Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I understand that your issue is that you want to use artist depictions in astronomy infoboxes. Why can't you just do that. Why do you have to revert ALL my edits ????? And then archive discussions out of sight. Do you have a bee in your bonnet or are you genuinely interested in Wikipedia as a collaborative project ?--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that your issue is that you want to use artist depictions in astronomy infoboxes. Why can't you just do that. Why do you have to revert ALL my edits ????? And then archive discussions out of sight. Do you have a bee in your bonnet or are you genuinely interested in Wikipedia as a collaborative project ?--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a different weather system. Starting April 23, we had a lot of rain in North and South Carolina and the flooding is quite serious if you compare the river levels in this article to Hurricane Matthew. I seem to recall tornadoes with this system too. How we do it other than going to the person who did most of the edits I don't know, but it seems there are two systems which can have their own articles in April 2017, or perhaps two systems that could be part of one article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware the April 23 system didn't have that much tornadoes but for the flooding it may need an article in the future, IMO. Would just have to get some consensus from higher up people for that. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: I can understand why you removed some of my edits since I'm new here but one of the EF0 tornadoes from edit 778063642 was removed as well as another EF0 that needs to be added in. WeatherDudeEF5 (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind the flooding occurring right now in the Carolinas is from rain that fell last Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. I'm sure that's a separate system from what is causing problems now. I fast-forwarded through the local news last night and the damage that I could see even then was pretty bad. I assume those are the tornadoes you are referring to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just got finished looking at some real newspapers. No references to tornadoes. I'll work on the Carolinas flooding and see how we can get that into an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion that took place in regards to a similar situation in a different article. Basically, it was discussed whether or not a section showing the most intense tropical cyclones by category should be included in the article List of Atlantic hurricane records. For example, Hurricane Alex of 2010 was the most intense Category 2 hurricane, with a pressure of 946 mbar, Isidore the most intense Category 3 hurricane (934 mbar), Opal (916 mbar), and Wilma (882 mbar). This is an analagous situation, and even though Opal was the most intense Category 4 Atlantic hurricane, there seem to be no sources which state this verbatim. The link to the full discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Undescribed&oldid=777849061 --Undescribed (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--Anonymous Ryan (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I completed the article for the 2010-2011 winter season. This page was created by the user "master of time" I added the events and seasonal forcast sections.[reply]
Can you please stop creating an article for Stephanie and respect the consensus formed at [[1]]. Otherwise you may find yourself being blocked from editing.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mario, I would also say you should stop using the "Reverted good faith edits by..." option of Twinkle for edits by experienced editors. Since experienced editors know to assume the assumption of good faith, it could be viewed as condescending. This revert option is mostly intended for well-intentioned but misguided edits by new users. I recommend "restore this revision" instead if you need to. Even then, your conduct in this particular case was heading towards edit warring. Please do heed the warning @Juliancolton: gave you last month, or we may have to consider restrictions on your ability to edit here, which we would stringently prefer not to do.--Jasper Deng(talk)19:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's annoying when we revert, merge, or change your contributions, but that's only because have a solid hold on project standards, and because we all went through our own trail/error phase too. Take this barnstar for being on top of all things Wiki for both severe weather and tropical cyclones, and for not giving up on us yet. ;) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you had worked on the draft. I want to thank you for your hard work in trying, but we have to respect the other members of the project as well regardless of the outcome. This is how it is sometimes, I hope you aren't discouraged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Tornado outbreak and floods of April 28 – May 1, 2017) has been reviewed!
Please refrain from creating a level 2 header called "Other systems", with level 3 headers of "Tropical depression", as it defeats the purpose of having one altogether. The purpose of an other systems section is for systems that are either a) not officially warned on or b) (and this mostly applies to older systems) doesn't really have much information, so giving it a full blown section would lead to excess whitespace. Regards. YEPacificHurricane20:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the storm's winds are is irrelevant to whether we continue to display information. Remember that unlike all the other categories, tropical depression does not have a lower bound. Cindy is still an active tropical cyclone according to the WPC. As long as that is the case, we display information. If you disagree with that, you're free to bring it up on the project page, but I don't think you'll have much luck given what I've told you above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could we possibly avoid having so many requested moves/page moves just to knock the year off and make something the primary topic. It isnt like the world is going to end just because the article for the name Isacc has the 2012 on it, lets just use some common sense with this stuff please.Jason Rees (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we need an article for Lester in 2016, as it was one of the two tropical cyclones to threaten a direct hit on the Big Island? --219.79.181.53 (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting my edit images. The Suomi-NPP images I made are much better than their previous ones. Especially, please make an explanation to your edit summary containing why. I have reverted your edits and have uploaded more Suomi images. Typhoon2013(talk)00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day MarioProtIV. I have a question about how to do something, and as I have seen you do it before, I thought you'd be the one to ask. How do you get colour images from the Naval Research Laboratory page? You got our recent image for Hurricane Harvey from there, but all I can ever get is black-and-white images. No matter what I press, I never get colour. Could you give me some instructions on how to get a colour image? For example, how do you get to the image you uploaded to Commons from the page I linked above? Thanks. ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you reverting the text I added to the lead? It is unencyclopedic to start an article mentioning the subject's importance without first properly describing it. For example, the Jeff Bezos article does not begin with, "Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world." The article had a proper lead until you changed it on 29 October 2016. Pristino (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Just thought I'd drop a line to say thank you for using a proper infobox image for K2-72e. Works really well on this page, much better than an concept image, and the article reads well too. nice work! --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So much for the process I tried to lay out. If you were so rushed, you couldn't just move the draft over the redirect at Hurricane Maria (2017)? And what's the deal with you always requesting that Cyclonebiskit move pages but you totally bypass that step this time around? Master of Time(talk)16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Maria (2017) was only a redirect, so he should have been able to just move the draft over it since he was autoconfirmed long ago. Plus, since Wikipedia is not a news source, it is perfectly acceptable to wait a brief period for an administrator to move the page if need be (although it shouldn't have been needed here). Fragmenting the page's history, though, should never have been on the table. This should all be fixable, but it will take a little while. Master of Time(talk)19:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Master of Time: I'll be sure to move it over the redirect next time we have a draft for a storm rather then fragment it. But like Jd said I was wanting to get it quickly out and about. Obviously I see that didn't really work as much as I hoped it would. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Hurricane Maria (2017) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hurricane Maria. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Jdcomix (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image you provided for hurricane Maria has a while half circle which disrupts the image. The image I have uploaded is clearer. Please don't change it. Thank you. Toonami1997 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding unofficial records to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. The current damage costs are estimates, not official tallies. Including unofficial records is misleading. It is like how the unofficial start of summer is Memorial Day. Did summer actually start on Memorial Day? No, it starts in late June. These damages are just estimates so until the actual damages are tallied, no records have been broken. I will be taking this to the talk page for discussion. I just wanted you to know where I and a few other people are coming from. You are more than welcome to participate in the discussion. Cheers, --Figfires (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you create this redirect before the system was named in NHC advisories? We shouldn't be prematurely creating redirects just because a system will probably be named (and for this advisory, it was not). Master of Time(talk)20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maater Of Time: - it really doesn’t matter when a redirect is made. You could make them for the rest of the names in the season, and it wouldn’t matter. Ditto the next five naming lists. Since the media was reporting on a potential Hurricane Nate affecting the US in a few days, I think it was beneficial, actually. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MarioProtIV. You have new messages at Talk:Hurricane Ophelia (2017). Message added 02:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Would you please expand it and fix the text, or at least give an indication of when would be the time to make the page more than just a redirect page, instead of just hitting the Undo button?50.235.102.246 (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a year and a half since your most substantive contributions (text / byte-wise) to articles in the North American winter series (i.e. season articles, not articles for individual systems), and I don't know if you're still very interested in winter season articles, but there is another article located at Draft:2017–18 North American winter. I created it shortly after the NOAA outlook was released. I'd consider moving it to mainspace, but some edits were unexpectedly made to the redirect, blocking a page-move for the time being. At the least, maybe you could watch it for later, when winter actually gets into full swing with significant systems. You're a capable writer (and I noticed your name popped up in the revision history of the redirect), so I thought I'd mention it! Master of Time(talk)06:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
I just wanted to tell you to calm down and don't get too excited. As per your edits a few days ago where you already considered/declared the end of both the EPAc and Atlantic seasons. Since it has now ended, that does not mean you should create the 2018 Atl and EPac seasons because 1) too early and 2) barely any sources. But the Atlantic I'll deal with that as me and other users had a huge convo about creating the next season articles last year.
Typhoon2013(talk)00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MarioProtIV. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Which I want to know why, why do you move/merge an article without any reason. I easily reverted all of your edits and the Haikui article will still be up. Don't worry I'll add more if you're not satisfied. Typhoon2013(talk)00:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all there is for impact, then, yes, a case could be made for merger, although given that the 2017 PTS page is over 100kb, more leniency should be shown. I also don't know why any impact wasn't moved during the merger. YEPacificHurricane04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The project consensus has always been to use HURDAT as the official source for intensity, which will be updated when the results of the 1960-65 reanaylsis are approved by the hurricane best track committee as @Cyclonebiskit and Thegreatdr: will tell you.Jason Rees (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For now it can be noted in the article but until its official (which it isnt yet, since its still being looked at by NHC) we do not change the formal windspeeds.Jason Rees (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mention it in prose but since HURDAt hasn’t been updated yet. Also Mario, if you’re curious about precedent, look in that age histories next time before starting an edit war. YEPacificHurricane02:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when 1960-1965 updates will occur. I think the review passed 1963 and then the overall progress stopped as last season ramped up. Once the TCRs are out, progression might occur. I wouldn't expect it this April. Next April maybe. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reference on 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season article
Your recent editing history at Hurricane Ophelia (2017) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. By making additional reverts, you are edit warring just as much as him. Resist the temptation to revert for the sake of restoring your own version.Jasper Deng(talk)10:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
YEPacificHurricane is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Would you please stop removing sections about winter storms? Recently, you undid additions of storms twice in a span that was less than ten minutes (first time; second time) under the pretext of non-notability. You have also removed kilobytes of information about winter storms at several instances earlier this month. Given that the people who added the storms apparently think that they're notable enough, you should think twice and possibly ask for another opinion before deleting the authors' hard work. Also, some of the "non-notable" systems that you deleted subsections for seem clearly notable to me. For example, I have found that you, in multiple reversions, undid the additions at least two different systems, each of which knocked out power for hundreds of thousands of people (first reversion; second reversion). While you have not violated the fine text of The Three-Revert Rule, you have clearly violated its spirit, with two reversions of the same type of edit (addition of winter storms as subsections of the Events section) giving the same justification (non-notability), and I view your reverts as hindering the development of the article. If you do not, in my opinion, take sufficient measures to stop and/or rectify your above-mentioned behavior, I will consider notifying administrators. This may be your last warning. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss?03:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I'm being nice and giving you one more warning, but this is definitely your last after you conducted a third reversion and accused the other of edit warring even though you reverted the other side's edit before the other side reverted your reversion of its edits. I repeat: This is your last warning.The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss?04:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
Just to note that the 2018 season really has not started yet because it developed in 2017. Otherwise we'll wait for other users like JR, though I did mention him about it in the 2018 talk page. Typhoon2013(talk)00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have observed the edit warring between the two of you regarding the image; I honestly don't know which image is better at this time, but I do know that even if you are correct that the original was better, being correct is not a defense to edit warring. Even if the other user does not start a talk page discussion regarding this, you should do so instead of constantly reverting the image. I have warned the other user about this as well and I encourage you both to discuss the matter and reach an agreement. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mario, I don't think we can ever agree on which image of Hurricane Jose is better, and I will still prefer the one I uploaded due to it being consistent with the other images and being closer to the storm's peak intensity. However, I don't want these users getting angry at us about the dispute. Can we try to find a good agreement? CooperScience (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I've seen you editing for quite a while, especially related to the 2017 AHS. I also notice you haven't written a WP:Good article, even though it seems like you have a good grasp of how to edit Wikipedia. Are you interested in working on any older articles and improving them? It's clear you have an interest in tropical cyclones, much like my own heart. I've been tracking Atlantic hurricanes since Hurricane Erin (1995). Anyway, just seeing if you need any help toward improving articles. I've improved my share of WPTC pages and can pass some tips along if you want. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that the whole point of the newer format of SE Charts is that they help the articles meet WP:Verification easier with all of the references added. It also helps with the transferring data from the season articles to lists like the retired names. If you wish to change the format of them then bring up a discussion on WP:WPTC and lets make a format that allows us to sort and reference the tables easier ALL OVER THE WORLD.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to Hurricane Iris does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! B dash (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled, may you please tell me why you reverted my edit? It is true! That Hurricane did wipe out the population of Attwater's Prairie Chicken by a huge amount.Pancakes654
In the community of nations, best visualized by the nearly 200 flags that fly in front of the UN HQ in NYC, you will not find the flag of the US Virgin Islands, because they are not a a country nor part of any other country than the US. In fact, when you see the flags at the plaza in front of Union Station or around the American History Museum in Washington DC, the United States Virgin Islands flies as proudly as any other state, territorial or District of Columbia flag. Art IV, Section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Properties Clause or the Territories Clause as well as the recent (2016) Sanchez Valle SCOTUS case makes it clear that it is a territory or property of the United States. This has been settled in the multiple discussions you can find in Wikipedia's Puerto Rico page.
When a hurricane hits St. Croix, St. Thomas, St. John or the Puerto Rican archipelago, for that matter, the United States has been hit. That's why FEMA, the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Armed Forces, which don't service anything but the United States in times of disaster, show up to provide disaster relief.
If not the US, which nation has been hit when the eye of the storm passers over St. Croix? If not the US, in what foreign land can you be born and automatically have a US passport issued?
Just fyi. the usual procedure is to redirect to the first article created on a topic, then discuss the article title. I create articles on events fairly frequently, but perhaps you were not aware of this convention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MarioProtIV. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, March 6–7, 2018 nor'easter, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Thanks for the compliments about my work on the MH for Gita and I have no problems with working on the MH for Hola, I will make a start on it shortly.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinon it is not acceptable for an editor to come along and changing damage totals without leaving a source and using "Per most recent NOAA estimate" or "Damage fixes for Tomas and Matthew" in the edit summuary without sourcing it is also not acceptable. The list of Retired Atlantic hurricane names was built up by me, using the damage totals I could reliably source. There are some differences in damage totals but as time allows we need to go through it and check them.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, i.e.: Cyclone Ernie, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going >>>here<<<, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. B dash (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing a considerable amount of the event sections in that article. The per-section quality would be much worse without the work you have contributed (I certainly feel it is better than the previous winter's article). I just thought I'd mention it! Master of Time(talk)02:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like "Winter Storm Uma" is starting up today. I guess in a few days it'll be time for the next article, "March 23–?, 2018 Winter Storm" or "March 23–?, 2018 Snow Storm". This may be the fifth major winter storm for this March.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be patient in terms of Jelawat. Doesn't mean the JTWC stopped issuing advisories, doesn't mean you have to take the infobox. The JMA is still warning on it so I will revert you. I know you're excited but be calm please. Typhoon2013(talk)17:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But actually, in this case, I will not revert you just for the sake that itt isn't 18Z yet and for sure the JMA will stop tracking this. But PLEASE, keep this in mind in for the future as the JMA is the RSMC. Thanks. Typhoon2013(talk)18:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned you again. Please be patient. The JMA still has Jelawat active in their weather maps. You have been here in the past two seasons and this is what we've been doing and you know that. So please wait until the JMA doesn't mention Jelawat in their weather maps. Typhoon2013(talk)02:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mateo, I mean Mario, you are a very persistent and great editor on Wikipedia, and your efforts in getting the right things done are rewarding of this Barnstar! CooperScience (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you reverted ParkerJP913's removal of their block notice from their user talk page; users are permitted to remove most things from their user talk pages if they wish; one of the few exceptions is block reviews while a block is in effect. Even removing the notice of the block itself is OK. See WP:REMOVED. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:February 2015 Southeastern United States winter storm, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
I passed this by a few people in the project before adding it. It was a well referenced section in an increasingly degrading article which I was trying to improve. Again. Other articles talk about this, implying that it's very relevant to the Camille article. You removed all the improvements I made to the reference section. Why exactly? This doesn't fit the spirit of Wikipedia, from what I can remember. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is related though. How could it not be? I can see the content being in both sections. If you want it to be in the TC naming pages, that's fine. But some mention of it in this article should be warranted. I checked the length of the content; it doesn't approach undue weight. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not related to the actual storm itself. Literally nothing about the storm changes if the storm was named Carol instead of Camile except for the name itself. YEPacificHurricane02:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to forget that the death toll in PR from Maria is highly uncertain and is likely >500. Maria also did $90 billion to the island which in 1928 would be higher then the actual damage the 1928 hurricane did in its currency year. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're playing a game here and you don't even know what you are doing or the rules on this site. It's not a revert to add to info. Thus I did not break a rule, however you have broken the three revert rule. Also it's clear from your actions in the past you are doing this often and upsetting others. Watch your actions although it's too late in this instance. You can learn however.
Furthermore you are in error. Additionally you get very involved in certain articles, particularly storms. Lastly, you don't seek remedies or use talk pages properly.
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
The only reason why you're not blocked for breaking 3RR here is that this is the third instance of Bleucheeses blatantly edit warring in the past couple of days. Count yourself lucky and please don't misuse warning templates. --NeilNtalk to me13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you think I don’t live in Puerto Rico? Just check my page, don’t be ignorant. And because I live in Puerto Rico I know the worst hurricane was not Huracán María. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi There. I left a similar message on the Talk Page of User:Horsewriter10 as well asking to move the debate onto the Talk Pages. Not my area of expertise, so I can't comment on the substance of the dispute, but an edit war doesn't do anyone any credit. Thanks. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MarioProtIV, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFGtalk07:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFGtalk08:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Beryl until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Buttons0603 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Hurricane Beryl. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Discussion haven't finished yetB dash (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFGtalk10:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably give your input at the discussion here. I would like to comment sometime soon, but right now, I'm getting tired of this, and I'm sure you're more informed on the latest hurricane death toll counting than I am. I agree with you, but if this keeps up, another ugly edit war could break out. I suggest bringing more contributors into the discussion as well, especially if he isn't as willing to listen. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Hector (2018) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FigfiresSend me a message!17:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Hurricane Matthew shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. B dash (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but the current infobox needs to remain as WPC is still issuing advisories on the active flood threat posed by Florence. Until they issue the last advisory, it should stay. We did the same thing when NHC issued advisories on the Remnants of Beryl earlier this year.FigfiresSend me a message!21:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know why you're so insistent on removing it. There's no need to as long as more information via advisories is coming in. YEPacificHurricane
Your recent editing history at 2018 Atlantic hurricane season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. At the moment you appear to be over the 3 RR rule and i would strongly suggest that you talk about Leslie's regeneration on the talk page before reverting furtherJason Rees (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your removal of Sergio has been reverted because it is in violation of WP:Page blanking. The system is likely going to have watches issued tomorrow and will have some kind of impact on Thursday so proposing for deletion now would be uncalled for. There is a decent amount of media coverage on this system and the draft had a decent amount of material. That is why the article exists now. This was considered a violation of the blanking policy because the entirety of the material related to the structure of the storm is absent from the seasonal article. FigfiresSend me a message!03:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's no way I know of to PM people on wikipedia, I'm posting this on your talk page. I don't want to start an edit war, but my edit on Maria's article changing her to the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since Mitch instead of Jeanne was reverted, and I'm confused why. Maria caused 3,057 deaths while Jeanne caused 3,037, so Maria is therefore the deadliest hurricane since Mitch. I guess technically she's the deadliest since Jeanne too but I think that is supposed to mean the most deadly hurricane since (insert earlier hurricane that killed more people). Anyway I'm just confused and asking why it got reverted, sorry if this isn't something I'm supposed to do or something along the lines of that. YellowSkarmory (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@YellowSkarmory: So even though Maria technically killed more people that Jeanne, the reasoning for having Jeanne in the lede instead of Mitch is that the latter system killed over 11,000 people; more than 3x the number of fatalities caused by Maria. Since the death toll of Jeanne is similar to Marias total, it is more reasonable to say that Maria is the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since Jeann. Comparing Maria to Mitch is a little much. Undescribed (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Undescribed: Ah, that makes sense. Might want to add something saying that Maria caused more deaths than Jeanne, though.
Hey there Mario. I've been watching your edits this year, and generally you're a nice and productive editor, one that I hope will stick around and continue writing in the future. Keep in mind that this is a collaborative encyclopedia, and there is no deadline, so for Tropical Storm Vicente (2018), there's no need to merge a new article that recently affected land. As a rule of thumbs, if it's likely there is a lot more information out there, then we don't usually merge the articles. Think of the storm articles as sub-articles of the season article. The 2018 PHS article is already pretty long, so any additional content for Vicente will add more length to an already lengthy season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at 2018 Atlantic hurricane season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. B dash (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just thought I'd give you a courteous reminder that I checked the song's cover art and its source, I can indeed confirm it is real, according to these sources below:
Hello, MarioProtIV. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
I have moved both articles to Wikipedia mainspace, after making some revisions. I finally decided that I didn't want access to the articles to be entirely exclusive to me anymore (it seems kind of selfish to keep them there, on further reflection). If those articles end up getting redirected or facing deletion, though, I'll restore them in my userspace as drafts. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every reliable source reporting on it is calling it an album or LP (another word for album). So you pushing it as an EP on several articles ([2]) can be construed as disruptive. Do you have any basis for this claim?--NØ16:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Hurricane Herald is the arbitrarily periodical 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; it has been almost thirteen years since that time. 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 April 14–May 31, 2019. This edition's editor and author is Hurricane Noah (talk·contribs).
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.
History of tropical cyclone naming - The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back several centuries, with storms named after places, saints or things they hit before the formal start of naming in each basin. The credit for the first usage of personal names for weather systems is given to the Queensland Government MeteorologistClement Wragge, who named tropical cyclones and anticyclones between 1887 and 1907. This system of naming fell into disuse for several years after Wragge retired, until it was revived in the latter part of World War II for the Western Pacific basin. Over the following decades, various naming schemes have been introduced for the world's oceans, including for parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The majority of these lists are compiled by the World Meteorological Organization's tropical cyclone committee for the region and include names from different cultures as well as languages. Over the years there has been controversy over the names used at various times, with names being dropped for religious and political reasons. For example, female names were exclusively used in the basins at various times between 1945 - 2000 and were the subject of several protests. The names of significant tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Australian region are retired from the naming lists and replaced with another name, at meetings of the various tropical cyclone committees.
Storm of the month and other tropical activity
Cyclone Fani was an extremely severe cyclonic storm that made landfall in Odisha, India on May 3. The storm achieved peak intensity as a near Category 5-equivalent cyclone with 3-minute sustained winds of 215 km/h (130 mph), 1-minute sustained winds of 250 km/h (155 mph), and a minimum central pressure of 937 hPa (mbar). Fani caused over $1.8 billion (2019 USD) in damage in India and Bangladesh and killed at least 89 people.
Since the last newsletter, twelve systems have formed.
Southwest Indian Ocean
In the Southwest Indian Ocean, Cyclone Kenneth made landfall in Mozambique approximately 1 month after Cyclone Idai, causing widespread flooding and destruction. Overall, Kenneth killed at least 52 people and caused more than $100 million in damage. Additionally, Tropical Cyclone Lorna formed over the eastern portion of the basin in late April and dissipated in early May without affecting land.
Australian Region
In the Australian Region, cyclones Lili and Ann formed in early May and both affected land. No deaths were reported, although Lili caused moderate damage in the Maluku Islands and East Timor.
South Pacific
In the South Pacific, a tropical depression formed in mid-may, but failed to intensify and dissipated a few days later.
South Atlantic
In the South Atlantic, Subtropical Storm Jaguar formed in late May and lasted for approximately two days before becoming extratropical.
Western Pacific
In the Western Pacific, three weak tropical depressions existed during the first half of May.
North Atlantic
In the North Atlantic, Subtropical Storm Andrea formed on the same day as Jaguar, but failed to intensify and dissipated on the next day.
The Eastern Pacific hurricane season began on May 15.
The Atlantic hurricane season will begin at 2:00 AM EDT on June 1.
The Central Pacific hurricane season will begin sometime after 12:00 AM HST on June 1.
New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter in April 2019
More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue in April 2019. Sorted chronologically. Struckout users denote users who have left or have been banned.
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!
Every year, editors new and old help maintain the new season of season articles. The older users are likely used to the standards of the project, such as how to Wikilink and reference properly. Newer users might make mistakes, and they might make them over and over again if they don't know better. If anyone (who happens to read this) comes across a new user, please don't bite, because with enough pushback, they'll decide that this group of editors is too mean, and unfun. This is all a volunteer project; no one can force anyone to do anything. We're all on here because of our love of knowledge and tropical cyclones. If you find someone new, consider using the official WPTC welcome template - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Welcome.
I also encourage that if you know any tropical cyclone researchers, please speak up and try recruiting them to edit. Veteran editors can't keep editing forever. Life gets busy, and the real world beckons!
Yellow Evan has been involved with WPTC since 2008. Since the last newsletter, Yellow Evan has taken 5 typhoon articles to good article status as well as created 2 more. Overall, he has created and/or significantly contributed to more than 130 good articles. Your work in the Western Pacific Basin is invaluable... Thank you for your contributions!
Latest WikiProject Alerts
The following are the latest article developments as updated by AAlertBot, as of the publishing of this issue. Due to the bot workings, some of these updates may seem out of place; nonetheless, they are included here.
This section lists content that have become featured, articles and lists, since the past newsletter in mid-April 2019. From April 14–May 31, 2019, 1 featured article was promoted:
An awards program for the project began on May 31. It involves 25 levels that may be gained by earning points for completing various actions such as getting good or featured articles. Additional awards will be added in the future.
As of this news letter, there are more articles ranked a good article or better (1317) than articles ranked B-class or worse (1272), for the first time in the project's history.
Every Atlantic hurricane season from 1945 to 2007 is rated at least a GA. That is an impressive feat, and an incredibly body of work among many editors.
Cyclone Raja became the 150th featured article in the project. Thanks to all of the editors and their tireless edits for writing 2.7% of all of Wikipedia's featured articles.
In the 24 hours after Hurricane Michael's TCR was released, the article on the hurricane was edited 82 times by 18 different users.
In March 2019, the most popular article in the project was Cyclone Idai, viewed 231,969 times during the month. The generic cyclone was 2nd most popular, with 131,080 views. In 3rd place was Hurricane Katrina with 112,283 views. Included in the top 20 were the 2018 and 19 Atlantic hurricane seasons, hurricanes Michael, Florence, Irma, Maria, and Harvey, and the 1896 Cedar Keys hurricane, which was TFA on March 20th.
Tropical cyclones by year - from 2000 to present, there were 2,490 tropical cyclones of various intensity, causing a collective $1 trillion in damage and 200,000 deaths
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 150 featured articles and 69 featured lists. There are 142 A-class articles, but that number is subject to change, depending if we mandate that all A-class articles have an A-class review first. There are 956 good articles, meaning it is possible we get to our 1000th GA by the end of the year. There are only 61 B-class articles, perhaps because because most articles of that quality already passed a GA review. There are 350 C-class articles, 720 start-class articles, and 141 stub-class articles, with 29 lists and 8 current articles. The number of lists may decrease further as the "Tropical cyclone X" articles continue to be reclassified as set index articles. These figures mean that nearly half of the project is rated a GA or better - including the lists/current/future articles, there are 1272 articles that are below GA status, versus 1317 that are GA or better.
WPTC 15th Anniversary push: some goals for the 15th year of WPTC include the creation or improvement of many other articles listed in the first section on the WPTC talk page.
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.
The revert I feel was unnecassay because the impacts will start soon. I did revert your edit, for the presaid reason. The article needs a basic skeleton. Please keep it. Thanks! --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the links, which say to "avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections", And don't revert valid edits with the bland and meaningless edit summary of "fix" again. Thank you.– Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: Hi there Mario. In general, I can see the logic behind using a peak intensity infrared image of a cyclone over a true colour, full-resolution alternative at a slightly lower intensity. I would tentatively support such a decision for most cyclones, provided that the image is not of unacceptable quality and there is not a true colour image which displays the cyclone at a time of equivalent visual intensity. However, in the particular circumstance of Hurricane Lorenzo, I don't agree that this argument has merit. The infrared image that is currently being used was captured at 01:31 UTC on 29 September, which was not at peak intensity. As it says in the description of the image (I have also verified this from the NHC advisories), Lorenzo is at about 125 knots at the time of the image. To be honest, I would actually say 130 knots is closer to the true intensity at the image time. Now, 130 knots is Lorenzo's intensity in this infrared image as well as in the true colour image taken at 13:39 UTC on 29 September. Given that there is no intensity difference between the images, I am sure you would agree that there is very little else in the way of support for using the infrared image over the true colour one. The true colour image has higher resolution than the infrared image, as well as fully depicting the central dense overcast and banding in full detail, rather than in comparatively rudimentary detail in the infrared version. Additionally, I would contend that using a colour image when it is available is better than black and white in most circumstances, simply due to the fact that you can actually see the colour. Considering all of this, the true colour image does present itself as a more suitable option for use in the article than the infrared one. I hope you can see the merit of this argument and will agree. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your edit. The official NHC discussion explicitly cited Dvorak fixes at 130z for upgrading the storm, and with the TC update issued just 40 minutes later, is for all practical purposes the peak intensity (sorry, your "I would actually say 130 knots" is irrelevant). The latter one is clearly weaker, and in any case much less organized. If you are unable to apply the Dvorak technique's eye pattern rigorously, then you are in no position to be assessing intensity on your own.--Jasper Deng(talk)07:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: Please 'ping' me in the future. I am not a talk page stalker, and I would appreciate a notification message when you are addressing a comment to me. I will in this case concede that I was incorrect to say that the two cyclones were of equivalent intensity. I missed the NHC's mention of the use of the 0130Z infrared imagery in their 140 kn analysis. Therefore, I will accept the the infrared image for use in the article. HOWEVER, that comment in the advisory that the intensity was 140 kn at 0130Z IS THE ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE that supports the use of the infrared image on Wikipedia. Had such a comment not been explicitly mentioned, my reasoning would have been correct. According to an interpolation of intensities between consecutive advisories, the cyclone was at a roughly equivalent intensity in both images. Your comment regarding the Dvorak Technique is also irrelevant, because it is not the job of a Wikipedian assign a CI number to a tropical cyclone—it is our job to work with the evidence we are given. It is also not justified for you to say that "the latter one is clearly weaker", because you are comparing apples and oranges—that is, an infrared image and a true colour image. The eye of a tropical cyclone always appears much more distinct and impressive on infrared imagery than on true colour imagery, because some of the obscuring low-level and mid-level cloud disappears or becomes far less visible on infrared, which makes the system seem stronger than it is. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChocolateTrain: I read about halfway through and to be quite honest, you need to both not WP:SHOUT and be much more concise (WP:TLDR). Linear interpolation of intensities is just as ORy as assigning CI numbers, and in any case, published Dvorak T-numbers (especially ADT) prove you wrong. It also does not take an expert to notice that the image you advocated is unrepresentative of the peak intensity, given the rapid onset of the eyewall replacement cycle. You completely glossed over my point concerning the tropical cyclone update as well. We have some leeway for OR when it comes to choosing a picture, but your way of going about it is simply hand-waving.--Jasper Deng(talk)09:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I’m not gonna be picky here but can you guys talk about this on your own talk pages? I don’t really need to be getting several notifications because of this argument between you two. Thanks. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 09:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A few years ago, you made an edit to the Kepler-70b page which included this statement:
"The star has a mass of 0.496 M☉ and a radius of 0.203 R☉. ... These statistics were very likely higher then what they were today when it was a red giant, the estimated mass of Kepler-70 before it became a subdwarf, would probably have been around 0.89-0.95 M☉."
Do you have a source for the "0.89-0.95"? I've just put a "Citation needed" tag on it, plus I'm rather curious to know more about Kepler-70's pre-subdwarf existence.
You pasted the following false information to several articles and they stayed up for years, "However, such moons do not usually form around planets, they would likely have to be captured from afar; e.g., a protoplanet running astray." I have since fixed the articles. You made these edits 4 years ago, but I thought I'd let you know. Please remember to cite sources and look up information to make sure you have something right before editing. Thanks. 146.168.31.85 (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best to keep it at 10 storms per column first. Laura's name is at close proximity with Vicky's bar. It's good to have decent space with the storms. Typhoon2013(talk) 22:57 UTC, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I didn’t respond sooner! I am a bit busy with college now so I’m not checking this as frequently. I modified it to the most recent one so that the spacing is that much of an issue between Laura’s text and Vicky. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weather.com is not often the most usable source, and I’d look for say a Klotzbach tweet or something similar from a professional to back up the RI claim as he is a professional forecaster and tends to follow the NHC’s trends to determine the record. Weather.com sometimes doesn’t do that. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hurricane Dorian; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I would also add to the above that you have breached the three revert rule (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, and revert 4). I have fully protected the article instead of blocking you, however if you continue to edit war over the image once the protection lapses, it is very likely you will end up blocked. Please engage with @Destroyeraa: during the period of protection on the article's talk page so that when the protection expires the edit warring does not continue. Mifter (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I must’ve accidentally hit the remove button on my phone while looking at it this morning, because that wasn’t my intention at all to remove it. Not sure how that ended up happening. Sorry! --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Weather's Non-tropical storms task force (WPNTS), a task force dedicated to improving all articles associated with extratropical cyclones on Wikipedia. WPNTS hosts a number of Wikipedia's highly-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming winter season (for whichever hemisphere happens to be in its climatological winter). Simply click here and add your name to the list to accept!
Hi MarioProtIV, alot of your edits recently has involved nor'easters and winter events. As such I'm inviting you to this WikiProject! MarioJump83!01:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have redirected the article I created for the reasons you mentioned on the edit summary yesterday. This article is actually a translation of the French corresponding article.
I hear your arguments, however can you recreate a specific article on the February 2021 cold wave and eventually remove incorrect/irrelevant content when you would have time to do it ? You are a more experienced user than me, you are particularly interested in meteorology and weather, furthermore there are articles for cold waves in 2019, 2017-2018, 2015, so it would be logic that a similar article exists for 2021 which is regularly regarded as exceptional (it's really rare to have such low temperatures in Texas). --Martopa (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For continuing to maintain the North American winter articles after all these years, even when there was only a small group of people working on those. Thanks! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2017–18 North American winter; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
The Frozen Times is the semi-regular newsletter of WikiProject Non-tropical storms. The newsletter aims to summarize recent developments and activities in the WikiProject, in addition to recent extratropical cyclone activity on a global scale. The Frozen Times has been running since its revival in March 2021, although the first issue was published in February 2008. If you wish to receive or discontinue subscription to this newsletter, please visit the mailing list. This issue of The Frozen Times covers all project-related events from February 2008–March 14, 2021. This edition's authors and editors are MarioJump83, HurricaneCovid, Shift674, and LightandDark2000. Past editions can be viewed here.
WikiProject Non-tropical storms: News and Developments
On the heels of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones revival from 2018–2020, MarioJump83 and LightandDark2000 took the initiative to formally revive this WikiProject on January 15, 2021. Not long afterward, on February 7, 2021, the WikiProject community came to the decision to revive the project newsletter as well. We decided to model the entire WikiProject after WPTC, following a similar format and creating similar project pages for use on WPNTS, since the two projects are closely tied. There was also general agreement among the active editors on WPNTS to coordinate work with WPTC, given the numerous overlaps between the two WikiProjects.
On February 4, 2021, the WPTC and WPNTS communities came together to include WPNTS articles in WPTC's annual competition, the Cyclone Cup, based on a suggestion from HurricaneCovid. The decision was made as a result of agreement between editors over how non-tropical storms (nor'easters, European windstorms, etc.) are cyclones too, and thus merit inclusion as well. WPNTS editors are now allowed and encouraged to participate in the Cyclone Cup, regardless of whether those editors are a part of WPTC or not. Currently, a number of WPNTS users are participating in the Cup, and we hope you will too!
On February 8, 2021, MarioJump83 introduced our project barnstar, which was accordingly named The Extra-Tropical Cyclone Barnstar. It was named based on a pun in which the "Tropical" word in The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar became more 'tropical', so much that it turned The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar to brown. (Hence the name "Extra-Tropical" and the brown cyclone icon). Since there were no barnstars that were shaped like a comma in the Meteorology barnstars category, we had to take one which is available.
On February 24, 2021, we came to the decision to model the project newsletter after the WPTC newsletter, The Hurricane Herald. The first step of that was to give our newsletter a name. Agreement was reached on February 24 to use LightandDark2000's suggested name, The Frozen Times, as the name of the WPNTS newsletter. HurricaneCovid assisted in the creation of the logo for the newsletter, and MarioJump83 aided the endeavor as well.
On March 9, 2021, HurricaneCovid first introduced the idea of modeling North American winter articles after tropical cyclone season articles. While a few editors rejected the idea at first, by the next day most users had shown their support for it and the plan was implemented. The improvements were done over a period of 3 days, mainly by HurricaneCovid and MarioProtIV, and involved the creation or modification of several templates, including a timeline, some new infoboxes, and a button template. The implementation of these new templates has only been completed in one season article, and is still unfinished in most.
New articles since the last newsletter
The number of new articles since the last issue are innumerable. Thus, we will not be able to list them all here.
MarioProtIV joined Wikipedia in 2014, although his activity really ramped up in late 2015. He formally joined this WikiProject in early February 2021, just after its revival. Since and before formally joining, he has been one of the most prolific editors in non-tropical storm articles, particularly being a major part of getting 2020–21 North American winter to greater quality and taking the initiative to constantly update the article, as well as other separate winter storm articles. He has also participated in and started several discussions within WPNTS, further influencing the quality of current event articles in the WikiProject. We would like to thank him for his outstanding work, and therefore jointly give him the Member of The Edition award.
HurricaneCovid joined Wikipedia in March 2020, though he began working with weather-related articles and joined WPTC in November. He joined WPNTS in January 2021, just before its revival, although he had begun actively editing extratropical cyclone articles in December 2020. He has been doing constant work on 2020–21 North American winter throughout the North American winter season so far. He has helped write much of the article, with aid from MarioProtIV, as well as numerous other articles for the most major storms. He was present throughout the barrage of winter storms and the Arctic air outbreak in North America, in mid-February, creating most of the articles for storms in that period. He also helped with the revival of the WikiProject, and it was partially his idea to model this newsletter after The Hurricane Herald. For his consistent work to WPNTS, we are jointly giving him the Member of The Edition award for this issue.
LightandDark2000 joined Wikipedia as an IP editor in May 2009, although he didn't register an user account until 3 years later, in May 2012. He became active on WPTC and WPNTS in 2013, formally joining the projects in 2014 and 2016, respectively. He is one of the most-senior active members on WPNTS, as most of the active participants joined in 2020 or 2021. Soon after formally joining, he largely stopped editing Wikipedia on storm-related articles, turning his attention to MILHIST from 2014–2017, and later took numerous WikiBreaks in 2016 and in 2019–2020, due to real-life activities and college. However, he began making a return to Wikipedia in July 2020, and since then, he has made a full return. In December 2020, he returned to WPNTS, with the start of the climatological winter in North America. He became a main part of the revival and resurrection of WPNTS from January–February 2021, assisting in efforts to revamp the project and helping to coordinate it. During this time, he continued his work on WPNTS articles, including during a historic outbreak of cold temperatures and a barrage of back-to-back winter storms in North America, in February. For his aid in the revival of this WikiProject, and his work on WPNTS articles, we are jointly giving him a modification of the MoTE award.
MarioJump83 first joined Wikipedia in 2013 as SMB99thx, although they first began working with storm-related articles in August 2020. They joined WPNTS in November 2020, quickly becoming the main coordinator and most active user in terms of getting the project restarted. They did outstanding work in terms of modeling the project after WPTC, with the aid of LightandDark2000, and got the project's act together. They took the initiative to formally restart the project in January 2021, and continued work restoring, improving, and creating project pages, including this newsletter. LightandDark2000 was along every step of the way, and helped out MarioJump83 create and improve project pages, modeling after WPTC. We would like to thank their outstanding work in getting the WikiProject together, and are thus jointly giving them a version of the MoTE award.
For the time being, there will be no user nominations, as this WikiProject is currently relatively small; however, once we gain enough participants, we will begin nominating members for MoTE.
Storms of The Edition over the last five newsletters
The February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm, also referred to as Winter Storm Uri, was a strong and destructive winter storm that affected areas from the West Coast of the United States, through the Deep South and Northern Mexico, to the Northeast and Eastern Canada. The second of three major winter storms to affect the continent within the month, the system originated as a powerful low-pressure area in the Pacific and came ashore as a frontal system on February 13. The system then dived southward along a trough in the polar jet stream, while also strengthening, and began producing snowfall in the Deep South. The storm system then began expanding in terms of size, and the main low spawned a secondary low in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Florida on February 15. As the storm grew more organized, it spawned another low pressure center to the north on February 16, which quickly became the main low-pressure center. When the system exited the continent early on February 17, almost 75% of the continental U.S. was covered in snow, which almost broke a record. The newest low moved up the coast of Nova Scotia, beginning to strengthen faster along the way. It then began to quickly intensify, while approaching landfall on Newfoundland, reaching a central pressure of 985 millibars (29.1 inHg) by 12:00 UTC on that day. The system then began meandering across the Atlantic, while proceeding to strengthen further, reaching a peak intensity of 960 millibars (28 inHg) on February 19. Afterward, the storm then began weakening rapidly, dissipating southwest of Greenland on February 24.
The storm system resulted in over 170 million Americans being placed under winter weather alerts, reaching as far south as Galveston, Texas. The swath of snow and ice it produced stretched from Washington to Maine. It ranked as a Category 3 winter storm on the Regional Snowfall Index (RSI) scale, and it became the second of three Category 3+ winter storms to affect North America in February 2021. The system caused over 9.9 million power outages, with 5.2 million in the U.S. and 4.7 million in Mexico, making it the worst blackout event recorded in North America since the Northeast blackout of 2003. The hardest hit area by both the severe winter weather and long-term power outages was Texas, with the 2021 Texas power crisis taking place due to the storm. Some long-term power outages in areas of the Deep South lasted over one week long. It also brought destructive severe weather to parts of the Southeastern U.S., spawning five tornadoes, including an EF2 and a high-end EF3 tornado. In total, the storm resulted in at least 136 fatalities, with 124 in the U.S. and 12 in Mexico, making it the deadliest winter storm in decades. Damage from this system is estimated to cost at least $195 billion (2021 USD), making it the costliest winter storm on record, as well as one of the costliest natural disasters in the modern era.
Other significant storms
Post-Tropical Cyclone Zeta – The post-tropical remnants of Hurricane Zeta began interacting with another storm system on October 29, 2020, as rain overspread the Eastern U.S. However, as a cold front came through overnight allowing a blast of colder air, precipitation began switching over to snow in parts of New England. By the next day, the remnants of Zeta passed south of New England and moved out into the Atlantic, strengthening on the way. Zeta became the first tropical cyclone to produce accumulating snowfall as an extratropical storm since Hurricane Sandy, resulting in several thousand power outages in New England and up to 6.5 in (17 cm) of snow.
December 15–17, 2020 nor'easter (Winter Storm Gail) – The December 15–17, 2020 nor'easter, also unofficially referred to as Winter Storm Gail, the only Category 2 winter storm on the RSI scale in December, formed from a disorganized low pressure in the Southern Plains on December 14. The low pressure began organizing the next day, meandering east before it came offshore of the East Coast on December 16. It then rapidly intensified, reaching a peak intensity of 985 millibars (29.1 inHg) off the New England coast on December 17. The system then moved into the Atlantic, weakening slowly until dissipation on December 19. The nor'easter produced significant snowfall up to 15 in (38 cm) along the I-95 corridor, with over 3 ft (36 in) in parts of the interior Northeast. In total, it caused 7 fatalities and over 56,000 power outages. The nor'easter is estimated to have caused at least $125 million (2021 USD) in damages.
Storm Filomena – Storm Filomena, the eighth named storm of the 2020–21 European windstorm season, formed over the Atlantic near the Canary Islands on January 7, 2021. It then slowly meandered northeastward, crossing the Iberian Peninsula over the next few days, producing heavy snowfall on the way. The storm then accelerated east, reaching a peak intensity of 995 millibars (29.4 inHg) and crossing Italy and Greece from January 11–13. Filomena then began rapidly weakening, and dissipated in interior Europe on January 15. It was significant because of unusually heavy snow up to 24 in (61 cm) in the Iberian Peninsula, which caused a total of 5 fatalities. Filomena is estimated to have caused at least $2.2 billion (2021 USD) in damage.
January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter (Winter Storm Orlena) – The January 31 – February 3, 2021 nor'easter, also unofficially referred to as Winter Storm Orlena, the first of three Category 3+ winter storms in February 2021, formed as a powerful low pressure off the Pacific coast on January 25. The slow-moving low pressure meandered off the U.S. West Coast for several days, causing an atmospheric river event and producing heavy rain and snow. On January 30, the weakening low pressure crossed the Rockies and moved into the Midwest, producing a second low pressure off the North Carolina coast on January 31. The second low slowly meandered up the East Coast from February 1–4, reaching a peak intensity of 985 millibars (29.1 inHg) on February 3. The system then accelerated into the Atlantic, weakening and dissipating on February 5. The system caused up to 100 in (250 cm) of snow in the Sierra Nevada and 18–24 in (46–61 cm) in both the Boston and New York City metro areas. In total, it caused 7 fatalities and resulted in over 575,000 power outages. The system is estimated to have caused at least $100 million (2021 USD) in damages.
February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm (Winter Storm Viola) – The February 15–20, 2021 North American winter storm, also unofficially referred to as Winter Storm Viola, the last of three Category 3+ winter storms in February 2021, formed on February 14 as a strong low pressure in the Pacific. The next day, the weakening low came ashore in the West Coast and the main low spawned several other low pressures on February 15, connected by a series of fronts. One of the low pressures to the south quickly took over, moving east over the next few days. It then spawned another low pressure to the east, which moved up the East Coast from February 18–19, becoming a nor'easter. The low reached an initial peak of 990 mb (29 inHg) as it exited the coast on February 19. The system then bombed out, reaching a peak intensity of 952 millibars (28.1 inHg) on February 22. It then slowly began to weaken, while moving northeastward, and dissipating on February 26. The storm brought a second round of snow and ice to the Deep South just days after another destructive storm came through the same areas. In total, the storm resulted in at least 29 fatalities and caused over 4 million power outages. The system is likely to have caused approximately $1 billion (2021 USD) in damage.
New WikiProject members
More information can be found here. The following list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the last issue.
To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the tasks or to-do lists towards the bottom of the newsletter for tasks that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions!
Note that most of the members listed here are inactive now, with the majority of them moved having been moved into the inactive list.
Featured Content Update
New featured articles (February 2008–March 14, 2021)
Assessments are 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 8 featured articles and 1 featured list. There are 21 good articles, but only 1 A-class article, perhaps because most articles of that quality already passed an FA review. There are 53 B-class articles, 110 C-class articles, 172 start-class articles, and 52 stub-class articles, with 14 lists. These figures mean that roughly one-fifth of the project is rated B-class or better. Tropical Storm Rolf was the 20th GA in the project.
The following is the current progress on the two milestone goals set by the WikiProject as of this publishing. Updates on the following goals can also be found on the project home page.
Since this is the first issue of The Frozen Times since the revival of WPNTS, I thought we should have an opinion piece detailing the reasons based on which the revival took place. And the project member who would know these reasons the best would be none other than the main resurrector of the WikiProject, MarioJump83! HurricaneCovid(contribs)
Hello, WikiProject Non-tropical storms! I am the one who first took the initiative of this WikiProject's revival. While most of my work here is mostly related to maintenance work and some coordinating before resigning after the revival of this newsletter (I would like to say that LightandDark2000 is the coordinator of the project now given he is the only active member to join before 2020), there are reasons why I took the initiative to revive the project.
Firstly, WPTC members, for some reason that was unclear to me, began joining the project in droves beginning in late 2020 and continuing into 2021. This surprised me since normally, people don't join defunct WikiProjects in large numbers. Secondly, many WPTC members, many of them based in either the United States or Europe, continue to edit extratropical cyclone articles, even when climatological winter ends in the Northern Hemisphere. This suggests that there is a space for WPNTS to spring up once again. Third and lastly, WPNTS-covered articles are quite active for a defunct WikiProject. I honestly think that this WikiProject shouldn't have been considered defunct in the first place.
Ultimately, these reasons drove me to revive the WikiProject on the heels of Wikipedia's 20th anniversary on January 15, 2021. It's short, but it's what I can say for the reasons why I came to the decision to revive this WikiProject. I hope this WikiProject lasts for a long time, even when I'm not present as part of it. MarioJump83!
Hey, I noticed you moved the page to the "...March 17–18, 2021". I always get aggravated when users come in and change the titles, like when it got changed to "Saint Patrick's Day". I deliberately did not name it that and it got moved there anyway. I am glad you moved it back. I tried tagging the original title in CSD to get it moved back to "...March 17, 2021" but the CSD process is backlogged. I didn't proceed with the name change to the 18th because we always go by local time with the tornadoes (UTC confuses the general public – at least in the U.S.). With that in mind, technically this outbreak won't include the 18th until after 05z in a couple more hours. I don't think it'll be a problem though since I'm sure at least a couple tornadoes will occur tomorrow over the Carolinas. But, just a heads up for the future, we go by local time for date splits; this process has worked for years with little difficulty, so it would be best to maintain consistency. Thanks! United States Man (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pirx (planet) True mass revealed to be far into the brown dwarf category, redirecting Tags: New redirect Reverted
Your edit has two grave problems: YOu did not provide any reference and you killed a well-developed article. The correct way is no rename and modify Pirx. I could have done this myself, but since you gave no refereences, I just reverted you. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MarioProtIV, you reverted my removal of the infobox entry for the radius of Proxima Centauri b with the edit message that the paper is sourced. I think it's appropriate to include the information in the article's body, but not in the infobox. It is after all a guess from a model of the population of a lot of other planets. There is no evidence regarding the actual radius of Proxima Centauri b. Icek~enwiki (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarioProIV, I had to remove your attempt at a report at WP:AN3 as it was a mess. Meanwhile, Piquito veloz has filed a report against you. I suggest you respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to imply that the storm is from North America and that wording is usually used to describe people. Tropical cyclones are not people so that doesn’t really work. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am reverting your addition of a date of birth to the infobox and lead of Andi Matichak. That change needs a citation in the article. Putting "listed on superstarsbio" in the edit summary is not sufficient. Is "superstarsbio" a website, a book, or something else? Please provide a citation if you re-insert the reverted content. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Per MOS:BOLD, the title generally should not be bolded in the lead. In this case, adding the bolded title only makes the opening sentence more cumbersome and is redundant because the dates are already mentioned in the next line. If consistency is the problem, maybe the others should be changed as well. This practice is commonplace among tornado articles. United States Man (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is redundant in the sentence simply just remove the date that is mentioned later on. Also, the bolding has not been an issue for the last several years from what it seems with regards to winter storms and is only seemingly a problem now because you’re bringing it up. Winter storms and tornado pages are two different things in this regard (one is a direct system, the other is a general event caused by a parent system) and thus the former has more weight to it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I’m aware, you’re the only one instigating this change and no one else has had an issue with this over the last few years (otherwise it would have been brought up already). Plus, regarding this edit the Texas government officially referred to this as Uri, so the unboldening was not justified there. Also your dialogue here is pretty much encroaching on WP:RUDE with the tone and whatnot. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Texas government has nothing to do with what we do on Wikipedia. It was decided in some discussions way back that the TWC names could be italized but not bolded. All others are italized. United States Man (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t remember where the discussion is located, but I know that you know we had a discussion that the TWC names would not be bolded. Your latest edit was made out of spite, and if you like consistency as much as you say, you’d want them all to be italized. United States Man (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that edit was because MOS:BOLDALTNAMES states that alternative names can be boldened if there is significant enough attention given to it, which given the fact the Texas government itself referred to the storm as Uri, justifies the bolding. In addition, I do not even recall your point that we have a policy on this and the bolding of titles in general, it’s part of MOS:BOLD and does not triumph project policy. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure to correct talk pages when you do merges. This is the second time you have merged an article without redirecting the talk page nor changing the class to redirect. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Also, please note that I have undone your revert. The exact reasons given for the initial revert go against the reason you created the blizzard article. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - so you inserted the full proper reference information for a number of references in this article. That is good. I notice that a bunch of the references seem to have been archived, but I could not in a cursory search see who did that step. Do you know if all the references need that step to ensure the pages of the particular websites/organizations are not lost if those pages get taken down? Hope to hear back. Thanks.174.89.120.209 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Your recent editing history at Module:Storm categories/categories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. As User:Chlod pointed out, you don't get to revert it just because you consider the consensus "poorly executed". You had a fair chance to state these objections during the RfC so it is already generous of us to entertain your relitigation of this. Knock it off with the reverts. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Jasper Deng(talk)06:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, MarioProtIV. I wasn't originally going to make a big fuss about this, but after looking at your talk page, I believe a gentle approach would be inappropriate to the situation, as you clearly are not getting other editors' complaints. There is a clear consensus at Talk:February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm#Merger that a merge should take place: I say that it is clear because there are five editors who support the merge in various degrees while you alone opposed it. By Wikipedia's standards (and by any standard, really), that is an overwhelming margin of support. Moreover, given that an editor specifically requested that this discussion be closed, the community clearly feels that discussion has reached an end and that its chosen path should be implemented. However, after merely ten minutes, you reverted my closure, claiming that discussion had fizzled and consensus had never really been reached. There are several issues here. 1) It is never appropriate to unilaterally revert a closure, especially when you yourself were involved in the discussion (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures for correct protocol). 2) That you reverted my closure so quickly after the discussion had been open so long suggests that you were paying attention to the discussion, meaning you could have continued it and further refined the consensus if you wanted; combined with how you have made no effort to do so since then, this gives the appearance that you are stonewalling rather than truly seeking to refine the consensus. 3) You seem to misunderstand the nature of consensus, which does not need to exhaust all possible arguments and objections; rather, it is based on the strength of the arguments presented, as viewed through the lens of policy by an uninvolved editor. The requirement that the editor is uninvolved is crucial: because you have participated in the discussion, you already have an opinion on the subject, which makes it impossible for you to construct an opinion solely on the strength of other participants' arguments in the same way that an uninvolved editor can.
I am going to be frank with you: because you have already been warned numerous times about this behavior, including twice in the past three days, I seriously considered escalating this to a noticeboard directly. However, I also do not know whether anyone has ever attempted to explain these things to you, so I believed I should take the time to do so and give you a chance to correct your mistakes. With rare exceptions (which are listed here), you should not make an edit if you know that another editor opposes it; doing so is called edit warring. (One of the mistakes I made when I was new to Wikipedia was interpreting WP:3RR as permission to revert up to three times: it's not. Rather it, is a red line that is never acceptable to cross. An edit war can happen even if editors are making only a single revert or fewer per day, if multiple total reverts happen.) When you know somebody disagrees with you, you should stop editing and discuss it on the talk page until everyone is in agreement about the correct course of action, or an uninvolved editor comes and determines what the consensus is. That means no editing to introduce compromises, either; get support for your compromise from the editors supporting the status quo antebefore implementing it. There are several reasons why editors insist on talk page discussion over editing; apart from the obvious instability it causes, edit summaries have limited room and are therefore not conducive to good discussion and thus to consensus-forming. Moreover, the tone conveyed by reverts (especially multiple reverts) is aggressive (it sorta implies that another editor's edit was so stupid, it's not worth talking with them about it first), which can be upsetting and exhausting and therefore discourage participation, which harms the consensus-building process as well as the project as a whole. (This can be seen in how Hurricane Noah subsequently "withdrew" his proposed merge because he doesn't want to deal with any more of your crap, if you would pardon my bluntness.) For all of these reasons, edit warring is one of the biggest behavioral no-nos on Wikipedia, moreso even than outright incivility except in the most egregious cases.
In sum, I ask that you please self-revert your reversion of my closure. I would also seriously rethink your conduct on Module:Storm categories/categories, as well as in general the manner you go about resolving disputes with others. It is clear from all the warnings you have received that this is a significant, long-term problem and, while I hate threatening people with noticeboard discussions, that seems to be an inevitable next step if you cannot get along better with others. If you have any questions about the consensus-building process, etiquette, or anything else, please do ask; I am more than happy to help you. Best wishes, —Compassionate727(T·C)12:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My only reasoning for undoing the closure was because I and several others off-wiki had agreed on a different kind of process we’d do with the article (which was why there was a bunch of sources in the section below the discussion. There was not a clear consensus to merge from that discussion off-wiki which was why I undid your edit in good faith (at least in my view). I will admit I have a bad record of trying to solve disputes with others and the conduct a few days ago was my fault and it shouldn’t have gotten that far. Another factor is probably I sometimes priories off-wiki consensus over on-wiki which can lead to this kind of behavior. I apologise for any damage that I may have brought to the community by this and surely I will engage in more appropriate behavior with consensus. The whole color saga shouldn’t have gotten to where it did but I was at least trying to take other people’s opinions that I received and at least we were able to come to a consensus (or at least a good proposal) that supports both sides. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mario, it does not matter whether you believe you had a valid reason to revert a close by an uninvolved editor. As explained above, doing so is NEVER acceptable. Also, I very strongly dislike that you are making these decisions based on what you perceive from off-wiki discussions. You can chat about it on Discord but the only consensus that has any force on Wikipedia is that achieved and documented on-wiki. See also WP:Canvassing.—Jasper Deng(talk)08:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that you have a history of not replying to talk page posts of this sort, and then continuing this behavior. This suggests to me that you intend to ignore or not take seriously others’ concerns, and thus that you’re wasting Compassionate727 (talk·contribs)’s time. This attitude is not acceptable, and if continued, will definitely result in your getting sanctioned. I expect that you will prove me wrong and address the concerns brought up here, because 5KB+ is a lot of text to write, and would only be written if they seriously believe you’ll read it.—Jasper Deng(talk)18:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth I have a bad habit of reading the talk messages here, taking it into consideration but then forgetting to reply (as well as archiving once it gets long enough - I’m a bit lazy to be fair). I take all criticism fairly but I will admit I should be responding to these more so as to not give off a bad impression. Apologies if this made it seem otherwise.--MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheresNoTime beat me to the notice. You're not in trouble or anything; I just felt that issue of how the merger should ultimately be closed has grown beyond my capacity to handle on my own, so I brought it up a noticeboard where it will get more attention. We're required to use this specific template to notify you; otherwise, I would have just leave a normal message. You are, of course, welcome to help clarify the situation and give your own opinion. —Compassionate727(T·C)21:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WPTC Discord off-wiki canvassing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
YSeen it, thanks for heads up. FYI was wondering for a while when today it would come up since it didn’t seem like it’d get delayed again haha. Patience is key then. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MarioProtIV (talk·contribs) is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
Chlod (talk·contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
Elijahandskip (talk·contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
LightandDark2000 (talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
A set of best practices for leaders and/or moderators of off-wiki chat platforms to consider adopting
Hi Mario; thanks for upholding the current consensus on Ziegler's article regarding infoboxes. However, please do be aware that an infobox is currently being discussed at at this thread here. As such, based on how the discussion is going as of writing, I'm inclined to inform you that consensus is likely to change. Just thought I'd point that out. Happy editing! InvadingInvader (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is always possible for other articles to get it wrong. We need to follow what reliable sources say the trends are, not try to identify these trends ourselves in the individual reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the additions, but as it stands now, the synopsis reads a bit clunky and seems too long. My intention was to keep it as short as possible, and I thought the "crossing paths" with Michael would already be covered by the "series of events [...]"; the "final (?) confrontation" between Corey and Laurie could also be left out in my opinion as we're really only trying to cover the very basics in the lead. Any idea how we could condense the material? Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 01:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Hello, I'm Trailblazer101. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Deadpool 3, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Even though an actors' strike has been called, it does not begin until midnight on July 14. Even with that, we still need a source confirming when production halts, and we don't just add material pre-maturely and hide it because a source doesn't exist yet. Please be patient, as there is WP:NODEADLINE in adding information to Wikipedia. Once a source on the situation eventuates, it will be added.Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I notice that you invoked WP:MCUFILMCAST the other day when you added several cast members to Multiverse of Madness. Please note that — as noted at WP:MCUFILMCAST — we are ignoring the "grouped" names at the end of the MOE title sequence, i.e. the ones you added to MoM. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Blue Beetle (film), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Kindly add an inline citation when updating gross figures of films. Thanks.The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Jasper Deng(talk)20:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, we can’t use the “track” files on new storms since those are the old colors - we have to wait until someone uploads the path version. With older storms they are grandfathered in for now until we can upload new tracks. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This special advisory is being issued to update the current and
forecast intensity of Otis. Satellite images show that the very
rapid intensification observed earlier today has continued, and the
latest data support an initial intensity of 125 kt. The intensity
forecast peak is updated to 140 kt, category 5 strength, since the
environment isn't forecast to change much before landfall, and there
are no signs of this explosive intensification stopping. This is
an extremely dangerous situation, and all preparations for Otis
should be rushed to completion.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hello, MarioProtIV. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Superman (DC Universe), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello MarioProtIV, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MarioProtIV. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Superman".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, you deleted a page that I created about the as of now current winter storm in North America and redirected it to the broader page for winter in North America this season. I realize now that I was wrong about when it started, but why did you delete it? There is a page for the January 8-10, 2024 North American storm complex, shouldn’t there be one for this storm too? MountainDew20 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a draft in progress for the earlier winter storm (which was responsible for the majority of the deaths currently especially in the South. I may likely create a new one for this current storm, which would likely be at Draft:January 16–19, 2024 North American winter storm. The title you made was factually inaccurate as the current winter storm had no blizzard conditions or warnings aside from the mountains, which, in the article name POV, is not sufficient enough to leave at the current title. That would likely be the storm I redirected it to, although a better title would be January 10–13, 2024 North American blizzard since we’ve had many winter storms in a short period of time (similar to the February storms from the 2020–21 North American winter page. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I saw you editing the aforementioned article. I was glad you removed the global warming "juiced up" bit, but was there a reason you removed the part about Hilary's remnants moving across the western US into Canada? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mario, I have undone all your edits to the article for reasons I explained in the edit summary. I have told you numerous times now that you should be using edit summaries, yet your edit summary usage rate remains unacceptably low. Your edits frequently become controversial in part due to this, so instead of a request, this is now a demand.--Jasper Deng(talk)20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly forgot to add the summary for the edit and it was meant to explain why I removed the last bit about Hilary’s operational track since it got shortened (now I just reworded it), and I admit I was maybe a little biased in removing Maue’s claims because he can make wild claims in regards to the hurricane season, so that was my fault. I will include edit summaries more often now though so thanks for the demand. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both Mario and Jasper Deng (talk·contribs) for chatting rather than getting to an edit war. Now that we've brought up the storm, I'm wondering both of your thoughts on the global warming bit? For what it's worth, I agree with Mario's original edit, removing the global warming bit, which, to their (his?) credit, had an edit summary that said "while likely true, I don’t think we should elevate his takes given he makes quite outlandish weather claims. Also not really appropriate for the section either." I honestly think this is true for most storm articles with the global warming connection. Hilary just happened to be one of many storms in recent years to have some sort of connection with global warming, even though climate change refers to much longer term patterns in the Earth's climate, not solely connected to one individual storm. Before bringing up the discussion on Hilary's page (or the project), I wondered if I could ask both Mario and Jasper's thoughts on the global warming section in general for storm articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the linkage to global warming should be relevant and mentioned in the storm articles that generate widespread news coverage and mentions of these kind of events. I.e Harvey, Patricia, the big anomalies. Hilary is kind of borderline because while it did get close in the technical sense to a California landfall, there have been numerous instances in the years and decades past of similar close call events or their remnants affecting California in a big way. That’s different from extreme intensity in Patricia’s case or dumping feet of rain over a major metropolitan area in Harvey’s case, of which both have very clear global warming discussions centered around them. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MarioProtIV, I personally don't agree with your addition of Template:Multiple image on the Barnsdall, OK tornado section, which you added here. It adds too much whitespace to the section and makes it look empty, while before, the prose seemed to fill in the section in a more effective manner, even if there was still some whitespace present. I believe that it should be reverted and the extra image should be placed elsewhere until more information comes in for the tornado that would better fill in the section with the double image. Just wanted to let you know so that we could discuss the issue, and for me to hear what you have to say about it so we can come to an agreement. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @ChessEric: as he has removed the section from the article due to it not containing enough information. What do you think about reincluding it with just the one image in the infobox, or do you believe it's still too short to include regardless? ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 14:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section removal had more to do with the section not having enough information than it having to do with the pictures. However, I do agree that having two photos in the infobox is too much. Only one is needed. ChessEric16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wanted to clarify what the requirements for a "Daily Statistics" table is, since it seems @MarioProtIV removed it; I also started discussing this topic on the current outbreak. I just wanted to know if there was a standard for this element or if it should be removed from existing articles, since it appears to be be infrequently used overall. 2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the outbreak is like 3-4 or so days long then it can be added - I removed it because I moved the page to be the 26th-28th instead since the 25th was essentially an isolated incident not really grouped in with it. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, there really is no requirement from what I know. I added a daily statistics chart to the March 31 - April 1, 2023 outbreak article last year because...I thought it would look cool. LOL! I guess it's up to the discretion of how editors of the article want it. ChessEric18:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Regarding your revert here, your explanation would violate WP:SYNTHESIS. We can't just assume these names will automatically apply just because it is the same actors playing similar, if not the same, roles (especially since we've seen cases where this is not always the case). We also should not use the wait-and-see approach as justification to leave unsupported material in an article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if they do have the same names in the movie and said explicitly then I could re-add it back right? Guessing the MoM tactic applies here too since it’s credited differently in the credits. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would still need a source for anything you add or talk page consensus to do so (which I presume may be needed in this case if the credits differ from what many sources state). Yes, similar to Multiverse of Madness, if their real names are not used in the credits, we should not use them in the article unless multiple reliable sources (particularly citing those involved) use them to refer to the characters. Unlike the many MCU articles where many characters return with the same names, these are different characters who could be from different universes and as such, they could have different names. Given none of those names were sourced for this film specifically, we can't just assume what was done in prior films applies to this one, which is SYNTH. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t work. I use Google chrome on my phone so I cleared cookies and cache from the last week and it didn’t fix anything. It appears fine when I put the file in a thumbnail though, so it’s something with the infobox. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avery just reuploaded it and it works now. I guess it was something due to the fact I was the uploader of the image. Not sure how that would cause the issue. All resolved though. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, are there any accurate sources on how much damage Beryl has done in terms of cost? I was unable to find a source for the 6 billion figure listed on the Wiki page. NesserWiki (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Deadpool & Wolverine. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hello, MarioProtIV. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:January 2024 North American cold wave, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.
There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!
This is an alert being sent to all active editors on the WikiProject of Weather and any editor who has recently editors weather-related articles.
Editors on the Commons have received communication from the National Weather Service that the Template:PD-NWS, which is often used to upload weather-related images, is incorrect. There will be a discussion starting on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard within the next few days to determine how to manage this issue. Under the current PD-NWS copyright template, images on any NWS webpage was considered to be in the public domain unless it had a direct copyright symbol and/or copyright watermark.
One National Weather Service office has confirmed this is not the case. For the next few days, it may be best to not upload any image from an NWS webpage that was not made or taken directly by the National Weather Service themselves. Once the Commons determine how to move forward, editors will recent a new alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)23:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Regarding your edit here, you could probably restate it without the "commercial success" and it would be fine, but one thing to keep in mind. The film will likely hit $1.1 billion and beyond, so the change will be short-lived. It looks repetitive now because two parts say "$1 billion", but eventually there will be different numbers there. Might not be worth the effort to change it, but if you want to add the part about "Joker (2019)", I wouldn't be opposed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, no "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred. All that means is the template is not formally deprecated and is still in use. However, Rlandmann, an administrator on English Wikipedia, has begun an undertaking of reviewing and assessing all images (~1,400) that use the PD-NWS copyright template.
What we know:
Following email communications, the National Weather Service of Sioux Falls has removed their disclaimer, which has been used for the PD-NWS template for decades. This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid:By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others. Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer. However, the live version of the disclaimer no longer contains that phrase.
See this deletion discussion for this point's information. NWS Paducah (1) failed to give attribution to a photographer of a tornado photograph, (2) placed the photo into the public domain without the photographer explicitly giving them permission to do so (i.e. the photo is not actually in the public domain), (3) and told users to acknowledge NWS as the source for information on the webpage. Oh, to note, this photographer is a magistrate (i.e. a judge). So, the idea of automatically trusting images without clear attribution on weather.gov are free-to-use is in question.
The Wikimedia Commons has a process known as precautionary principle, where if their is significant doubt that an image is free-to-use, it will be deleted. Note, one PD-NWS file has been deleted under the precautionary principle. The closing administrator remarks for the deletion discussion were: "Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it."
Several photographs/images using the PD-NWS are currently mid-deletion discussion, all for various reasonings.
As of this message, 250 PD-NWS images have been checked out of the ~1,400.
The photograph of the 1974 Xenia tornado (File:Xenia tornado.jpg) was found to not be in the public domain. It is still free-to-use, but under a CC 2.0 license, which requires attribution. From April 2009 to August 2024, Wikipedia/Wikimedia was incorrectly (and by definition, illegally) using the photograph, as it was marked incorrectly as a public domain photograph.
Solutions:
As stated earlier, there is no "formal" rulings, so no "formal" changes have been made. However, there is a general consensus between editors on things which are safe to do:
Images made directly by NWS employees can be uploaded and used under the new PD-USGov-NWS-employee template (Usage: {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} ). This is what a large number of PD-NWS templated images are being switched to.
Images from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) can be uploaded and used under the PD-DAT template (Usage: {{PD-DAT}} ). A large number of images are also being switched to this template.
For now, you are still welcome to upload images under the PD-NWS template. However, if possible it is recommended using the two templates above. I will send out another update when new information is found or new "rulings" have been made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted edition in 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season
Hi, I'm André, a member of Wikiproject:Tropical Cyclones. I had added links from the NHC itself that near the coast of the territories of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, Ernesto reached category 2 with 150 km/h of sustained winds. You classified it as false and reverted my edit. The topic is true, because even in the discussion made by the entity's meteorologists, they mention sustained winds. Because I'm using the Wikipedia application, I can't format the links automatically due to errors in it. The information I provided is true.
Neither discussions were when Ernesto was at Category 2, which starts at 85 knots or 100 mph. Ernesto was only 80 and 75 kt respectively, which is only a category 1, not a Category 2. That’s why your edit was reverted. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiverse worlds (Marvel Cinematic Universe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.
What is new?
The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle.
One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.
How to deal with new photos?
Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!
If the photo is from a U.S. NEXRAD radar, you can upload it using the PD-NEXRAD template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.
What about third-party photos?
In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.
Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Hurricane Maria (2017) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hurricane Maria. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
Template:Infobox spring meteorological has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
Draft:December 2017 North American winter storm, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:December 2017 North American winter storm and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:December 2017 North American winter storm during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! B dash (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
-_Good_pic.jpg)
RSS 
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Tropical Storm Bertha (2020), you may be blocked from editing. NoahTalk 21:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hurricane Dorian; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
Seen it, thanks for heads up. FYI was wondering for a while when today it would come up since it didn’t seem like it’d get delayed again haha. Patience is key then. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
