User talk:Tardis459

Hello this is my talk page. Feel free to discuss some stuff that is nice.

Hurricanes

Ok Tardis459 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results

I have closed the SPI investigation by blocking your other account (User:HurricaneMichael99), but since you've agreed to edit from this account only, I have not blocked this one. You can continue editing using only this account, Tardis459.

I'd also suggest you read WP:GFYE, as it appears pertinent to your situation. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane welcome wagon!

Seeing as you may have gotten off on the wrong foot with the multiple accounts, let me formally welcome you to Wikipedia. I saw your message on User:Jason Rees’s talk page - I’ve known him for a while, so I hope he doesn’t mind that I reach out to you.

I’m glad you’re interested in hurricanes. They’re fascinating forces of nature, and because they’re tracked by government agencies, they’re fairly easy to write about. Are you interested in writing about newer storms or more historic hurricanes? And which basin? I can help with your editing questions.

Regarding your query about joining the tropical cyclone WikiProject, just add your name to the bottom of the list here. Cheers! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very into hurricanes and get this, I got almost All the info on the Atlantic basin. In just 6 Monthes.

Right on! Is there any time period you like hurricanes? And you add your name to the bottom of this link - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Members, after Hurricanedude. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just joined. Tardis459 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! By the way, why do you think Arlene 99 should get an article. The storm didn’t affect land (or people), and it was short-lived. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because Arlene 99 was my very first storm to track and i think of it as one of my first storms.

Ok, but think of everyone else on Wikipedia. When you write, you need to be nonbiased, and write about each storm like it’s the first time you’ve ever heard of it. Otherwise, the articles will seem like they have an angle, and the trustworthiness of Wikipedia will be gone. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. But still I think it would be nice to have a article for weak storms. You know. Tardis459 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but weak storms are already covered in their respective season articles. What more information is there about Arlene that isn’t in the sectin? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your right everything seems to be in place. Tardis459 (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of new storms have pretty good coverage already. The tricky part is finding a storm you care about and wanting to write about it. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess but still it’s would be good to the readers.

Remember, we are not a tropical cyclone database or a repository of hurricane statistics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all of human knowledge, so some topics should get more focus. A weak, short-lived tropical storm that barely affected land probably shouldn’t get an article. There have been years of discussions on the matter. For example: Hurricane Nate is a retired storm article, so it’s a little more important than Arlene, and it’s lacking in information in the US. If you’re interested, you should try adding more info to the US section. Try gathering sources and writing down what you would add here. Just make sure you cite where you get your info from, and don’t plagiarize. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok hink :). Tardis459 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a question, what if you can make more articles in the pacific basin? Maybe we can make more articles there? Tardis459 (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there’s probably a need for new articles in the Pacific, especially the Western Pacific Ocean. Check out the seasons in the 90s, there are some storms that could use articles, like Typhoon Ryan (1995). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t we make new articles?

Well, most of the important articles have already been created. You should become more familiar with existing good articles so you see how articles are written, and you can see what important articles are missing. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well hink, I think Hurricane Lee needs a page because it’s was powerful.

That's true Lee was powerful. There were lots of strong hurricanes and typhoons that don't have articles. That fact they are of a certain intensity means they are notable, but the storm itself isn't notable. Storms should have articles when they affect people, so the article can document impacts, what humans did in response to the natural disaster. If people did nothing different because the storm existed, then it's not worth documenting in such detail. But, there is an article on List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes and List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. If you're interested, you should make a sandbox for List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes, which would include Lee, and a lot of other storms at that intensity. Perhaps make the article at User:Tardis459/List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes? This way, you could learn how to edit an article in relative privacy, figure out coding/syntax, and compiling a list. It might sound boring, but it would be useful to the project to have, and wouldn't be too hard to become a featured list. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... but I’m only a kid btw so how do I do it?

There is no age limit! Also, if Arlene 99 was your first storm you tracked (19 years ago) then you’re hardly a kid :P But there are people young and old on this great website. For starters, when you edit on the talk page, please add a time stamp to the end of your comment with four tildas: ~~~~ Secondly, go to the Atlantic Hurricane best track, which has every single storm since 1851, and figure out how many major hurricanes (Category 3) hurricanes we’ve had, listing it at User:Tardis459/List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes. Don’t list storms that strengthened further to a Category 4 or 5. Of course, you don’t have to, but that would be a useful new article, and I can tell someone with your enthusiasm would do a good job at it. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Tardis459 (talk)|

You didn’t follow directions though. You should start with a sandbox article, meaning it can be incomplete and you work on it with relative privacy. work on compiling the list here - User:Tardis459/List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes, and make sure you use List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes as a template for how it’ll look in the end. You need to do research first if you want to write it well. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in making that article? The first step is listing all of the Category 3 hurricanes (like Lee). If it’s too difficult, I’m sure there an easier article for you to try. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really

OK then, I suggest you check out the article request page. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just checking in, seeing how the editing is going :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 50.44.31.82 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

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

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

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

—DoRD (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created after HurricameWilma344224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked for vandalism and block evasion. —DoRD (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tardis459 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So what I’m not a writer and it’s ok I can be blocked forever. Even though I know that it was wrong to do sockpupetry that doesn’t mean I can still look. You administers are the ones making info not me. I understand what you have that I don’t:Basic TPYEing skills. Hey it’s ok I just want to say unblocking will make this account happy. But to let you know I won’t d vandlism anymore. No more sock puppetry I’m done. I think I will stay as a reader and look at Wikipedia rather then making stuff right and then there is the wrong. I am sorry if you think I’m trolling but heY I am atcally happy I got blocked because now I can’t edit anymore and I can just read. Thanks for blocking me. I need to think before I act. If need any questions leave your thinking down below. Also I will never edit on Wikipedia ever again. Trust me this time. Hey it’s fine if I’m not unblocked I really just want to read. I’m sorry if I edited and did bad edits. And hey I will understand. Thanks Wikipedia, and thank you administrators. I feel bad about saying this but my life is back. Thanks :).

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Talk page access revoked as you can't request an unblock here anyway. Yamla (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.