User talk:Hurricaneboy23

September 2019
Hello, I'm Sandy14156. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2019 Atlantic hurricane season have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks.  Sandy 141  56  :)  00:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Jasper Deng (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Continued disruption will be met with being blocked from editing, or other sanctions. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Image names
Please stop making the geostationary images with the wrong name, and therefore I removed it and used my image instead. Also please do not make the JTWC track maps yourself since we already established a bot to do it, and therefore, I removed it. Please note this in the future. Very disappointed with those images. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah and I know it takes a while for the bot to upload (which I get impatient) and update these images but it does save time for users creating it and plus, it is better to keep all storm trackfiles the same name. Thank you for understanding, though. :) Typhoon2013  (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia, anyways. Probably should research more to be honest. Sorry for the inconvenience. Hurricaneboy23 01:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tropical Storm Nestor (November 30)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sagotreespirit was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tropical Storm Nestor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tropical Storm Nestor, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Tropical_Storm_Nestor Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagotreespirit&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Tropical_Storm_Nestor reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Sago tree spirit  (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Tropical Storm Nestor has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tropical Storm Nestor. Thanks! — Sago tree spirit  (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Wait, so the article’s layout and info is good but it just needs to be pasted into the existing one? That’s good! Thank you! Hurricaneboy23 14:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Nestor (2019)
I just went ahead and replaced the redirect on Tropical Storm Nestor (2019) with your article since there has been no discussion for over 24 hours. If Jasper Deng wants, he can propose deletion, but I don't think it would go through. Jayab 314  03:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Your signature
Per WP:SIGLINK, you are required to link at least one of your userpage, this page, or your contributions page. Your current signature does not do any of that. Please change your signature to be compliant before you reply to this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hagibis damages
Hi and I will not revert your recent edits yet, but where did you get the fact that Hagibis has a total of $15b (with an extra boost of $6b from your edit summary). Which source did you use? Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad. I just saw the source. Have a great day! :) Typhoon2013  (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement regarding the number of tropical lows
There are currently two active tropical lows in the Australian region. The references for the formation of each of these tropical lows are provided in the article sections for each system, which you evidently have not read. For your convenience, I will reproduce them here:
 * 02U
 * Other TL

In the future, please be more thorough in checking your information before reverting edits and throwing insults around. ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Doesnt it seem a little fishy they formed on the same day and are at the exact same position? No. They’re the exact same system. Its just 2 different outlooks regarding the same system... look at the map! Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

... http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/index.shtml Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No they are not two different outlooks concerning the same system. The first TL 02U is roughly located at 14S 122E while the second is at 7S 130E. By my very rough maths there are 8 degrees of latitude between them.Jason Rees (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the map? Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesnt mention 2 systems. They were issued at 2 different times im pretty sure, thats why theres a difference in latitude/longitude. Sorry to break it to you. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, if there were 2 systems, im pretty sure the JTWC would mention 2 invests. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please use the ping template to notify someone when you have responded to their comment, as they do not automatically get a notification. Secondly, please indent your replies (I have done this for you).


 * No, it is not at all "fishy" that two systems formed on the same day. Things like that happen regularly in meteorology. There is only one system shown on the summary map because that is the only system that the BOM is currently issuing advisories on. This does not mean it is the only tropical low. The BOM regularly discusses tropical lows in their tropical cyclone outlooks which tropical cyclone forecast maps are not issued for. This is the case again this time. The sources that I provided clearly indicate the existence of two different tropical lows. That can be determined from the coordinates of each tropical low, as well as the locations mentioned. Furthermore, the two systems are more than 1,000 km apart. It is not one system that has travelled that distance in five hours. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * “Firstly”, you legit just showed me 2 advisories. Why would there be only 1 TL on the map? Secondly, the JTWC would’ve probably been issuing on 2 “invests” if this was the case. Third, Northern Territory is a region right by Western Australia’s Kimberly region... Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Also you do not mark the strongest storm as “Tropical Low” 02U. Have you seen other articles? They don’t have “Tropical Cyclone” Veronica and “Tropical Low” in front of the name. Sheesh. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This isnt even worth arguing about anymore. Just please let me do my edits. I wont delete your stupid “Tropical Low” Section. Im deleting this talk... Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You can't just delete a discussion you don't want to have. I have already explained why there is only 1 TL on the map. It is because there is only a track map for one of them. The JTWC does not mention all tropical lows that are designated by the BOM, and the BOM is the RSMC for this basin. Your point about the Kimberley and the Northern Territory is simply irrelevant. Australia is an enormous country, and the distance between the systems is more than 1,000 km. I don't understand why you are being confrontational or continuing to argue this point. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is done lmao. Please, just stop bugging me. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If the discussion is done, I have full right to delete it. It’s my talk page. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you read my last message you would understand... lol. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully on the page Cyclone Bulbul, but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ''Hi there. I reverted your edit on Bulbul which changed the track map from that of Bulbul to that of Matmo-Bulbul. The latter is not the correct map.  Java Hurricane  16:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Referencing
Hi there. Thanks for adding information to the Cyclone Damien section recently. However, you have not provided any references to verify any of this information, which is in contravention of Wikipedia's important verifiability rule. It is extremely important that you provide references for all of the information that you add in any edits. Additionally, some of the information that you have included is not correct, specifically regarding wind speeds, which is a reason why references are so vital. ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I just added the info so somebody else can reference it Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not really how it works. Only you know where you got the information from. Leaving unfinished work for other people to clean up and reference tediously is just bad form and inconsiderate. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not as generous as CT and I just removed nearly all of this information, not only because of the aforementioned sourcing issues, but also because you have for some reason decided that mph should be used in a basin where km/h has priority, that storms in this basin can be called “hurricanes”, that SSHWS is used officially in this basin, and that any clouding over and reclearing of the eye is an “eyewall replacement cycle”. All of these are mistaken. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article but you need to ensure you comply with content guidelines.—Jasper Deng (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ok. good luck doing that yourself with your crappy editing skills then Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 03:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 72 hours because of your refusal to comply with basic editing guidelines, as well as your continued and flagrant dismissal of good-faith criticism. Please take this time to reflect on your attitude here and review our policies on verifiability and collaborative editing. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Your very nonsensical reasoning to block me from editing is really sad. The only reason I’m being punished is because you think I’m dismissing “good faith” criticism of a user who has a history of making unaccurate edits. Your only excuse is your opinion, not actually Wikipedia’s guidelines. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 04:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Don’t even bother to make a counter-arguement, I said what I said and I’m not going to take it back. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 04:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which user? A cursory review of the previous discussions here reveals that you've received cautionary messages from half a dozen different editors over the course of several months. Feel free to follow the instructions at WP:APPEAL if you feel this block was in error. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Salt Lake City earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MDT ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2020_Salt_Lake_City_earthquake check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2020_Salt_Lake_City_earthquake?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Good articles and such
Hey there Hurricaneboy23! I've seen you editing around for a while (especially lately on Cyclone Harold). I just wanted to check in, seeing how you're enjoying editing. Do you have any articles that you're looking at working on but don't have the sources? Updating a current storm is always important too, as they're often some of our worst articles (until someone takes the time to finish them). ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. I was working on the Typhoon Mitag (2019) article a while ago but got caught in with a bit of real life stuff. Cyclone Harold may be the most interesting and probably significant storm article I've actually worked on, so I'm trying my best to get good info out there for it for this time being before working on any past storm articles. Hurricaneboy23 (Page)
 * Yea, Harold is an interesting storm! It's good to be working on that one while it's live, so you can comb through news sources now and get their info. Mitag looks like an interesting storm. For either of the articles, are you familiar with how to find new sources? The best way is to go on Google and to do a generic search for the name of the storm and the location, such as [Cyclone Harold Fiji], which will likely give you thousands of sources. That might feel overwhelming, but you'll realize after your third article that most of these sources are going to be identical. That's why it's good to be pretty familiar with a storm while you're writing the article. You can quickly go through sources and realize "nothing new in this source", or "oh, this source has one sentence that I can add". Also, regarding sources, do you know how to cite properly? Again, just checking :) I want to make sure your editing is easy and without any problems. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do know how to cite. I did a lot of it for articles like Cyclone Bulbul and such I worked hard in. However, finding good reliable sources for Mitag has been fairly difficult. Mainly since most sources I find on google just mention South Korea but barely any other affected regions, so I had to dig deep to even find some sources for the meteorological history since it's an old storm and the section of the article it exists in 2019 Pacific typhoon season is quite poorly written.
 * Cool, I'm glad you know how to cite. And this is where your location is going to affect how good your article is. The Philippines, for instance, have a lot of really good sources through their weather agencies, but you need to look up [Typhoon Onyok] (and not Mitag) for sources there. You can use Google to your advantage by being more specific, or putting "Typhoon Mitag" in quotes to only bring up search results with the two words together. For instance, "Typhoon Mitag" +Taiwan gives you lots of sources for Taiwan's impacts. Then you'd do the same for China and South Korea. China always reports their news through their news agency Xinhua, which is usually available in English. As for South Korea, if that's what a lot of sources cover, then you're probably gonna find a lot of repetition, which could make it tricky to find sources that have different info. It just takes a bit of time to go through all of the sources and integrate them. As for the met history, yea, that can be tricky with recent storms, when no official report is out. Still, the most important part of the article is the impact section, not the MH. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read
New cyclone making 4 may Extremely Severe Cyclonic Storm amphan made landfall in odisha coast Vala keep (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, pardon? The cyclone hasn’t formed yet nor been named. You can check the 2020 North Indian Ocean cyclone season article to keep updated though if it does. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The 40th edition of The Hurricane Herald
Hello there! As a new user, I'd like to point out the project newsletter, located at WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 40 - you get a mention for being a new project member! If you'd like to get this newsletter, please add your name to the list. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Hurricaneboy23/List of super typhoons
Hey there! I like that you're working on the article for List of super typhoons. I wondered if you gave any consideration to the JMA intensity, given that they are the official warning agency for the basin. I know it would be a lot more work, but would you consider adding the JMA intensity to a column in the list? I know you're still working on the draft, and I really appreciate that, so don't feel like you have to. It would just help in the long run. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a tip...
... as a person who looks more in the PTS articles, I'd advice to only put the important information in a storm article. As much as possible, we shouldn't be putting way excessive information in one storm article as the article at the end of the year could be too big, and this goes with the references section as well. Well of course, unless there is a separate article for that storm system. Stay safe and have a good day! :) Typhoon2013  (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Same thing here, as per my revert to your edit, if a system is named by the JMA (since they are the RSMC) we use that name and no need to use PAGASA name. But if a system is ONLY named by PAGASA we use that name. I really don't know where you make that statement since that was never discussed. Typhoon2013  (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn't like to repeat this but yea as per your edit from 02W (Butchoy), so I reverted your edit. Typhoon2013  (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Images
I am sorry if I am spamming your talk page right now. One of the other users have not responded yet to this situation, but one of your edits in the 2020 PTS article is removing the image. I just want to know why because there seems like a small edit war regarding this. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The image is low resolution and is highly off-center. We only put images that actually are high resolution, not just some low-quality small image and that isn't even focused on the storm. Plus, it's outdated. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right. And now since the JTWC has began tracking the system, I shall upload the Geostationary image for everyone to update, as per the norm for several years now. Typhoon2013  (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 as 6th latest start on record
I will keep the edit of calling it "the first tropical cyclone to develop on May 10" for now as this leads to the second part of the paragraph regarding the 6th latest start of a season. This should be reworded at the end of the year as we use the tropical storm intensity because the JMA could track minor TDs before-hand (see previous articles). Moreover, I will have to double check whether 2020 stays as the 6th latest on record a I still have not looked at the JMA weather maps of 1973. I will try to update you and the article regarding this until I find that the 1973 season has started before hand. Because if not so, we have to move the 2020 season to 5th place. Kind regards. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok then. I just think it makes more sense to say when it formed instead of when it was upgraded to TS status since you’re mentioning the season start, not the first named storm start. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries you had a point too. I got confused for a bit because I realised there were a number of typhoon seasons where the season began with just a weak TD but the first named storm didn't develop months after, and that's where the conflict begins (as for instance with the 1998 and 2016 seasons). Yea I know it is confusing but that's how it just goes between the JMA and the JTWC with designated TDs and minor TDs. I guess it's just how my mindset is pretty dead because of unproductivity due to lockdown. On a side note I hope my messages toward you isn't too aggressive. Not a fan of random IP users changing stuff in the PTS articles due to past experience and lately those articles are being left behind. Typhoon2013  (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can say now that the 2020 PTS is the 6th latest, but only just. I am currently finding the minor TDs from the 1973 season and found that the first system developed on May 12. So it really was close. Typhoon2013  (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

the Arthur problem
Hi. I saw your draft at Draft:Tropical Storm Arthur (2020), and I think it fits Wikipedia's structure of a storm article. The problem is, there is already an existing redirect at Tropical Storm Arthur (2020), and the only way to move that is a copy and paste move. Click here for my experiences of such a thing. You will have to request deletion of the redirect under speedy deletion criterion number six, "Deleted to make way for move". Thanks, 🐔Chicdat Chicken Database 10:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you know that is doing a draft for the same TS Arthur at User:CooperScience/Tropical Storm Arthur (2020)? Pierre cb (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Must I wait for an official reviewer to review it or no? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you talk with CooperScience. Pierre cb (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Season summary
Hi I've seen your recent revert to that IP user in the 2020 PTS article in regards of the Season summary section, which at this point I do agree. But just keep in mind, though, that the section is for all storms that develop in the season. Your edit summary stated that it is only for Vongfong, but in fact it talks about the entire basin itself. Kind regards, Typhoon2013  (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Your recent editing history at Tropical Storm Amanda (2020) 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CycloneYoris talk! 22:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but the garbage image for Amanda that is low resolution does not mean the guidelines for TC images and you reverting it back is absolute nonsense. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Category 1 Atlantic hurricanes
Hey there, I've been adding a few storms to the article for C1 Atlantic canes. I think it could be a good collaboration, especially among newer users who are learning the ropes. Would you be interested in participating in a collaboration with other users to help finish the article? I already asked Destroyeraa. The more people that work on it, the quicker it'll get done. There are like 80 years' worth of Cat 1 storms to add to the list. I saw you've been editing a lot of articles lately, that's why I wondered if you might be interested in the collab. Happy editing! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Your recent editing history at 2020 Pacific hurricane season 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jasper Deng (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ambali article
Hello, I am the guy who said you might as well make an article for Cyclone Ambali. I just want you to know, when your done with the draft, you can send to me on my talk page. Regards, CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

20W
Just to note that as of this edit, 20W is still active per the JMA (As seen from their weather maps). Kind regards, Typhoon2013  (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tropical cyclones in 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Typhoon Haishen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Arthur (2020)
Hi there, I wondered if you were considering nominating Arthur for GA. The article would be part of the good topic for off-season Atlantic hurricanes. I can help if you need. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there, any update on this? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I nominated it for GA, thought you'd like to know. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks. Sorry I haven't replied recently. Don't look on this talk page often. I can try and expand the article more, if needed. I mean, it got merge-requested like twice for no reason but stil.. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. One issue Hink's picked on is the lack of information from the TCR in the Met history. Also, he said to look for Virginia impacts. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 03:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Ava
The article Cyclone Ava you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cyclone Ava for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is the to do list? I know I have fixed the metric problems. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Cyclone Ava/GA1 - here is the review. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Rather than worrying about 2020 AHS, I wondered if there was any questions about Ava's GAR? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!
Thanks! Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, enjoy! 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  16:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please send me a friend request on discord? Noah Talk 20:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think so, later. Taking a relatively long-ish break from discord as of now Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay.. Hope everything goes well with Ava. I have been expanding Hurricane Bud (2018) today. Noah Talk 22:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder for Ava... it will fail if you don't fix it up. Noah Talk 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much, dear sir! I've never earned a barnstar before. Tropical cyclones are my specialty. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! Honestly, its been my pleasure to work with this project. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Krovanh
I believe I have reminded you this before. But just to note that Krovanh is still active per the JMA. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to know where you get your info from your recent edit with Krovanh, stating that JMA no longer tracks it? As of this edit, JMA still clearly tracks Krovanh and thus, is still active. I use the JMA weather maps for this just to note. Kind regards along with a good holidays. Typhoon2013  (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

New message from HurricaneTracker495
Please see my comment about our merge moratorium. Hurricane Tracker 495 23:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Before another edit war occurs...(+ Happy holidays)
Even if you are right that both the WPac and Nio basins do not have an official boundary for season durations, I think it's useless to revert another person's edit to declare that the system has dissipated like a day before the new year. We should not stress this out even for a small situation. Hope all is well for you and have a good safe new year! Kind regards, Typhoon2013  (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Hurricaneboy23 , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours!  HurricaneEdgar    18:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


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

Thank you Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Hurricaneboy23 , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 21:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


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

Media
For whatever its worth the media will often name tropical cyclones before they are officially named, especially in the Atlantic Western Pacific and Australian region when they are impacting land. As a result, the only sources acceptable for a name being used are tropical cyclone advisories from the JTWC or the warning centres of the region NHC, CPHC, JMA, IMD, MFR, Jakarta, BoM, PNG NWS, FMS, MetService. NOAA satellites on Twitter is not an acceptable source.Jason Rees (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Lines?
Hi there. Keep up the good work with the TC images! But is there any chance to take away the line in the middle for the Ana pics? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, it is the international date line Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

06F
Take a close look at 06F and you will find that it did impact Fiji and was the first of three to impact Fiji during the last week. For starters: the very first point from the FMS was 18.0S 179.2W on January 27 at 18z. When I put this point in to Google Earth, I see that it was located about 15 km to the west of Nayau in Fiji's Lau Islands. I also look at the FMS's Special Weather Bulletin Number 4 on TD 05F: FOR VANUA LEVU AND NEARBY SMALLER ISLANDS, TAVEUNI AND LAU GROUP IN RELATION TO TD06F. DAMAGING GALE FORCE WINDS WITH AVERAGE SPEED OF 65KM/HR WITH MOMENTARY GUSTS OF UP TO 90KM/HR. PERIODS OF RAIN, HEAVY AT TIMES AND SQUALLY THUNDERSTORMS.FLASH FLOODING OF LOW LYING AREAS EXPECTED. POOR VISIBILITY IN AREAS OF HEAVY RAIN AND THUNDERSTORMS. SEA FLOODING OF COASTAL AREAS LIKELY]. Thirdly, I look at our track map for 06F: those islands to the south of Vanua Levu and west of Viti Levu are Fiji's Lau Islands, notice how the first point is firmly nestled within these islands. As a result, I think its fair to say that 06F impacted Fiji but we will get more clarity later this week when the FMS issues their monthly summary. However for now if you need for clarity then feel free to let me know :).Jason Rees (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, regardless of where the convection was the FMS says that 06F impacted Fiji with gale-force winds, which is what we have to go with not what you think based on satellite imagery. So demanding that I put a line in about what 06F did to Fiji in particular to Cyclone Ana isn't going to wash. Jason Rees (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not responding to my comments on here and calling my reasoning foolish isnt good, as at the end of the day the Fiji Met Service are the ones who said that 06F impacted Fiji not me. Jason Rees (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I also dont really see the need to mention Yasi in the opening sentence unless another system happens to develop and impact Fiji as 3 TCs in a week is quite notable for an island nation that only receives 1-3 on average per season. Jason Rees (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Iman formation date
Hey, recently checked through and it seems you edited Iman's formation date to 3rd. However, the MFR's site track has it formed on 2nd, and as far as I seen few of the systems, even if the first advisories were initiated at 3rd, it's appropriate to follow MFR's track. The link is (http://www.meteo.fr/temps/domtom/La_Reunion/webcmrs9.0/anglais/activiteope/data/20202021/2020RE14.html). Thanks, and please reply here or edit the other articles if you agreed that 2nd is the date of formation. I left this section as I didn't want to cause edit conflict or war, so please understand :) Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware MFR edited their best track for Iman. Thank you for consulting me on this, creating edit conflicts is 180% not my intention. I will fix it myself if you will Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Your recent editing history at 2020 Pacific typhoon season 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''You are not even bothering to use edit summaries, thus giving no insight into your reasoning. By now you really should know better.'' Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. I didn't even revert twice within 24 hours and just reverted today since no one besides me knew the image was updated. Didn't violate WP:3RR. No one has edited the article within 4 days and is NOT an ongoing edit war, even if you may of considered it one before. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Bikeshedding like this is silly and serves no purpose, especially when you do not even use edit summaries.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I apologize for not using an edit summary, but I was indeed hurrying and didn't know not putting an edit summary on something that had been updated and was now improved was such a huge deal apparently. Still not an edit war and not worth warning me about (IMO). Mistakes are allowed. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The warning was warranted in view of your long-term pattern of this kind of image reverting. Mistakes are allowed, but not when you have a chronic pattern of them and no intent to address it.—Jasper Deng (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * None, if any, of these edit wars were caused by me at all and I usually resolved to discussion to solve them. I'm not gonna say names though. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You really ought not to participate at all, whether you started it or not. And I see no attempt from you to try to resolve the case at hand, namely that of Haishen's image.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Lorena (2019)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Lorena (2019) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Lorena (2019)
The article Hurricane Lorena (2019) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hurricane Lorena (2019) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Lorena (2019)
The article Hurricane Lorena (2019) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hurricane Lorena (2019) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Subtropical Storm Alpha (2020), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trough.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Paulette
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Paulette you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JayTee32 -- JayTee32 (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, its been a while since I opened up the review of Paulette. Would you like to take a look at the suggestions me, LND, and Destroyer left? I understand if you are on Wikibreak, but next time please do not nominate an article if you cannot improve it in a timely manner. Thank you. Jay  Tee  🕊️  🇺🇸  02:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Elsa
Hello and good evening! I have noticed your recent edits on Hurricane Elsa. Although all were in good faith, I reverted them as I explained the image you provided was rather low quality and comparable to the images we have of pictures for 1980s tropical cyclones. I instead replaced them with an image I believed was high quality, and you made a very flippant reply. I then reverted that edit and tried to reason why I believed the image I provided was high quality. Then you changed another image without any explanation recently with the edit summary linked below. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1032003570

I also noticed that you reverted my edit on the Lesser Antilles section. I removed these subsections since I and a few other editors are starting to become accustomed to only make subsections if one section becomes overcrowded. I do not personally feel that three paragraphs is overcrowded. Just wanted to settle this so another edit war wouldn’t start. Thank you!DachshundLover82 (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Paulette
The article Hurricane Paulette you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hurricane Paulette for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JayTee32 -- JayTee32 (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Damage in Canton, North Carolina
I saw a source that said Cruso, North Carolina had $300 million in damage, which was unbelievable but it could be true. You made this edit that said the damage was in Canton. My belief is that things were so bad in Cruso that it's entirely possible the damage number is that high. The source I used said nothing about damage in Canton (which is why I believe your source was actually referring to the Canton area including Cruso) but mentioned Clyde ($18 million) and that might possibly be worth mentioning. What do you think?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear the damage was in Cruso, but I don't see how. Even The New York Times used the figure.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

48th issue of Hurricane Herald newsletter
 Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Hurricane Grace
Please stop edit-warring on the article image. There appears to be enough of a consensus on the talk page to keep the current one:. Please don't change it unless a new consensus is established. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You've been requested to say your word.
Hello, editors have summoned you to say your word on the Hurricane Grace talk page. Please say your word as I will close the discussion at the end of the day. 🌀 AwesomeHurricaneBoss 🌀 12:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
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. 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Consider this your last warning before AN/3 is considered. Your inability to discuss image changes, and continued focus on warring instead, is not appropriate edit etiquette. Supportstorm (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop image warring. Even after this warning here, you have continued to do so. This is inappropriate behavior and needs to stop. Noah Talk 03:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * In spite of this, you chose to continue image warring on Tropical Storm Claudette (2021). If you are unable to hold yourself back, we will have to consider placing you under a WP:1RR or other editing restriction. Quite frankly, a lot of your edit summaries on image changes are childish and immature, such as with the Chanthu images.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly you are the only one immature here calling one revision an edit war on the Claudette article. Thanks for the opinion though! Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I very strongly suggest a voluntary 1RR restriction so we do not have to consider putting you under an involuntary one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A Whale for you!
For screwing up the citations at October 2021 nor'easter (Wanda). You've screwed up 3 separate citations. Each citation should only be written out once. For the other times it's being referenced, only the ref name tag is needed. Please don't do this again. LOL. This is basic citation stuff.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom case
I think you should give your opinion in this Arbitration/Requests/Case for which you have involvement in, especially in regards to FleurDeOdile.  Mario Jump  83!  04:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Weather: Map Dot & Template/Infobox Colors
Dear project member, This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (MOS:ACCESS). We had partially implemented a proposal earlier this year, however, it was objected to by a number of people and additional issues were presented that made it evident this wasn't the optimal solution. We tried to come up with other solutions to address the issues related to color contrast, however, none of them gained traction and no consensus was generated.

We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our project page for additional details. The proposal phase will close no later than December 31st at 23:59 UTC. Noah Talk 03:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)