User talk:MarioProtIV/Archive 2

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


Olaf

Good job on the lead of Hurricane Olaf (2015), but the article was redirected by another user since you failed to add anything more than what was in the season section. The article you recently carved up was 7 kb, when in reality, a storm like that should be around 15-20 kb. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Mario, you're a good writer! And I hate to see your editing time going to waste for a redirected article. Have you checked out the [list of articles]? It's color coded to show how good or bad articles are - red are stub articles (in major need of expansion and work), while green and blue are good articles (more or less complete). We have articles for storms going back to 1330 BC, although it would be a worthy goal just to get every named storm summarized. If you ever need any help editing, feel free to ask. There are plenty of users around who just want everyone to be as productive as they can with their (limited) writing time. We all have busy lives, and any time we devote to this project can make a difference. Don't forget - this is an encyclopedia for everyone, not just weather nerds. There are plenty of important storms that don't have articles, or have rather poor ones. Happy holidays! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Two things now. One, please only use pressure values from the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center in tropical cyclone infoboxes. The Joint Typhoon Warning Center is not one of them, so please do not use their value. We use them only for Saffir-Simpson scale classification. Two, User:MarioProtIV/Oho 2015 - please re-read Hurricanehink's comment above, because this article has the same issues as the previous one. If you do not believe you can accurately judge the notability of a tropical cyclone, please do not be afraid to ask!--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and the Oho article I'm still drafting so that's why it looks like that rn. It did resemble somewhat of the 1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane, alias only Oho was ET at a shorter latitude. It was also notable for its rare strike on Alaska and British Colombia as an extratropical cyclone. I'm aiming for the finished article to be roughly 10.2-11 kb in size (there are sources on its ET impact in Alaska) --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Next, don't get overwhelmed by all the messages/reverts by your fellow editors. WPTC is a high maintenance project, and it will take a while to learn the ropes. It did me. Just keep trying and interacting with others and you'll quickly become a productive member of the project. Piggybacking somewhat off JD and Hink, at least with modern seasons, if a storm was notable enough to have an article one will already have been created. There's a reason why Oho nor Olaf had articles--they were generally insignificant tropical cyclones with damage information that could be contained to the storm's subsection on the season page. Go back a few decades and you'll find storms that don't have articles that actually warrant them. If you're interested in improving modern season articles, updating the storm subsections with information from the National Hurricane Center's Tropical Cyclone Reports is a good place to start. There are a lot of blank sections on 2016 Pacific hurricane season! :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing an article for Seymour but other then the fact that it was 2016's version of last year's Sandra, it wasn't really notable, and I can't really get much out of the advisories if it didn't really affect land. My goal is to by the end of the year have the sections on Orlene, Paine, Tina and Otto on 2016 EPac expanded with more stuff (Otto's needs more it only says it entered and then dissipated which IMO is not really read-worthy :P --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Oho or Seymour are article-worthy. Neither had significant effects on land (Loke also went extratropical in a similar manner to Oho - it's more common than you think, and without reliable sources extensively covering that fact, it's not remarkable).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if this is too much information to handle, but one quick point: In regards to the 1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane, that storm was unique in it's own set of ways, and as such is a poor fit for the season section. And generally speaking, articles are only made when there is sufficient content beyond what could be covered in a season section. Happy Holidays! YE Pacific Hurricane 02:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
What about Pali and Madeline? IIRC someone tried making an article for Pali but it was redirected because it was boldly the copy+pasting of the season section, but if I can find the advisories archive I bet I can expand it (it'll be have to be done in the way Celia 2010 was done with its meteorological history), especially considering it formed in early January and reached C2, that alone makes Pali a notable storm. Madeline was the closer of the two to Hawaii (even tho it was falling apart steadily as it did so), plus it's TCR is out, but only covers its formation since it quickly crossed into the CPac. For that I'll just have to use the advisory archive as well. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think either really deserve articles. I sense that you don't quite understand what we mean by "Notable". Notable means that it has been covered in a substantial number of independent reliable sources. For storms that have no land impacts, this is quite hard. Celia 2010 has an article primarily for being a Category 5 hurricane. Pali and Madeline don't have such claims to notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Good guess, but I don't feel there's enough content out there for Pali/Madeline to sustain full blown articles. I'll think of something sensible to suggest to you. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
There are a few storms that I want to have articles for in the near future which I can list below:
  • (EPac) Amanda 2014 - Strongest May hurricane recorded in Eastern Pacific (definitely notable) and also caused damage, flooding and three deaths in Mexico as a tropical disturbance.
  • (Atl) Gordon 2012 - Somewhat uncommon hurricane to strike the Azores, caused some minor damages.
  • (CPac) Ana 2014 - Passed fairly close to Hawaii as a hurricane which required watches and warnings being posted. Also caused some damage based on info from its TCR.
I would like some thought on which ones would be more notable. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary random factiods don't make a system notable. Having sufficient information does, which to be honest, I don't think you'd be able to maximize well given your lack of history here. Why not re-write Hurricane Javier (2004)? There's plenty of information out there for that storm, while at the same time the article isn't very good, so there's little pressure for you to be perfect off the bat. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you also please avoid inserting WP:SYNTH? Please, do not add anything not explicitly stated by the source. And in any case, the JTWC did not say "above T7.0". They only said T7.0.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll echo what others are saying. You are a good writer! You are just writing about storms that do not need articles. Your enthusiasm for writing is appreciated, but it would be much more appreciated if it was for more significant storms. Storms that remain over the open waters generally do not need articles, compared to storms that strike land and cause significant disruption to human life. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Amanda

I noticed that you created an article for the hurricane because I received a notification by virtue of having created the original page (a redirect). I'm totally down with having an article, but as shown by this discussion I started way back when, there 'may' be opposition. If you feel strongly about your work, it may be worth considering the possibility of opposition (deletionism/mergism) to this article's creation in advance. Dustin (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I made sure the meteorological history was thoroughly detailed and I just moved the impacts from the season page to the article as it was already looking decent-sized enough to warrant a section in it. I'm not that good though at trying to translate whole Mexican news pages to know what they're saying so later I may try to flesh out some more on the impacts from the sources. Other then that I think it is good for now, we'll see how it goes. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 05:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Good job on the MH of Amanda. You cut a few kb's off of 2014 PHS, which was over 100 kb's in length as it is, so at this point, I think I favor keeping the article. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

JTWC final warning

I have to remind you about the JTWC’s final warning. It is issued when a tropical cyclone is weak enough or overland that it will not impact the U.S. Armed Force at all. The final warning never means dissipation, and Wikipedia follows RSMC Tokyo. The official dissipation moment for Nock-ten is 18:00 UTC on December 28. -- Meow 01:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to remember this useful advice from @Meow: as the final advisory from RSMC Tokyo otherwise known as the JMA on Auring has not been issued yet. In fact as of 12z they were saying on their WWJP25 advisory that TROPICAL DEPRESSION [Auring] 1006 HPA AT 10.0N 123.1E PHILIPPINES MOVING WEST 07 KNOTS. POSITION FAIR. MAX WINDS 30 KNOTS NEAR CENTER.Jason Rees (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, MarioProtIV!

Happy New Year!

MarioProtIV,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Dustin (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Tropical Storm Alberto

Hey Mario. Please remember my general rule from the last time I posted on your page, that if an article does not already exist for a recent storm, one is probably not needed. There are notability guidelines on Wikipedia, and a short-lived tropical storm that caused a sentence-worth of impact does not meet those guidelines. If you wish to expand information on a storm, do it on the season page first (although, 2012 AHS is a good article, so no huge improvements are necessary). If you have so much information that the storm's section becomes unnecessarily large, that's when you'll know an article is required. Don't be afraid to ping any of the project members before attempting to create a new article. You're a good writer, I hate to see it keep going to waste! Happy belated New Year. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

2016–17 North American winter

Hey, since you seem to be interested in writing about recent stuff as well as winter seasons, would you be interested in helping fill in some of the sections at this article? You did alright with some of the other winters, so I thought I'd mention it. I've been semi-busy and have been focusing on Draft:2011–12 North American winter a bit, but I thought you might be interested. Dustin (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Be sure and add sources when you add information yourself.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Of Tropical Depression Eight (2016)

You Messaged me about the Tropical Depression Eight (2016) Article. It was nobodies fault that it had no Impact. Wikipedia even had a page on it before! Why can't we recreate it? It would have no effect. Also Tropical Storm Karl in 2016 should have a page because it was a 75 Mph Category 1 Hurricane that info is from Force Thirteen. The Tropical Depression Eight article should be recreated. Tropical Depression Eight (2016). I may recreate the page Myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It didnt have any impacts on land, therefore it doesn't need an article. And when did I ever message you about this? And didn't Dustin already reply to you about this?. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how, but I think Deghop may have possibly confused us? I replied on my talk page, and that's the only explanation I can come with as to what "the message" refers to. Dustin (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I was just having a discussion with what I thought was an unrelated IP but who, by chance, has also mentioned that same Force Thirteen website. Dustin (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Deghop Okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Information icon Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Template:Infobox hurricane. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Matthew edits

I feel as if "active" referred to whether the season is actually going on at present, which is not the case anymore and why I removed it. I think a general discussion of the season's activity is better suited to the article itself. WNYY98 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017 North American winter storm

Just FYI, this storm impacted areas west of the eastern United States, so there is still missing information. I may try to fill in a couple gaps at some point, but I thought I should mention it. Dustin (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware and I will likely get to it in the coming days. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for what you already added?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Just wondering: I've been seeing newspaper headlines about another winter storm in the United States.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Surface Analysis

I notice that have added information based on surface analysis graphics. This may qualify as original research / analysis, so perhaps find more explicit sources where possible. Dustin (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that writing meteorological history sections solely based on surface analysis as you did here qualifies as original research. That might be good on other wikis, but not so much here. Again, please find more explicit sources. Dustin (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know this is as much as I can use to source the MH until WPC releases its report (which takes up to nearly 9–10 months after the "season" ends, sort of how the NHC releases its TCRs). I may add some sources later supporting the unusual surge of moisture though. Also on the Early January 2017 North American winter storm page I will find some sources regarding the expansion of snow and ice across the SE/NE US. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually I just realised the WPC writes storm summaries for these storms as well so I will start to incorporate that into the article(s). --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You can use WPC Storm Summaries; they have information I think you would find useful. Dustin (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
And you literally just mentioned what I was trying to link in the edit of yours that caused the edit conflict / slowed down my response. Dustin (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The UnderarmourKid problem

Hello, I have to say, that I found many vandals that cause troubles in many articles, I also found that they use the name "UnderArmourKid" as a signature, I have 2 questions, 1. Who is UnderArmourKid?, and 2. Are those vandals work for a gang? Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

1. He's a vandalism troll on Wikipedia 2. Not sure, but its very likely they are just alts of UnderArmourKid. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, well, I hope we won't see any sign of him :) Abdullah Almarri - A.W.S.T. (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Care to explain?

Would you care to explain how I "made a big mess of other articles"? The template needs to be converted over to use {{Infobox}}... What issues did I cause? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding "hurricane" in?

So of course I've seen that there is a new layout in the infobox and I am fine with that and looks much better. Though according to our edit wars, I believe I would keep this case the same as the previous format, where we do not include the "hurricane" bit for strongest storm name. This is because we also have other articles like the Nio and SPac etc articles and if that is the case, it would be "Severe Tropical Cyclone..." and that is a really long name. So I would rather put this case back where we don't put the "hurricane" in. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I pitched an idea here where we just put "Cyclone" in the front (for NIO/SWIO/Aus/SPac) where the name is, rather then the long titles. Plus, that is the official article title for most of them. If you want to respond further, I'd advise responding in that thread, not here. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for January 21–22, 2017, tornado outbreak

On 24 January 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article January 21–22, 2017, tornado outbreak, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 21:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

List of meteorological histories of tropical cyclones

Hey there. I saw the article you made, and I'm not quite sure it should exist. It's useful as a category, but there is no encyclopediac topic on "meteorological histories of tropical cyclones", since we have one (or will have one) for every known storm. The only thing special about that article is that it lists the articles of individual meteorological histories, but there isn't as much rhyme or reason for which storms have specific meteorological histories. Normally, it's just when there is too much information on the history that would otherwise bloat the article (which usually focuses on the human impacts). Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a repository of internal links. Make sure you read over Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, as well. You're doing a good job as an editor - I just want to make sure you are aware of some of the rules on WP! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think in the future I may end up converting it into a category to be more on style :P --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha :D Happy editing! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sharknado (film series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhDv2.0 01:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

December 2013 Azores subtropical storm

Hey, are you sure there should be an article on that storm? There is very little information outside of the NHC, which is a big red flag. In general, there doesn't need to be an article on these borderline notable storms. The article isn't going to be viewed much, and it's just an extension of what was in the season article. Your article on Julia was much more notable. It affected more people and caused actual damage. You're a good writer - have you considered working on any bigger projects that might be of more use? There are plenty of existing articles on storms over the past few years that aren't in too good of shape. It would be more beneficial to Wikipedia if those articles were improved, rather than making a new article for a short-lived unnamed storm. The fact that it was in the off-season means it is a vital part of List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes, but it doesn't need its own article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you be interested in working on a good topic with me? We have several years where every single storm article is rated to be at least a good article, which makes it a good topic. The long term goal of the project is to get as many good topics as possible, so each year has complete coverage. I'm not sure if you've seen the project assessment page, where you can see how each article is ranked. You can see some years that have more start or stub articles (colored brown or red), which means they need the most work. You are clearly a good writer, and you know how to research. I just want to see your editing talent be utilized to its fullest capability! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

IRC

Hey there MarioProtIV ♫♪☺,

I see you've been editing for a while, and that it looks like you're going to stick around - that's awesome! :) A bunch of the tropical cyclone editors talk on Internet Relay Chat (basically a chatroom for WikiProject:Tropical cyclones. Here is a link to it. Just enter your nickname (we usually use our Wiki name), put this for channels:

  1. wiki-hurricanes

And just click the check that says you're not a robot (assuming that you're not a robot, although given the state of technology, it is entirely possible that you are not a human). Assuming you are a human, us other hurricane editors are on right now, and are generally on in the evening.

I don't want you to get the wrong impression that I am proposing that your articles be merged. The WikiProject editors are very proud of the high standards of articles. And your writing is certainly sufficient on the prosiac side. The issue is more on the articles that you are choosing to write about. There has been a consensus that the focus should be more broadly. Add information first to the season articles. That is the focus - a storm alone in December is a quirk of the calendar in 2013, but it is one of 79 off-season storms. In recent years, we have seen more and more evidence that storms are capable of forming year-round, and they are increasingly becoming intense in unexpected locations (Cyclone Winston hitting Fiji last year as the strongest storm in that entire basin, Hurricane Patricia becoming the strongest recorded Pacific hurricane by far 16 months ago). The articles on Wikipedia have a hierarchy, and each storm can be broken down into categories. If it is one-of-a-kind, then yes, it should have an article, but most storms are part of bigger patterns and trends. Sometimes it's tough to see it when you're just starting to track hurricanes, but when you follow them for a while, you marvel that hurricanes can repeat themselves in history. Only now they're getting more ferocious. I have a lot to say on hurricanes, and so do the other hurricane editors, and we'd love to hear your thoughts on Wikipedia, hurricanes, and the world (hurricanes affect the world after all, and the world turns to Wikipedia for the truth). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of the far future already has a date for a lunar collision.

If you're going to offer an alternate date, I'd choose a better source. Serendipodous 20:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware it's sort of implied at 6-7 billion years, however the one I added was if the Earth and the Moon don't end up colliding due to the red giant Sun, it was on new research that was recently released. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to note...

...as with 15F/07P, the real name as of now is TD15F not Cyclone Seven. We only do this if JTWC is ONLY monitoring on the system/if the system does not have a designation. Also to add if that was the case, it would be 07P not "Seven". But anyways, have a good day. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about layout

I can`t found your email that why i ask my question here. In revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TRAPPIST-1&diff=740423448&oldid=740384525 you create "Sky" template on top right corner of page, i want use this template on other lng version of page with same position as your(but in my lang version template always inline). Where i can find doc about this functionality or just how you do this? LVLVbNH (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Meranti 16

While Typhoon Meranti (2016) obviously should be moved since it was retired, only admins (with some exceptions, like if a user withdraws a nomination or something- see WP:RMNAC) can close a WP:RM even if it was a pointless one. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

What season articles have an ACE sub-header? YE Pacific Hurricane 02:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought they did, must've been wrong. Sorry :P --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Understandable mistake. To be fair, we use to have a level 2 header for ACE back in the day, but we phased it out. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh jeez

Chap here, aka X2A3Q who can't currently log in to their account because they are at school, but an admin made Cyclone Enawo a redirect until you add content to it. Can you remake the page however this time add more content regarding the cyclone? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.144.163 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Season timeline categories

Hi. Seasons such as the EPac and the Atlantic are the only two basins that is alright with category mentions in the timeline (eg: Ana (TS) etc). The rest do not because two agencies monitor the systems such as the TCWC and the JTWC. Therefore, we should not include it in as it will confuse many people, plus they are not aware of other cyclone categories such as ITC. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Dissipation

It is not good to see that you keep using the JTWC data for determining the date for dissipation. Wikipedia follows RSMCs and TCWCs. -- Meow 09:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Season Summary

Piggybacking off Cyclonebiskit's revert, a season summary should be just that--a summary of the season. Not individual storms. If you want to see what the section should look like ideally, check out 2013's or the one I wrote for 2010. Certainly feel free to rewrite 2016's again at any point. CSU releases great summaries at the end of each year - here's the most recent - that are incredibly useful. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 04:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Enawo

You asked me to edit the Enawo article. It is fine that nobody appreciates my efforts, but I am even insulted by so many people. I do not dare to help you again. -- Meow 09:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For creating pages about major weather events that aren't bad *cough*. —JJBers 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

New Storm

There's a Albeta clipper going through, and it is predicted to muster a few inches in the Northeast right now, but this page said: "When and how much the system can re-intensify as it passes south will also be a major factor in how much precipitation can occur." Another page is also covering the future of the storm, along with WFSB. Is this enough for at-least a sub-page start for this storm?
—JJBers 06:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Please ask before playing around with the sandboxes I'm working on. Matthew's effects in Florida are severely lacking and still under-construction. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A word of caution

Hi there. I noticed that you've been diving head-first into many new editing ventures recently, and often end up being reverted by other contributors. While being bold is certainly encouraged on Wikipedia, and the meteorology editors always appreciate fresh blood, I think it might be a good idea for you to take things a little more slowly and seek guidance from more seasoned editors. Expanding your editing horizons is great, but it's important to do your research before trying something new to ensure that the proper procedures are generally being followed. Just in the last day or two, you've redirected a current GA without starting a reassessment, attempted to delist that GA without even making an effort to review the WP:GAR guidelines, attempted to publish another editor's userspace drafts without consulting them, and edit warred over the inclusion of marginally notable content. When experienced users try to guide you in the right direction, it's important to take their advice to heart instead of simply reverting or ignoring them. Unfortunately, many of your edits create more work for other people who have to correct your mistakes resulting from hasty decisions. Remember that Wikipedia operates by consensus, so if you're not sure about something, it's always a good idea to start a discussion. There's no need to be "first", if that makes sense. In general, just take a moment to consider usefulness of your edits each time you're about to click the "save changes" button. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me or another experienced user for guidance. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop creating tornado article without consensus first!

You have made two completely unnecessary tornado articles in the past several days with ZERO consensus or discussion of doing so with other members. First of all, you cannot be making tornado articles that cover such low-impact events. A few EF2 tornadoes that produce moderate damage and no fatalities is NOT an article worthy event. Second of all, you MUST have other consensus with other users among the tornadoes of 2017 talk page to even begin making an article. Doing so overrides the decision making process, and the act of you jumping the gun and creating and article without consulting any other members is not ok. I know the SPC is important, but articles here are made based on the AFTERMATH of the event, not the severity and wording of the SPC outlook that proceeds it. You need to keep that in mind from now on. I'm gonna have to mark the March 28-30 article of yours for deletion I'm afraid, but i'll wait to see if anything comes of the April 3 potential event before getting rid of the other one. Hope you learned something and understand. Thanks! Screven94 (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94

I agree, but Screven94, you need to not be so confrontational about it. We're all in this together, we just want information out there. We aren't here to determine whether or not you should create an unnecessary article, in fact sometimes this is encouraged. Jdcomix (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop

Don’t move the pages without consensus. —MartinZ (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you revert my changes to the infobox because you didn’t like it, or was it because the there weren’t any discussion? —MartinZ (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I reverted it because there was no discussion. I highly recommend you first bring it up with the community first before boldly going and doing it on your own. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 14:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there a consensus for using the planetbox instead of infobox planet? I've seen the latter been used on a lot of pages, such as the planets of the solar system (all of which are featured articles).
As far as I know, Infobox planet is used only for the planets of the solar system, and Planetbox is used for exoplanets. There was likely a consensus for that but it was probably made a long time back (around 2008 or so?) it would take a while for me to dig it up. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding separate sections for individual tornadoes.

The reason I reverted the individual tornado sections you created in the 2016 February tornado outbreak article is that they are already fully covered in the table, and because of this they are not necessary. The intensity of the tornadoes is not relevant factor for an individual section. Some articles don't have any individual sections for tornadoes, and that's ok! The point of individual sections for if tornado and its effects simply cannot be sufficiently summarized within the table. Tornadoes that are very long-track or produce so much damage that there just isn't enough room to fully explain everything that happened within the table, only then is a section needed. If you are going to make a section, I'd say the Tappahannock, VA EF3 is the only one that could definitely use one, and possibly the Evergreen, VA EF3. The Tappahannock EF3 impacted many different counties and is a lot to cover just within the table, and definitely can be expanded on. The Paincourtville and Pensacola tornadoes just don't need them though. Again, I really appreciate your enthusiasm about getting these articles in really good shape though! You are going to be really good to have around once we actually have some more real outbreaks. Another long-time wiki tornado editor was "on me" like this when I started and was still learning the ropes, and at times I wanted to reach through the screen and choke him, but in the end he was right and was just maintaining quality control and showing me a lot of the "unwritten" rules and finesse of editing and creating these sort of articles. Do keep it up and don't get discouraged! Screven94 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94

Yeah I guess I could do the Tappahannock and Evergreen ones, since I know one of them was a rare one for Pennsylvania or so. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah agreed. But neither of them struck Pennsylvania, so i'm not to sure what you're referring to exactly?

Screven94 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94

Subtropical Depression One (2017)

Hey I understand that you made the article and all but it really irked me when you removed my merge tags thinking that I wasn't going to start a discussion. I forgive you for the mishap with the merge tag removals after that per your dummy edit but please next time don't be in such a rush. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop recreating the article. Since I've reverted you, the onus is on you (@MarioProtIV:) to start a discussion about it, per WP:BRD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please consider this a final warning to stop edit warring and start discussing disputed changes. You've completely ignored my advice in the #A word of caution section above, and further edit warning will result in a temporary block from editing. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox images of planets

You reverted numerous hours of constructive edits. Thanks a lot!

I was following the usage guide for Template:Planetbox which explicitly says ... :

Usage

This template is part of a group of templates that are used to display information about a specific extrasolar planet.

Images of published planetary properties are preferred where available, especially when they are available from cited publications.

Artist's conception, regardless of the source, should be avoided.

Examples of acceptable images include

  • direct images, such as one used for GJ 758 b, in the rare cases where these are available;
  • output of a model that is integral to a cited paper, such as the image used in HD 80606 b;

* user-generated images that clearly illustrate published properties, such as the size comparisons currently used in GJ 1214 b or Gliese 436 b.

I was following this guide and using size comparisons with Earth for which the radius is pretty much known (i.e. primarily those detected by transit). As an astronomer, I find this at a glance radius comparison more useful than a spurious artists depiction. That is exactly what Template:Planetary radius is for!

Furthermore, the artists conceptions were repurposed in the relevant sections about the property of the planet, star, orbit etc. following the Wikipedia MOS. And there are well established, comprehensive discussions on this on most of these pages, see [HD 85512 b #Impression_needed?] for example

Some of them aren't even of the planet in question, for instance the caption on Kepler-62e says "Artist's conception of an Earth-size planet orbiting within the habitable zone of its parent star." which could be an artists depiction of any one of 40 billion planets. So I tried to reference any attributes in the artists conception that were highlighted in the article.

Habitable zone diagrams do not say anything about the characteristics of the planet, they could be gaseous or dry even if they orbit there!

The existing images, however, were not following these usage policies and the pages currently look more like science fiction fan pages than encyclopedia entries.

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarioProtIV/Archive_2&oldid=1145833008"