintana Roo, but restrengthened in the Gulf of Mexico, later hitting Louisiana as a low-end Category 2 hurricane in nearly the same location as Hurricane Laura in August. Delta killed six people and left US$4 billion in damage. A few days later, Hurricane Epsilon developed southeast of Bermuda, becoming a major hurricane and brushing the island to the east. Hurricane Zeta followed a similar path as Delta, striking Quintana Roo and later striking southeastern Louisiana as a Category 2 hurricane; it killed 8 people and left U$3 billion in damage. At the end of the month, Hurricane Eta developed, becoming a strong Category 4 hurricane before striking Nicaragua. After killing hundreds of people in Central America, Eta reformed in the northwestern Caribbean. It made another landfall in Cuba, moved over the Florida Keys, and briefly became a hurricane again in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, before weakening and striking Cedar Key, Florida as a tropical storm. In early November, Tropical Storm Theta developed from a non-tropical low and moved across the eastern Atlantic.

Member of the month (edition) – Robloxsupersuperhappyface

Robloxsupersuperhappyface joined Wikipedia in July of this year, and has become the most prolific tropical cyclone editor relating to current events, as well as playing an enormous role in creation of newly formed tropical cyclones that eventually became destructive in many regions they are affected in (Hurricane Sally to Gulf Coast of the United States, Typhoon Goni to the Philippines, and Hurricane Iota to Central America respectively - Also, both Goni and Iota are Storms of the Month!). Because of that reason, Robloxsupersuperhappyface's articles are the one of the most viewed tropical cyclone articles in this year - as well as helped us on inviting prospective tropical cyclone editors to this project as they edited Robloxsupersuperhappyface's articles, leading into why we have more than 100 members in this WikiProject leading to this issue. As the result of brilliant Robloxsupersuperhappyface's contributions, we want to give many, many thanks to Super for helping this WikiProject grow so much recently. Happy Thanksgiving!

New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter - project membership is over 100 now!

More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue. Sorted chronologically in order of which they joined.

To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the to-do list at the bottom right of the newsletter for things that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions!

Let's talk about that - An opinion piece by Weatherman27

Before I start, I would like to link everyone to a new essay regarding Force Thirteen. Here it is: WP:F13. I recommend users (old and new) to read this to understand why we don't use Force Thirteen as a source, and why it isn't a reliable source. If you want to see what good reliable sources are, read this: WP:WPTC/AS Now, I will get to the main point of this opinion piece.

Recently, I have gotten more involved in talk pages, and sharing my ideas and/or my opinions on different issues or ideas that have come up, primarily on 2020 Atlantic hurricane season's talk page. As I have discussed these thoughts and ideas with other editors, I have noticed and experienced some things such as being personally attacked, which has led me to want to reiterated some key points here. Despite the fact that they are mentioned commonly at the top of talk pages, I want to bring these up as it is important to have a good base where people can properly chat and discuss topics in peace.

1. Treat others with respect This one can't be stressed enough. Especially on talk pages, it is a place where you and your peers communicate issues, opinions, or ideas to each-other. This means discussing topics in a kind and adult manner. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing in what somebody may say, but that does not mean that you have the right to put them down for not having similar views. It is simply the Golden Rule.

2. Assume Good faith Along with my first point, I feel this one needs to be brought up. People have different opinions, and that is all right, but just because you may not agree with it or what they say, does not mean that it was not out of good faith. They were most likely voicing what they think on the subject, and that is alright. This also goes for edits. Unless it is pretty obvious that a user as vandalized something, it is always good to assume good faith, as other people might not know the rules as well as a more experienced editor.

3. Avoid Personal attacks This is a very important subject that needs to be remembered not just on talk pages, but on all other parts of Wikipedia as well. On talk pages, discussions can get pretty tense and heated, and I admit that I have gotten into a few of these arguments as well. Despite this, it is never okay to attack someone. As a user who has gotten personally attacked before, I can definitely say that it does not feel good, and usually the person who made the attacked will get warned or blocked, so please be kind and accept what other people have to say, because you will get nowhere by being rude.

4. Come to a consensus (preferably a clear one) On talk pages, whenever there is a discussion regarding something important like the merging of an article, people need to decide what the outcome of something important on a talk page. For example, if there is say, a merge discussion for an article on a tropical cyclone, many people will give their input. Usually, different people will have different views on whether to merge or keep the article. Sometimes, the editor will close the discussion early, but this is usually for unrelated reasons, though it sometimes may be because the editor had a change of mind. Now, if there is support for say a merge of the article, then that will be the consensus and the discussion will be closed and the article merged. This can also happen on the opposite side, if an article is to be kept, the discussion will be closed and article kept. Simply put, it is important to discuss and come to a clear decision if there is a consensus involved, to avoid difficulty with the article or page in the future.

These are just a few examples of things that editors of the WPTC need to remember when using talk page discussions. There are plenty of other things not mentioned here that are just as important when it comes to using talk pages. I made this simply to help remind editors the key points when using the discussions, and I hope these were helpful to new users as well as veterans. We need to really get better at staying calm and keeping civil. I have noticed lots of hostility and arguing lately, as well as edit warring and disputes. We need to work this out. We are supposed to work together as WPTC editors, so please fix it. It is sad seeing so many editors getting reported or having to get blocked from this. Once again, keep discussions civil and have a good day. Signing off,

🌀Weatherman27🏈

My experiences as a WikiProject Tropical cyclones member by SMB99thx

Hello again, people of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones! In here, I want to tell how my experiences with WikiProject Tropical Cyclones changed my views on WikiProjects, helped me out of trouble and to be able to regain the trust of many people in Wikipedia.

When I joined WikiProject Tropical cyclones, it was the second WikiProject I have ever joined. The first WikiProject I have ever joined is WikiProject COVID-19, and the reason why I joined that project is to gain trust of people when I contributed to COVID-19 articles and as well as my fight against an IP editor which turned out to be the LTA named Bedriczwaleta (and has been active much more longer than I thought, since February of last year (!!!!)). I have the same thought process (and combined with my plans of editing old season articles, which is not done yet) when I first joined this WikiProject, but joining the WikiProject Tropical cyclones turned out to be something different. It led me to know what are the purposes of WikiProjects are and in turn led me to join many other WikiProjects since.

As such, what made me change my views on WikiProjects during my time as a WikiProject Tropical Cyclones?

First of all, I have seen that WikiProject Tropical cyclones members always actively work together to advance project goals, actively participating in discussions and give much-needed advice on new WikiProject Tropical cyclones members (including me). Second, WPTC really cares about our articles (and the assessments) as part of their project goals. 2018 FT project and Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian (Four Award!) is a prime example of this. Third, we are actively welcoming the new members of this WikiProject and giving these members opportunity to succeed with us by i.e. giving out WikiLove (barnstars). Fourth, we, like WP COVID-19, actively fight against vandals and other LTAs e.g. Sidow........., UnderArmorKid, and Iphonehurricane95.

These kinds of activity led me to change my belief on what WikiProjects truly are. You could see this kind of activity on other good WikiProjects like WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which I just joined recently on 26 October 2020 as of this newsletter and WikiProject Articles of Creation, which I have interest on joining but I might not be able to.

Now, why WikiProject Tropical cyclones brought me out of trouble (and Chicdat, for that matter)?

WikiProject Tropical cyclones is generally a content-creating WikiProject. We really care about improving tropical cyclone coverage on Wikipedia. Members of this WikiProject generally encouraged to communicate and discuss (in Wikipedia, in Discord, or in IRC channel), and this is what helped me and Chicdat out from trouble since our discussions from what I have seen is not always administrative.

Before I joined WikiProject Tropical cyclones (and when I was still new to WikiProject Tropical cyclones), I have been putting myself on trouble numerous times. I was an ANI regular, and as an ANI regular I detailed about my struggle to deal with the LTA Bedriczwaleta and I'm was also putting up IBAN proposals of User:Jadebenn and User:Moamem as well as User:U1Quattro and User:1292simon. While I have managed to get my proposal succeeded and finally got Bedriczwaleta back on track for a while (what I thought), in August 20 (as I was about to finalize my decision to enter my college I'm currently in right now) I got myself into serious trouble against IP range 185.66.252.0/23 (which is apparently good at programming - I'm not). I tried to get them blocked for PA (calling me a thief who has a black soul), but this is where when I realized that I had to attribute things I copied within Wikipedia and I had to apologize to the user. Since then, I did my best to attribute everything I had copied articles from (Example) and I also realized that ANI is not for me (as I do not want to get into troubles by just being there), which led me to quitting ANI until November of this year when I decided to involve myself on Miggy72 dispute (now banned for sockpuppetry - Miggy72 could have been invited to WPTC if he stopped on insisting to create non-notable topics).

After that incident with the IP range 185.66.252.0/23, I have stated that I do not want to get myself into trouble as a presence in ANI. As such, I decided to focus on what I want to do, which is to continue my project of splitting season articles of the yesteryear and began to increasingly involve myself within the project - to look for help and giving the best help that I can do for this WikiProject. The activity from that September led me to become Member of the Month in the previous edition of this newsletter. It was a comeback that I needed, and I want to thank WikiProject Tropical cyclones (especially Hurricanehink) for getting me on this situation. Without their help, I'm not sure if I could be here on this day.

Now, for the final question – why this WikiProject helped me (and Chicdat) regain trust of many people in Wikipedia?

As I stated before, this WikiProject encourages discussion within other members of this WikiProject, which in turn encourages close involvement in all sides of this WikiProject. Because of this, some people are actually helping us learning policies in Wikipedia as the time goes on, rather than falling in into blocks. As such, with time, I have seen that some admins are open for Chicdat to become a rollbacker, while I got hold on several automated gadgets that was more useful. It appears that these tools are the reason why these people are one of the more trusted people in Wikipedia, which in turn helped me a lot at gaining trust. Someday in the future, I'm looking to become an admin by myself. But that's for the another day. For now, what I'm currently doing now is to work at my craft to eventually prepare for the day when I will seek for adminship in the years ahead.

In conclusion, you can see that this WikiProject helped me to regain my standing, alongside Chicdat, Nioni1234, Cristianpogi678, HurricaneTracker495 - and of course - CyclonicallyDeranged! If not for this WikiProject, I don't think they are will be here. Chicdat could have been CIR-blocked like Prahlad balaji and PythonSwarm, Nioni1234 and Cristianpogi678 ending up like Binbin0111 and Miggy72, HurricaneTracker495 would have a trouble establishing himself (or probably will never establish theirselves and stay as an IP) and CyclonicallyDeranged fully driven out from Wikipedia.

By the way, to me, both Binbin0111 and Miggy72 are young, but unfortunately they took on the wrong path (Binbin0111 was one of the earliest Force Thirteen insinuators - Binbin0111 is probably the impetus of Force Thirteen policy in this project (as it was made back in 2017), while Miggy72... we know what happened). I feel bad for them, especially Binbin0111. Had Binbin0111 is willing to learn and took steps forward to become productive young editor like Yellow Evan and two other resilient young editors I have mentioned did, Binbin0111 could have been one of the most valuable editors in this project, especially in matters related to Western Pacific basin, and in extension, Vietnam.

That's it. That's what I have to say. College is increasingly getting into my feelings right now, but I will do my best as I can coming into December. Sorry if I have a bad English. Thanks for reading this opinion piece!

Greetings from Indonesia,

SMB99thx my edits!

Giving it to you as a gift and shoutout! SMB99thx my edits! 04:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMB99thx: he hasn't joined the project yet (please do, you are quite a help), soooooo..... Cyclone Toby contribs 04:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent content. When I get a break from college, I'll see the rest. Thanks!✓✓ miguelgonzale (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMB99thx: thanks for the gift. Cheers--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A smile for you!

[edit]
Hello CyclonicallyDeranged, Destroyeraa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I know that I fell for the sockpuppetry crap, but thanks for helping to drag me out of it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NoahTalk 12:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

Hi. Just making sure you've seen my warning in the aforementioned ANI complaint (diff). Please do your best to take it on-board. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
I just wanted to apologize for everything that has happened, and everything that caused you to be quit/ get driven off of Wikipedia. Despite not officially being a part of the WPTC, you were still considered a valued member, and your comments and opinions were appreciated. I hope one day you might find it in yourself to come back, just as Destroyeraa did. I hope all is well for you, stay safe. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CyclonicallyDeranged&oldid=1234331651"