User talk:MarioProtIV

Reverting edits (seems to be many of these)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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.

Please stop reverting edits on World War III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detsom (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edits
I understand that your issue is that you want to use artist depictions in astronomy infoboxes. Why can't you just do that. Why do you have to revert ALL my edits ????? And then archive discussions out of sight. Do you have a bee in your bonnet or are you genuinely interested in Wikipedia as a collaborative project ?--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits
I understand that your issue is that you want to use artist depictions in astronomy infoboxes. Why can't you just do that. Why do you have to revert ALL my edits ????? And then archive discussions out of sight. Do you have a bee in your bonnet or are you genuinely interested in Wikipedia as a collaborative project ?--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * May I ask why you archived EvenGreenerFish's earlier post on your talk page without responding to it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was a bit busy and I must've forgotten to respond when I archived it. Sorry about that. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017 storms
I think this is a different weather system. Starting April 23, we had a lot of rain in North and South Carolina and the flooding is quite serious if you compare the river levels in this article to Hurricane Matthew. I seem to recall tornadoes with this system too. How we do it other than going to the person who did most of the edits I don't know, but it seems there are two systems which can have their own articles in April 2017, or perhaps two systems that could be part of one article.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware the April 23 system didn't have that much tornadoes but for the flooding it may need an article in the future, IMO. Would just have to get some consensus from higher up people for that. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The tornadoes may have been a separate system.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that I remember there was another system that produced tornadoes in the South before the one we are dealing with currently came in. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can understand why you removed some of my edits since I'm new here but one of the EF0 tornadoes from edit 778063642 was removed as well as another EF0 that needs to be added in. WeatherDudeEF5 (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are more storms today we may have to move the article to a new name that includes May. Maybe the old title can apply to the system from last week.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The tornadoes from yesterday and Saturday were part of the same system that produced the floods in the Central US over the weekend. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind the flooding occurring right now in the Carolinas is from rain that fell last Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. I'm sure that's a separate system from what is causing problems now. I fast-forwarded through the local news last night and the damage that I could see even then was pretty bad. I assume those are the tornadoes you are referring to.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just got finished looking at some real newspapers. No references to tornadoes. I'll work on the Carolinas flooding and see how we can get that into an article.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is more on that.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another storm system?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Revert Hurricane Opal
There was a discussion that took place in regards to a similar situation in a different article. Basically, it was discussed whether or not a section showing the most intense tropical cyclones by category should be included in the article List of Atlantic hurricane records. For example, Hurricane Alex of 2010 was the most intense Category 2 hurricane, with a pressure of 946 mbar, Isidore the most intense Category 3 hurricane (934 mbar), Opal (916 mbar), and Wilma (882 mbar). This is an analagous situation, and even though Opal was the most intense Category 4 Atlantic hurricane, there seem to be no sources which state this verbatim. The link to the full discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Undescribed&oldid=777849061 --Undescribed (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

2010–11 North American winter
--Anonymous Ryan (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I completed the article for the 2010-2011 winter season. This page was created by the user "master of time" I added the events and seasonal forcast sections.

Stephanie
Can you please stop creating an article for Stephanie and respect the consensus formed at []. Otherwise you may find yourself being blocked from editing.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That consensus was only because the unofficial name was used for the page name. I didn't use that title, rather I used it in a format similar to 2006 Central Pacific cyclone. Please take it to the page's talk page before jumping to conclusions. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Mario, I would also say you should stop using the "Reverted good faith edits by..." option of Twinkle for edits by experienced editors. Since experienced editors know to assume the assumption of good faith, it could be viewed as condescending. This revert option is mostly intended for well-intentioned but misguided edits by new users. I recommend "restore this revision" instead if you need to. Even then, your conduct in this particular case was heading towards edit warring. Please do heed the warning gave you last month, or we may have to consider restrictions on your ability to edit here, which we would stringently prefer not to do.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, will try to keep it cool with both that and the GF edits. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Arlene
For the record I am fine with having an article if editors agree to it via a second discussion on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and started new discussion. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that you had worked on the draft. I want to thank you for your hard work in trying, but we have to respect the other members of the project as well regardless of the outcome. This is how it is sometimes, I hope you aren't discouraged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Tornado outbreak and floods of April 28 – May 1, 2017) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Tornado outbreak and floods of April 28 – May 1, 2017, MarioProtIV!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thank you for creating this useful article!"

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Other system
Please refrain from creating a level 2 header called "Other systems", with level 3 headers of "Tropical depression", as it defeats the purpose of having one altogether. The purpose of an other systems section is for systems that are either a) not officially warned on or b) (and this mostly applies to older systems) doesn't really have much information, so giving it a full blown section would lead to excess whitespace. Regards. YE Pacific Hurricane  20:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

TD Cindy
What the storm's winds are is irrelevant to whether we continue to display information. Remember that unlike all the other categories, tropical depression does not have a lower bound. Cindy is still an active tropical cyclone according to the WPC. As long as that is the case, we display information. If you disagree with that, you're free to bring it up on the project page, but I don't think you'll have much luck given what I've told you above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Isaac
Do you think Hurricane Isaac in 2012 can be a primary topic? --219.79.127.186 (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but considering it was overshadowed by Sandy, I'm holding back on it a bit. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we possibly avoid having so many requested moves/page moves just to knock the year off and make something the primary topic. It isnt like the world is going to end just because the article for the name Isacc has the 2012 on it, lets just use some common sense with this stuff please.Jason Rees (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the 82 incarnation of Isaac is one of the worst Tonga cyclones, I'd say no. YE Pacific Hurricane  23:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Dora image
Hey, there. Me and have discussed regarding to the Hurricane Dora image situation that has been going on (see User talk:Typhoon2013). ChocolateTrain's image is pretty acceptable in my opinion and he did discussed the "goods and the bads" of our versions. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Lester 2016
Do you think we need an article for Lester in 2016, as it was one of the two tropical cyclones to threaten a direct hit on the Big Island? --219.79.181.53 (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Suomi Images
Please stop reverting my edit images. The Suomi-NPP images I made are much better than their previous ones. Especially, please make an explanation to your edit summary containing why. I have reverted your edits and have uploaded more Suomi images. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Naval Research Laboratory
G'day. I have a question about how to do something, and as I have seen you do it before, I thought you'd be the one to ask. How do you get colour images from the Naval Research Laboratory page? You got our recent image for Hurricane Harvey from there, but all I can ever get is black-and-white images. No matter what I press, I never get colour. Could you give me some instructions on how to get a colour image? For example, how do you get to the image you uploaded to Commons from the page I linked above? Thanks. ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ask for that, I just ask for requests. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 05:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Supportstorm adds color to the black-and-white images after the matter. Master of Time   ( talk ) 07:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina
Why are you reverting the text I added to the lead? It is unencyclopedic to start an article mentioning the subject's importance without first properly describing it. For example, the Jeff Bezos article does not begin with, "Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world." The article had a proper lead until you changed it on 29 October 2016. Pristino (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Your fringe claim at Hurricane Harvey
Hello MarioProtIV, I've noticed that you removed well sourced content at the article, with the notice, rm global warming stuff as it usually is just bolstered by CNN (e.g may be approaching WP:FRINGE), tweak some other stuff. Notice, that The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing global warming associated pages. Read more about discretionary sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions If you want to discuss page edits, start a new section on the article talk page. prokaryotes (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC) prokaryotes (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hina
FYI we take 1-min winds from the JTWC BT and not scientific journals.Jason Rees (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Page move
So much for the process I tried to lay out. If you were so rushed, you couldn't just move the draft over the redirect at Hurricane Maria (2017)? And what's the deal with you always requesting that Cyclonebiskit move pages but you totally bypass that step this time around? Master of Time  ( talk ) 16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He already gave his reasoning for the move: it was rapidly becoming a threat and no one was moving the draft. Jdcomix (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hurricane Maria (2017) was only a redirect, so he should have been able to just move the draft over it since he was autoconfirmed long ago. Plus, since Wikipedia is not a news source, it is perfectly acceptable to wait a brief period for an administrator to move the page if need be (although it shouldn't have been needed here). Fragmenting the page's history, though, should never have been on the table. This should all be fixable, but it will take a little while. Master of Time   ( talk ) 19:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to move it over the redirect next time we have a draft for a storm rather then fragment it. But like Jd said I was wanting to get it quickly out and about. Obviously I see that didn't really work as much as I hoped it would. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning your intentions or anything; it's just that there were better ways to handle this. Not much else to be said, at this point. Master of Time   ( talk ) 19:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Hurricane Maria (2017) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hurricane Maria. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Jdcomix (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Image
The image you provided for hurricane Maria has a while half circle which disrupts the image. The image I have uploaded is clearer. Please don't change it. Thank you. Toonami1997 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That one isn't updated regularly, and the image I put regularly gets updated so it should be gone by the next update. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial Records
Please stop adding unofficial records to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. The current damage costs are estimates, not official tallies. Including unofficial records is misleading. It is like how the unofficial start of summer is Memorial Day. Did summer actually start on Memorial Day? No, it starts in late June. These damages are just estimates so until the actual damages are tallied, no records have been broken. I will be taking this to the talk page for discussion. I just wanted you to know where I and a few other people are coming from. You are more than welcome to participate in the discussion. Cheers, --Figfires (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Im going to ask again... Please do not add any records to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season until the final damage totals are released. An unofficial record is false information. It either is a record or it isn't. --Figfires (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Nate (2017)
Why did you create this redirect before the system was named in NHC advisories? We shouldn't be prematurely creating redirects just because a system will probably be named (and for this advisory, it was not). Master of Time  ( talk ) 20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - it really doesn’t matter when a redirect is made. You could make them for the rest of the names in the season, and it wouldn’t matter. Ditto the next five naming lists. Since the media was reporting on a potential Hurricane Nate affecting the US in a few days, I think it was beneficial, actually. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Master of Time  ( talk ) 02:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello!
You might want to see [//minecraft.gamepedia.com/User_talk:MarioProtIV#Hi this]. :D LR Guanzontce 11:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox spring meteorological
Template:Infobox spring meteorological has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017%E2%80%9318_North_American_winter&type=revision&diff=809025680&oldid=809023443
Would you please expand it and fix the text, or at least give an indication of when would be the time to make the page more than just a redirect page, instead of just hitting the Undo button?50.235.102.246 (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 North American winter
It has been a year and a half since your most substantive contributions (text / byte-wise) to articles in the North American winter series (i.e. season articles, not articles for individual systems), and I don't know if you're still very interested in winter season articles, but there is another article located at Draft:2017–18 North American winter. I created it shortly after the NOAA outlook was released. I'd consider moving it to mainspace, but some edits were unexpectedly made to the redirect, blocking a page-move for the time being. At the least, maybe you could watch it for later, when winter actually gets into full swing with significant systems. You're a capable writer (and I noticed your name popped up in the revision history of the redirect), so I thought I'd mention it! Master of Time  ( talk ) 06:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. United States Man (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Transitioning seasons
I just wanted to tell you to calm down and don't get too excited. As per your edits a few days ago where you already considered/declared the end of both the EPAc and Atlantic seasons. Since it has now ended, that does not mean you should create the 2018 Atl and EPac seasons because 1) too early and 2) barely any sources. But the Atlantic I'll deal with that as me and other users had a huge convo about creating the next season articles last year. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Season doesn't end till 0z tomorrow as TWO's are still being issued. 23.5 hours too early. Otherwise, I agree with Typhoon2013. YE Pacific Hurricane  00:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Early December winter storm
Thank you for helping to fill in the section! Don't forget that the Weather Prediction Center has winter storm summaries. Hope that's useful. Master of Time  ( talk ) 03:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:December 2017 North American winter storm
Draft:December 2017 North American winter storm, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:December 2017 North American winter storm and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Draft:December 2017 North American winter storm during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Template talk:United States winter storms - Please check the talk page first before telling someone to take it to the talk-page. If you want then you can keep the list template and there can be a separate one for the winter seasons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Haikui
Which I want to know why, why do you move/merge an article without any reason. I easily reverted all of your edits and the Haikui article will still be up. Don't worry I'll add more if you're not satisfied. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's all there is for impact, then, yes, a case could be made for merger, although given that the 2017 PTS page is over 100kb, more leniency should be shown. I also don't know why any impact wasn't moved during the merger. YE Pacific Hurricane  04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

HURDAt
The project consensus has always been to use HURDAT as the official source for intensity, which will be updated when the results of the 1960-65 reanaylsis are approved by the hurricane best track committee as will tell you.Jason Rees (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So then where do we put the info regarding the new intensities? They should at least be known and I’d prefer taking this to the WPTC talk page rather then mine. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For now it can be noted in the article but until its official (which it isnt yet, since its still being looked at by NHC) we do not change the formal windspeeds.Jason Rees (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mention it in prose but since HURDAt hasn’t been updated yet. Also Mario, if you’re curious about precedent, look in that age histories next time before starting an edit war. YE Pacific Hurricane  02:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know when 1960-1965 updates will occur. I think the review passed 1963 and then the overall progress stopped as last season ramped up.  Once the TCRs are out, progression might occur.  I wouldn't expect it this April.  Next April maybe.  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Reference on 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season article
Me, being the dumb person I am, didn’t know how to reference the article I was referring to. I just wanted people to see that, even though it might change, Maria’s death toll is thought to be around 1,000. They think 1,052 right now, but might not be. I’m sorry, but this is the article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/08/us/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-death-toll.html Jayab314 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Your recent editing history at Hurricane Ophelia (2017) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&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.''By making additional reverts, you are edit warring just as much as him. Resist the temptation to revert for the sake of restoring your own version.'' Jasper Deng (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lan damages
I have offered the source that Lan caused a total of USD 845 million in damages, and which source says that the figure was 1 billion? Typhoon2017 (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This source. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It says "were likely to exceed USD1.0 billion" but doesn't imply certainty. The wording makes it obvious that that damage estimate isn't final. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20171109-ab-analytics-if-october-global-recap.pdf
On the above website, how should I register my account and where can I find the document you gave me when I mentioned Lan damages? Typhoon2017 (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


YE Pacific Hurricane  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

2017–18 North American winter
Would you please stop removing sections about winter storms? Recently, you undid additions of storms twice in a span that was less than ten minutes (first time; second time) under the pretext of non-notability. You have also removed kilobytes of information about winter storms at several instances earlier this month. Given that the people who added the storms apparently think that they're notable enough, you should think twice and possibly ask for another opinion before deleting the authors' hard work. Also, some of the "non-notable" systems that you deleted subsections for seem clearly notable to me. For example, I have found that you, in multiple reversions, undid the additions at least two different systems, each of which knocked out power for hundreds of thousands of people (first reversion; second reversion). While you have not violated the fine text of The Three-Revert Rule, you have clearly violated its spirit, with two reversions of the same type of edit (addition of winter storms as subsections of the Events section) giving the same justification (non-notability), and I view your reverts as hindering the development of the article. If you do not, in my opinion, take sufficient measures to stop and/or rectify your above-mentioned behavior, I will consider notifying administrators. This may be your last warning. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.  In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&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. I'm being nice and giving you one more warning, but this is definitely your last after you conducted a third reversion and accused the other of edit warring even though you reverted the other side's edit before the other side reverted your reversion of its edits. I repeat: This is your last warning. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 04:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. You have been reported here. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 17:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

2018 PTS
Just to note that the 2018 season really has not started yet because it developed in 2017. Otherwise we'll wait for other users like JR, though I did mention him about it in the 2018 talk page. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. I thought we’d have to edit it a bit since it’s a year crosser and it’s probably gonna be named on the 2018 side. But thanks for clearing that up. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

About this edit
I just want it to be there in case it gets consensus approval after the talk page section gets archived. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi
I’m a useless Wikipedia user Sorry for vandalism because i didn’t make my account to vandalize. I made it to fix weather pages. Weatherlover (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Use-mention
The article is about the weather, not the name of the weather. Can you explain further and/or link to the 5-year-old RFC? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Late October nor'easter
Information about the system can be found here: Nor'easter. October is not considered a winter month by anyone, and there was no notable snow or ice totals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Image dispute
I have observed the edit warring between the two of you regarding the image; I honestly don't know which image is better at this time, but I do know that even if you are correct that the original was better, being correct is not a defense to edit warring. Even if the other user does not start a talk page discussion regarding this, you should do so instead of constantly reverting the image. I have warned the other user about this as well and I encourage you both to discuss the matter and reach an agreement. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolving image dispute
Mario, I don't think we can ever agree on which image of Hurricane Jose is better, and I will still prefer the one I uploaded due to it being consistent with the other images and being closer to the storm's peak intensity. However, I don't want these users getting angry at us about the dispute. Can we try to find a good agreement? CooperScience (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season&type=revision&diff=823721772&oldid=823720818
Yes; that's fine. Thank you. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you need any article editing help?
Hey there. I've seen you editing for quite a while, especially related to the 2017 AHS. I also notice you haven't written a WP:Good article, even though it seems like you have a good grasp of how to edit Wikipedia. Are you interested in working on any older articles and improving them? It's clear you have an interest in tropical cyclones, much like my own heart. I've been tracking Atlantic hurricanes since Hurricane Erin (1995). Anyway, just seeing if you need any help toward improving articles. I've improved my share of WPTC pages and can pass some tips along if you want. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

SE Charts
Please remember that the whole point of the newer format of SE Charts is that they help the articles meet WP:Verification easier with all of the references added. It also helps with the transferring data from the season articles to lists like the retired names. If you wish to change the format of them then bring up a discussion on WP:WPTC and lets make a format that allows us to sort and reference the tables easier ALL OVER THE WORLD.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Costliest storms on Record succession boxes
I have posted a suggestion on the Non-tropical storms project talk page. Please look at it and let others know about it. (Also please look at my previous post on that page.) Thank you.--Halls4521 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Hurricane Iris does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! B dash (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Harvey
I'm puzzled, may you please tell me why you reverted my edit? It is true! That Hurricane did wipe out the population of Attwater's Prairie Chicken by a huge amount.Pancakes654

Emily
Do we need an article for Tropical Storm Emily? As it made landfall in Florida and caused some damage. --158.182.231.226 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hurricanes hitting the United States-St. Croix
In the community of nations, best visualized by the nearly 200 flags that fly in front of the UN HQ in NYC, you will not find the flag of the US Virgin Islands, because they are not a a country nor part of any other country than the US. In fact, when you see the flags at the plaza in front of Union Station or around the American History Museum in Washington DC, the United States Virgin Islands flies as proudly as any other state, territorial or District of Columbia flag. Art IV, Section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Properties Clause or the Territories Clause as well as the recent (2016) Sanchez Valle SCOTUS case makes it clear that it is a territory or property of the United States. This has been settled in the multiple discussions you can find in Wikipedia's Puerto Rico page.

When a hurricane hits St. Croix, St. Thomas, St. John or the Puerto Rican archipelago, for that matter, the United States has been hit. That's why FEMA, the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Armed Forces, which don't service anything but the United States in times of disaster, show up to provide disaster relief.

If not the US, which nation has been hit when the eye of the storm passers over St. Croix? If not the US, in what foreign land can you be born and automatically have a US passport issued?

Could we please discuss this, as I think the original phrase should stay. Pr4ever (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Winter Storm Riley and March 2018 nor'easter
Just fyi. the usual procedure is to redirect to the first article created on a topic, then discuss the article title. I create articles on events fairly frequently, but perhaps you were not aware of this convention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of March 6–7, 2018 nor'easter
Hello, MarioProtIV. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, March 6–7, 2018 nor'easter, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hola
Thanks for the compliments about my work on the MH for Gita and I have no problems with working on the MH for Hola, I will make a start on it shortly.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right its taken me a little while to sort out, but the MH is now virtually up to date.Jason Rees (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Damages
In my opinon it is not acceptable for an editor to come along and changing damage totals without leaving a source and using "Per most recent NOAA estimate" or "Damage fixes for Tomas and Matthew" in the edit summuary without sourcing it is also not acceptable. The list of Retired Atlantic hurricane names was built up by me, using the damage totals I could reliably source. There are some differences in damage totals but as time allows we need to go through it and check them.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion notice
An article that you have been involved in editing, i.e.: Cyclone Ernie, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going >>>here<<<, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. B dash (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

2017–18 North American winter
Thank you for writing a considerable amount of the event sections in that article. The per-section quality would be much worse without the work you have contributed (I certainly feel it is better than the previous winter's article). I just thought I'd mention it! Master of Time  ( talk ) 02:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: March 19–21, 2018 nor'easter
Of interest: WP:NOTNEWS. Gryllida (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Next Winter storm.....?
Looks like "Winter Storm Uma" is starting up today. I guess in a few days it'll be time for the next article, "March 23–?, 2018 Winter Storm" or "March 23–?, 2018 Snow Storm". This may be the fifth major winter storm for this March.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

John Pople
Hi MarioProtIV! I don't understand your removal of content here - can you explain what's going? Your edit summary was hard to interpret... Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Kittens are cute right?

HorsesAreNice (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC) 

Please be patient...
Please be patient in terms of Jelawat. Doesn't mean the JTWC stopped issuing advisories, doesn't mean you have to take the infobox. The JMA is still warning on it so I will revert you. I know you're excited but be calm please. Typhoon2013 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But actually, in this case, I will not revert you just for the sake that itt isn't 18Z yet and for sure the JMA will stop tracking this. But PLEASE, keep this in mind in for the future as the JMA is the RSMC. Thanks. Typhoon2013  (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have warned you again. Please be patient. The JMA still has Jelawat active in their weather maps. You have been here in the past two seasons and this is what we've been doing and you know that. So please wait until the JMA doesn't mention Jelawat in their weather maps. Typhoon2013  (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Re ParkerJP913
Hello, I noticed that you reverted ParkerJP913's removal of their block notice from their user talk page; users are permitted to remove most things from their user talk pages if they wish; one of the few exceptions is block reviews while a block is in effect. Even removing the notice of the block itself is OK. See WP:REMOVED. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Mario I need some help
Ok listen. A abuser keeps, blocking me for no reason. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8400:5210:19C0:587:93FD:1C2E (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:February 2015 Southeastern United States winter storm concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:February 2015 Southeastern United States winter storm, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the section about the Carol name being removed just before Camille was named be relevant?
I passed this by a few people in the project before adding it. It was a well referenced section in an increasingly degrading article which I was trying to improve. Again. Other articles talk about this, implying that it's very relevant to the Camille article. You removed all the improvements I made to the reference section. Why exactly? This doesn't fit the spirit of Wikipedia, from what I can remember. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not related directly to the storm, so I'd prefer it mentioned in more depth in one of the TC naming pages. YE <sup style="color:#666660;">Pacific <sup style="color:#666660;">Hurricane  15:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is related though. How could it not be?  I can see the content being in both sections.  If you want it to be in the TC naming pages, that's fine.  But some mention of it in this article should be warranted.  I checked the length of the content; it doesn't approach undue weight.  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's not related to the actual storm itself. Literally nothing about the storm changes if the storm was named Carol instead of Camile except for the name itself. YE <sup style="color:#666660;">Pacific <sup style="color:#666660;">Hurricane  02:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

One
Number of deaths because Huracán San Felipe II in Puerto Rico: 312, almost 500,000 homeless in Puerto Rico.

This 1928 hurricane cause more damge than María because then we were oppressed by the empire called the USA. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to forget that the death toll in PR from Maria is highly uncertain and is likely >500. Maria also did $90 billion to the island which in 1928 would be higher then the actual damage the 1928 hurricane did in its currency year. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Game
You're playing a game here and you don't even know what you are doing or the rules on this site. It's not a revert to add to info. Thus I did not break a rule, however you have broken the three revert rule. Also it's clear from your actions in the past you are doing this often and upsetting others. Watch your actions although it's too late in this instance. You can learn however. Furthermore you are in error. Additionally you get very involved in certain articles, particularly storms. Lastly, you don't seek remedies or use talk pages properly. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, you may be blocked from editing. Bleucheeses (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC) '
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

2017 Atlantic hurricane season
The only reason why you're not blocked for breaking 3RR here is that this is the third instance of Bleucheeses blatantly edit warring in the past couple of days. Count yourself lucky and please don't misuse warning templates. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, I’ll try not to run into situations like that again. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello, I'm KatnissEverdeen. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! 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. Katniss  May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  19:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane María
So you think I don’t live in Puerto Rico? Just check my page, don’t be ignorant. And because I live in Puerto Rico I know the worst hurricane was not Huracán María. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 Atlantic hurricane season
Hi There. I left a similar message on the Talk Page of User:Horsewriter10 as well asking to move the debate onto the Talk Pages. Not my area of expertise, so I can't comment on the substance of the dispute, but an edit war doesn't do anyone any credit. Thanks. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi MarioProtIV, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AMarioProtIV added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 2016 North American heat wave for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 North American heat wave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 07:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/07L listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WikiProject Tropical cyclones/07L. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/07L redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Invest 97L (September 2016) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Invest 97L (September 2016). Since you had some involvement with the Draft:Invest 97L (September 2016) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Late September 2016 tropical wave listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Late September 2016 tropical wave. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:Late September 2016 tropical wave redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

User:MarioProtIV/sandbox/Late September 2016 tropical wave listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:MarioProtIV/sandbox/Late September 2016 tropical wave. Since you had some involvement with the User:MarioProtIV/sandbox/Late September 2016 tropical wave redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 2016 American Northeast heat wave for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 American Northeast heat wave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 08:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Invitation
--B dash (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hurricane Beryl for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hurricane Beryl is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hurricane Beryl until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Buttons0603 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones in 2010
Just wanted to ask for your opinion on Tropical cyclones in 2010. I am currently expanding the article and would appreciate some guidance on content in the page. Thanks, <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Figfires Send me a message! 21:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Hurricane Beryl. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Discussion haven't finished yet B dash (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File:We-Were-Born-For-This-by-Justin-Bieber.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of February 2015 North American cold wave for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article February 2015 North American cold wave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 10:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Maria deaths issue
You should probably give your input at the discussion here. I would like to comment sometime soon, but right now, I'm getting tired of this, and I'm sure you're more informed on the latest hurricane death toll counting than I am. I agree with you, but if this keeps up, another ugly edit war could break out. I suggest bringing more contributors into the discussion as well, especially if he isn't as willing to listen.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hurricane Hector (2018) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hurricane Hector (2018) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hurricane Hector (2018) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Figfires Send me a message! 17:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hector
Per the text of JMA's WWJP25 marine bulletin at 18z, Hector was still active. TROPICAL DEPRESSION 1014 HPA AT 33N 166E NORTH 10 KT. Jason Rees (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Your recent editing history at Hurricane Matthew shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&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. B dash (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Florence
Im sorry, but the current infobox needs to remain as WPC is still issuing advisories on the active flood threat posed by Florence. Until they issue the last advisory, it should stay. We did the same thing when NHC issued advisories on the Remnants of Beryl earlier this year.<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Figfires Send me a message! 21:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know why you're so insistent on removing it. There's no need to as long as more information via advisories is coming in. YE Pacific Hurricane

"Breaks format"
Could you please explain your edit summary? I made edits to several parts of the article, and I'm not sure which one "broke" the format.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  06:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Naming set index articles
Please see WikiProject Tropical cyclones. We don't use "(disambiguation)" for set index articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Charts on Florence, Manghkut, and Sebi
Please challenge the charts on the talk page instead of simply removing them. The charts were readded after no objections were made in the discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Figfires Send me a message! 17:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
Users are allowed to remove comments (including warnings) from their own talk page, so please don't revert them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Your recent editing history at 2018 Atlantic hurricane season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&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.At the moment you appear to be over the 3 RR rule and i would strongly suggest that you talk about Leslie's regeneration on the talk page before reverting further Jason Rees (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:Page Blanking
Your removal of Sergio has been reverted because it is in violation of WP:Page blanking. The system is likely going to have watches issued tomorrow and will have some kind of impact on Thursday so proposing for deletion now would be uncalled for. There is a decent amount of media coverage on this system and the draft had a decent amount of material. That is why the article exists now. This was considered a violation of the blanking policy because the entirety of the material related to the structure of the storm is absent from the seasonal article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Figfires Send me a message! 03:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Michael (disambugation) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hurricane Michael (disambugation). Since you had some involvement with the Hurricane Michael (disambugation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. CycloneYoris (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Michael in comparison with Irma and Maria
I re-introduced an edit to Hurricane Michael clarifying that the ranking is with respect to hurricanes in the contiguous United States. I wanted to call your attention to it and Talk:Hurricane_Michael if you would like to discuss further. -Gruepig (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Annihilation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Avengers: Annihilation. Since you had some involvement with the Avengers: Annihilation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --<i style="color:darkorange">Let There Be Sunshine</i> 14:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Since there's no way I know of to PM people on wikipedia, I'm posting this on your talk page. I don't want to start an edit war, but my edit on Maria's article changing her to the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since Mitch instead of Jeanne was reverted, and I'm confused why. Maria caused 3,057 deaths while Jeanne caused 3,037, so Maria is therefore the deadliest hurricane since Mitch. I guess technically she's the deadliest since Jeanne too but I think that is supposed to mean the most deadly hurricane since (insert earlier hurricane that killed more people). Anyway I'm just confused and asking why it got reverted, sorry if this isn't something I'm supposed to do or something along the lines of that. YellowSkarmory (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this notifies you? Just trying to make sure you notice. YellowSkarmory (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So even though Maria technically killed more people that Jeanne, the reasoning for having Jeanne in the lede instead of Mitch is that the latter system killed over 11,000 people; more than 3x the number of fatalities caused by Maria. Since the death toll of Jeanne is similar to Marias total, it is more reasonable to say that Maria is the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since Jeann. Comparing Maria to Mitch is a little much. Undescribed (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Might want to add something saying that Maria caused more deaths than Jeanne, though.

Merging short articles
Hey there Mario. I've been watching your edits this year, and generally you're a nice and productive editor, one that I hope will stick around and continue writing in the future. Keep in mind that this is a collaborative encyclopedia, and there is no deadline, so for Tropical Storm Vicente (2018), there's no need to merge a new article that recently affected land. As a rule of thumbs, if it's likely there is a lot more information out there, then we don't usually merge the articles. Think of the storm articles as sub-articles of the season article. The 2018 PHS article is already pretty long, so any additional content for Vicente will add more length to an already lengthy season article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Your recent editing history at 2018 Atlantic hurricane season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&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. B dash (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"In My Feelings" cover art
Hi, I just thought I'd give you a courteous reminder that I checked the song's cover art and its source, I can indeed confirm it is real, according to these sources below:
 * Austrian Charts
 * Swiss Charts
 * Ultratop
 * NRJ Antilles

With that, I insist that you please refrain from making any further reverts removing the artwork. Thanks, GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Annihilation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Avengers: Annihilation. Since you had some involvement with the Avengers: Annihilation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --  Alex TW 14:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Re:Two articles for moving to mainspace
I have moved both articles to Wikipedia mainspace, after making some revisions. I finally decided that I didn't want access to the articles to be entirely exclusive to me anymore (it seems kind of selfish to keep them there, on further reflection). If those articles end up getting redirected or facing deletion, though, I'll restore them in my userspace as drafts.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No. 6
Every reliable source reporting on it is calling it an album or LP (another word for album). So you pushing it as an EP on several articles can be construed as disruptive. Do you have any basis for this claim?--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 16:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

On "these storms"
Is there something about nor'easters that modify the usual rules of English grammar? The only book I find with terminology like this does include the matching comma, as all English style and grammar guides would suggest. Tell me what you're thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 WPTC Newsletter
<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Harvey
Hi, would you mind if I nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Harvey as a good article? Asking here since you helped me finish the original draft of it about 1.5 years ago. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 05:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing that would be great! --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes
FYI. (Mainly the 3 newest sections.) Thank You.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Dorian
The revert I feel was unnecassay because the impacts will start soon. I did revert your edit, for the presaid reason. The article needs a basic skeleton. Please keep it. Thanks! --Wyatt2049 &#124; (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ACCESS / MOS:FONTSIZE
Please read the links, which say to "avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections", And don't revert valid edits with the bland and meaningless edit summary of "fix" again. Thank you.– Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Lorenzo image
Hi there Mario. In general, I can see the logic behind using a peak intensity infrared image of a cyclone over a true colour, full-resolution alternative at a slightly lower intensity. I would tentatively support such a decision for most cyclones, provided that the image is not of unacceptable quality and there is not a true colour image which displays the cyclone at a time of equivalent visual intensity. However, in the particular circumstance of Hurricane Lorenzo, I don't agree that this argument has merit. The infrared image that is currently being used was captured at 01:31 UTC on 29 September, which was not at peak intensity. As it says in the description of the image (I have also verified this from the NHC advisories), Lorenzo is at about 125 knots at the time of the image. To be honest, I would actually say 130 knots is closer to the true intensity at the image time. Now, 130 knots is Lorenzo's intensity in this infrared image as well as in the true colour image taken at 13:39 UTC on 29 September. Given that there is no intensity difference between the images, I am sure you would agree that there is very little else in the way of support for using the infrared image over the true colour one. The true colour image has higher resolution than the infrared image, as well as fully depicting the central dense overcast and banding in full detail, rather than in comparatively rudimentary detail in the infrared version. Additionally, I would contend that using a colour image when it is available is better than black and white in most circumstances, simply due to the fact that you can actually see the colour. Considering all of this, the true colour image does present itself as a more suitable option for use in the article than the infrared one. I hope you can see the merit of this argument and will agree. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have undone your edit. The official NHC discussion explicitly cited Dvorak fixes at 130z for upgrading the storm, and with the TC update issued just 40 minutes later, is for all practical purposes the peak intensity (sorry, your "I would actually say 130 knots" is irrelevant). The latter one is clearly weaker, and in any case much less organized. If you are unable to apply the Dvorak technique's eye pattern rigorously, then you are in no position to be assessing intensity on your own.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please 'ping' me in the future. I am not a talk page stalker, and I would appreciate a notification message when you are addressing a comment to me. I will in this case concede that I was incorrect to say that the two cyclones were of equivalent intensity. I missed the NHC's mention of the use of the 0130Z infrared imagery in their 140 kn analysis. Therefore, I will accept the the infrared image for use in the article. HOWEVER, that comment in the advisory that the intensity was 140 kn at 0130Z IS THE ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE that supports the use of the infrared image on Wikipedia. Had such a comment not been explicitly mentioned, my reasoning would have been correct. According to an interpolation of intensities between consecutive advisories, the cyclone was at a roughly equivalent intensity in both images. Your comment regarding the Dvorak Technique is also irrelevant, because it is not the job of a Wikipedian assign a CI number to a tropical cyclone—it is our job to work with the evidence we are given. It is also not justified for you to say that "the latter one is clearly weaker", because you are comparing apples and oranges—that is, an infrared image and a true colour image. The eye of a tropical cyclone always appears much more distinct and impressive on infrared imagery than on true colour imagery, because some of the obscuring low-level and mid-level cloud disappears or becomes far less visible on infrared, which makes the system seem stronger than it is. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I read about halfway through and to be quite honest, you need to both not WP:SHOUT and be much more concise (WP:TLDR). Linear interpolation of intensities is just as ORy as assigning CI numbers, and in any case, published Dvorak T-numbers (especially ADT) prove you wrong. It also does not take an expert to notice that the image you advocated is unrepresentative of the peak intensity, given the rapid onset of the eyewall replacement cycle. You completely glossed over my point concerning the tropical cyclone update as well. We have some leeway for OR when it comes to choosing a picture, but your way of going about it is simply hand-waving.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok I’m not gonna be picky here but can you guys talk about this on your own talk pages? I don’t really need to be getting several notifications because of this argument between you two. Thanks. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 09:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Draft:Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico (old)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico (old). Since you had some involvement with the Draft:Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico (old) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Kepler-70b
Hi,

A few years ago, you made an edit to the Kepler-70b page which included this statement:

"The star has a mass of 0.496 and a radius of 0.203 . ... These statistics were very likely higher then what they were today when it was a red giant, the estimated mass of Kepler-70 before it became a subdwarf, would probably have been around 0.89-0.95 ."

Do you have a source for the "0.89-0.95"? I've just put a "Citation needed" tag on it, plus I'm rather curious to know more about Kepler-70's pre-subdwarf existence.

Thanks!

AstridRedfern (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey there!
Hey there Mario. I just wanted to check in, see how you're managing during these weird times. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Doing pretty good thanks for asking! Hope all is well there too :) --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice. Yea I'm doing alright. A lot of my RL work is canceled/postponed for now, so I'm wikiing more than I have in years. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Tropical Storm Bertha (2020), you may be blocked from editing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Had to fix old mistakes of yours
You pasted the following false information to several articles and they stayed up for years, "However, such moons do not usually form around planets, they would likely have to be captured from afar; e.g., a protoplanet running astray." I have since fixed the articles. You made these edits 4 years ago, but I thought I'd let you know. Please remember to cite sources and look up information to make sure you have something right before editing. Thanks. 146.168.31.85 (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Isaias aftermath
Can you help me with moving some of the content in the Hurricane Isaias article from impact to aftermath?ChessEric (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that the info about the EF3 tornado should stay in the lead? Someone keeps removing it.ChessEric (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Atl timetline
I think it's best to keep it at 10 storms per column first. Laura's name is at close proximity with Vicky's bar. It's good to have decent space with the storms. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:57 UTC, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean it would be nice to reply back. Typhoon2013  (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn’t respond sooner! I am a bit busy with college now so I’m not checking this as frequently. I modified it to the most recent one so that the spacing is that much of an issue between Laura’s text and Vicky. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Delta
Why did you revert my edit? I even provided a reliable source. https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2020-10-06-hurricane-delta-rapid-intensification-among-most-intense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weather.com is not often the most usable source, and I’d look for say a Klotzbach tweet or something similar from a professional to back up the RI claim as he is a professional forecaster and tends to follow the NHC’s trends to determine the record. Weather.com sometimes doesn’t do that. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this?--67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hurricane Dorian; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --119.237.237.53 (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I would also add to the above that you have breached the three revert rule (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, and revert 4). I have fully protected the article instead of blocking you, however if you continue to edit war over the image once the protection lapses, it is very likely you will end up blocked.  Please engage with  during the period of protection on the article's talk page so that when the protection expires the edit warring does not continue.  Mifter (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion at Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season. Mario, I encourage you participate. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Geostationary images
I would like to know why you removed the Category for Molave's (21W) Geostationary imagery file? Especially with no reason whatsoever? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. I must’ve accidentally hit the remove button on my phone while looking at it this morning, because that wasn’t my intention at all to remove it. Not sure how that ended up happening. Sorry! --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

2021 AHS season.
Please refer to this: Articles for deletion/2020 Atlantic hurricane season. Therefore, we keep as of now as it was around a similar date that the 2020 article was created. Kind regards, Typhoon2013  (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello MarioProtIV: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 01:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 01:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Dictatorial act
Could you justify removing the mention, WITH reference, of the TWC name for the storm (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=February_2021_nor%27easter&diff=1004504396&oldid=1004498240)? You are acting like a dictator! May I remind you that this article is not your property. Pierre cb (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was already mentioned at the bottom of the lead. Not sure if you caught that and my bad for not saying so. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, too fast in reading. Summary are vary important to avoid this. Pierre cb (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Inviting you to WikiProject Non-tropical storms!
Hi MarioProtIV, alot of your edits recently has involved nor'easters and winter events. As such I'm inviting you to this WikiProject!  Mario Jump  83!  01:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 North American cold wave
Good evening,

You have redirected the article I created for the reasons you mentioned on the edit summary yesterday. This article is actually a translation of the French corresponding article.

I hear your arguments, however can you recreate a specific article on the February 2021 cold wave and eventually remove incorrect/irrelevant content when you would have time to do it ? You are a more experienced user than me, you are particularly interested in meteorology and weather, furthermore there are articles for cold waves in 2019, 2017-2018, 2015, so it would be logic that a similar article exists for 2021 which is regularly regarded as exceptional (it's really rare to have such low temperatures in Texas). --Martopa (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2017–18 North American winter; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. jp×g 23:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Respectfully, although you may not care what I think, I believe this warning is very unnecessary and a resolution has already been reached. United States Man (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Outbreak title
Hey, I noticed you moved the page to the "...March 17–18, 2021". I always get aggravated when users come in and change the titles, like when it got changed to "Saint Patrick's Day". I deliberately did not name it that and it got moved there anyway. I am glad you moved it back. I tried tagging the original title in CSD to get it moved back to "...March 17, 2021" but the CSD process is backlogged. I didn't proceed with the name change to the 18th because we always go by local time with the tornadoes (UTC confuses the general public – at least in the U.S.). With that in mind, technically this outbreak won't include the 18th until after 05z in a couple more hours. I don't think it'll be a problem though since I'm sure at least a couple tornadoes will occur tomorrow over the Carolinas. But, just a heads up for the future, we go by local time for date splits; this process has worked for years with little difficulty, so it would be best to maintain consistency. Thanks! United States Man (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Quavo
The content you added violates WP:BLP being an unsourced allegation. Please don't add such content without a reliable source. Schazjmd  (talk)  20:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Pirx

 * Pirx (planet) ‎ True mass revealed to be far into the brown dwarf category, redirecting Tags: New redirect Reverted

Your edit has two grave problems: YOu did not provide any reference and you killed a well-developed article. The correct way is no rename and modify Pirx. I could have done this myself, but since you gave no refereences, I just reverted you. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri b
Hello MarioProtIV, you reverted my removal of the infobox entry for the radius of Proxima Centauri b with the edit message that the paper is sourced. I think it's appropriate to include the information in the article's body, but not in the infobox. It is after all a guess from a model of the population of a lot of other planets. There is no evidence regarding the actual radius of Proxima Centauri b. Icek~enwiki (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Masive reverts
Sorry, what is the objetive reason to revert my content?--Piquito veloz (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those images are redundant and from what I can see they seem to be not allowed according to what’ve I read on the talk page regarding them. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Images are free and content is public domain or CC-BY-SA. That you think content is redundant is subjetive.  The one who broke the rule of the three reversions first was you  --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Texture used to wear Kepler-7b in Celestia was downloaded of the server and webpages of the NASA. --Piquito veloz --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can read there the next text: "NASA content - images, audio, video, and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format - generally are not subject to copyright in the United States. You may use this material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages." --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * MarioProIV, I had to remove your attempt at a report at WP:AN3 as it was a mess. Meanwhile, Piquito veloz has filed a report against you. I suggest you respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * None of your arguments apply there, even the pic of the chief template of Kepler-22b appear without labeled sizes because is a pure artist´s concept. New message in my report --Piquito veloz (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Celestia is GNU and Celestia is a tool to create images like GIMP or photoshop. This user have created this pic with his tools  and the info of sources is poor (only he said that source is public domain in info) and He doesn't mention which tool he used ¿Gimp, photoshop, what? In my image appear exact sources from the NASA and quality is better and my tool is Celestia.  I ask again if we don’t know the true size of Kepler-22b (and other planets) why does you back to the next image in Kepler-7b? --Piquito veloz (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again --Piquito veloz (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * At first glance, the licensing of the Celestia images looks acceptable for Wikipedia --Piquito veloz (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Henri
The country in which the hurricane took place should be included to facilitate those that are not in that nation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems to imply that the storm is from North America and that wording is usually used to describe people. Tropical cyclones are not people so that doesn’t really work. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Andi Matichak edit
I am reverting your addition of a date of birth to the infobox and lead of Andi Matichak. That change needs a citation in the article. Putting "listed on superstarsbio" in the edit summary is not sufficient. Is "superstarsbio" a website, a book, or something else? Please provide a citation if you re-insert the reverted content. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Weather 2022 C/B Class Drive
Hello ! WikiProject Weather is doing a drive during 2022 to get all new 2022 weather articles to at least C class, with the hope of B Class. I thought you might be interested in the WP Weather drive, so I wanted to drop a message about it. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

delting Mid January 2022 winter storm section
MarioProtIV I have nodeced you are undoing my edits on Mid January 2022 winter storm section on the 2021-22 North American winter well you need to stop doing it you have alredy redone my edits 5 times. Legensd(talk) 21:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2021–22 North American winter, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please stop edit warring. An additional note: if a section is poorly written, then WP:FIXIT instead of edit warring over it.'' ~ 🌀 Hurricane Covid 🌀 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Bolding of title in lead
Per MOS:BOLD, the title generally should not be bolded in the lead. In this case, adding the bolded title only makes the opening sentence more cumbersome and is redundant because the dates are already mentioned in the next line. If consistency is the problem, maybe the others should be changed as well. This practice is commonplace among tornado articles. United States Man (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is redundant in the sentence simply just remove the date that is mentioned later on. Also, the bolding has not been an issue for the last several years from what it seems with regards to winter storms and is only seemingly a problem now because you’re bringing it up. Winter storms and tornado pages are two different things in this regard (one is a direct system, the other is a general event caused by a parent system) and thus the former has more weight to it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The policy still applies, regardless of your feelings. The fact of other articles having it bolded is WP:OTHERSTUFF. United States Man (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about you stop edit warring and try to get others on board with a policy change. I see you've been warned recently for edit warring with others. United States Man (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I’m aware, you’re the only one instigating this change and no one else has had an issue with this over the last few years (otherwise it would have been brought up already). Plus, regarding this edit the Texas government officially referred to this as Uri, so the unboldening was not justified there. Also your dialogue here is pretty much encroaching on WP:RUDE with the tone and whatnot. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Texas government has nothing to do with what we do on Wikipedia. It was decided in some discussions way back that the TWC names could be italized but not bolded. All others are italized. United States Man (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can’t remember where the discussion is located, but I know that you know we had a discussion that the TWC names would not be bolded. Your latest edit was made out of spite, and if you like consistency as much as you say, you’d want them all to be italized. United States Man (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, that edit was because MOS:BOLDALTNAMES states that alternative names can be boldened if there is significant enough attention given to it, which given the fact the Texas government itself referred to the storm as Uri, justifies the bolding. In addition, I do not even recall your point that we have a policy on this and the bolding of titles in general, it’s part of MOS:BOLD and does not triumph project policy. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please update talk pages on merges
When you do a merge, like you did for January 19-23, 2022 North American winter storm, please make sure to change the talk page to a redirect class. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please make sure to correct talk pages when you do merges. This is the second time you have merged an article without redirecting the talk page nor changing the class to redirect. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also, please note that I have undone your revert. The exact reasons given for the initial revert go against the reason you created the blizzard article.  Elijahandskip (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Content Dispute Discussion
Hello! A discussion has opened up on the Talk:January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm, to discuss the content involved in an ongoing edit war. Feel free to leave your opinions here! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 Blizzard
Hello - so you inserted the full proper reference information for a number of references in this article. That is good. I notice that a bunch of the references seem to have been archived, but I could not in a cursory search see who did that step. Do you know if all the references need that step to ensure the pages of the particular websites/organizations are not lost if those pages get taken down? Hope to hear back. Thanks.174.89.120.209 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of WP:CEN discussion
There is currently a discussion at the current events noticeboard regarding a topic you may be interested in or an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Russo–Ukrainian crisis and World War III speculation. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 08:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nor’easter
Unless you actually merge in the information from the section of the tornado into the general tornado information or the section at Tornadoes of 2018, it is not redundant and therefore should stay. It’s about 1,100 bytes by my calculation of difference from the table. Also, you’re basically advocating it to be removed from every single blizzard article by that logic, since that is typically what they are, such as Winter Storm Uri, Winter Storm Xylia, Winter Storm Gail, March 2019 North American blizzard, and February 2016 North American winter storm.38.125.67.137 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, now that I take a look at your talk page, what I see is a lot of warnings for apparent edit warring and no response. 38.125.67.137 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Module:Storm categories/categories. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''If you believe that consensus was poorly-determined, take it up with the closer of the discussion in accordance with Closing discussions. In the meantime, do not force the previous revision of the article back without proving poorly-determined consensus or gaining consensus for a revert.'' Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 03:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent editing history at Module:Storm categories/categories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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.''As User:Chlod pointed out, you don't get to revert it just because you consider the consensus "poorly executed". You had a fair chance to state these objections during the RfC so it is already generous of us to entertain your relitigation of this. Knock it off with the reverts. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.'' Jasper Deng (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of my closure
Greetings, MarioProtIV. I wasn't originally going to make a big fuss about this, but after looking at your talk page, I believe a gentle approach would be inappropriate to the situation, as you clearly are not getting other editors' complaints. There is a clear consensus at Talk:February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm that a merge should take place: I say that it is clear because there are five editors who support the merge in various degrees while you alone opposed it. By Wikipedia's standards (and by any standard, really), that is an overwhelming margin of support. Moreover, given that an editor specifically requested that this discussion be closed, the community clearly feels that discussion has reached an end and that its chosen path should be implemented. However, after merely ten minutes, you reverted my closure, claiming that discussion had fizzled and consensus had never really been reached. There are several issues here. 1) It is never appropriate to unilaterally revert a closure, especially when you yourself were involved in the discussion (see Closing discussions for correct protocol). 2) That you reverted my closure so quickly after the discussion had been open so long suggests that you were paying attention to the discussion, meaning you could have continued it and further refined the consensus if you wanted; combined with how you have made no effort to do so since then, this gives the appearance that you are stonewalling rather than truly seeking to refine the consensus. 3) You seem to misunderstand the nature of consensus, which does not need to exhaust all possible arguments and objections; rather, it is based on the strength of the arguments presented, as viewed through the lens of policy by an uninvolved editor. The requirement that the editor is uninvolved is crucial: because you have participated in the discussion, you already have an opinion on the subject, which makes it impossible for you to construct an opinion solely on the strength of other participants' arguments in the same way that an uninvolved editor can.

I am going to be frank with you: because you have already been warned numerous times about this behavior, including twice in the past three days, I seriously considered escalating this to a noticeboard directly. However, I also do not know whether anyone has ever attempted to explain these things to you, so I believed I should take the time to do so and give you a chance to correct your mistakes. With rare exceptions (which are listed here), you should not make an edit if you know that another editor opposes it; doing so is called edit warring. (One of the mistakes I made when I was new to Wikipedia was interpreting WP:3RR as permission to revert up to three times: it's not. Rather it, is a red line that is never acceptable to cross. An edit war can happen even if editors are making only a single revert or fewer per day, if multiple total reverts happen.) When you know somebody disagrees with you, you should stop editing and discuss it on the talk page until everyone is in agreement about the correct course of action, or an uninvolved editor comes and determines what the consensus is. That means no editing to introduce compromises, either; get support for your compromise from the editors supporting the status quo ante before implementing it. There are several reasons why editors insist on talk page discussion over editing; apart from the obvious instability it causes, edit summaries have limited room and are therefore not conducive to good discussion and thus to consensus-forming. Moreover, the tone conveyed by reverts (especially multiple reverts) is aggressive (it sorta implies that another editor's edit was so stupid, it's not worth talking with them about it first), which can be upsetting and exhausting and therefore discourage participation, which harms the consensus-building process as well as the project as a whole. (This can be seen in how subsequently "withdrew" his proposed merge because he doesn't want to deal with any more of your crap, if you would pardon my bluntness.) For all of these reasons, edit warring is one of the biggest behavioral no-nos on Wikipedia, moreso even than outright incivility except in the most egregious cases.

In sum, I ask that you please self-revert your reversion of my closure. I would also seriously rethink your conduct on Module:Storm categories/categories, as well as in general the manner you go about resolving disputes with others. It is clear from all the warnings you have received that this is a significant, long-term problem and, while I hate threatening people with noticeboard discussions, that seems to be an inevitable next step if you cannot get along better with others. If you have any questions about the consensus-building process, etiquette, or anything else, please do ask; I am more than happy to help you. Best wishes, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My only reasoning for undoing the closure was because I and several others off-wiki had agreed on a different kind of process we’d do with the article (which was why there was a bunch of sources in the section below the discussion. There was not a clear consensus to merge from that discussion off-wiki which was why I undid your edit in good faith (at least in my view). I will admit I have a bad record of trying to solve disputes with others and the conduct a few days ago was my fault and it shouldn’t have gotten that far. Another factor is probably I sometimes priories off-wiki consensus over on-wiki which can lead to this kind of behavior. I apologise for any damage that I may have brought to the community by this and surely I will engage in more appropriate behavior with consensus. The whole color saga shouldn’t have gotten to where it did but I was at least trying to take other people’s opinions that I received and at least we were able to come to a consensus (or at least a good proposal) that supports both sides. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Mario, it does not matter whether you believe you had a valid reason to revert a close by an uninvolved editor. As explained above, doing so is NEVER acceptable. Also, I very strongly dislike that you are making these decisions based on what you perceive from off-wiki discussions. You can chat about it on Discord but the only consensus that has any force on Wikipedia is that achieved and documented on-wiki. See also WP:Canvassing.—Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I should add that you have a history of not replying to talk page posts of this sort, and then continuing this behavior. This suggests to me that you intend to ignore or not take seriously others’ concerns, and thus that you’re wasting ’s time. This attitude is not acceptable, and if continued, will definitely result in your getting sanctioned. I expect that you will prove me wrong and address the concerns brought up here, because 5KB+ is a lot of text to write, and would only be written if they seriously believe you’ll read it.—Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth I have a bad habit of reading the talk messages here, taking it into consideration but then forgetting to reply (as well as archiving once it gets long enough - I’m a bit lazy to be fair). I take all criticism fairly but I will admit I should be responding to these more so as to not give off a bad impression. Apologies if this made it seem otherwise.--MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 21:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * beat me to the notice. You're not in trouble or anything; I just felt that issue of how the merger should ultimately be closed has grown beyond my capacity to handle on my own, so I brought it up a noticeboard where it will get more attention. We're required to use this specific template to notify you; otherwise, I would have just leave a normal message. You are, of course, welcome to help clarify the situation and give your own opinion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry 🙂 ~TNT (talk • she/her) 21:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, I know that most editors don't realize they're required to give the notices at all. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ~TNT (talk • she/her) 00:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tropical Storms arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 13, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly  ( t · c ) 08:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom case proposed decision
Hi MarioProtIV, in the open WikiProject Tropical Cyclones arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly  ( t · c ) 20:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seen it, thanks for heads up. FYI was wondering for a while when today it would come up since it didn’t seem like it’d get delayed again haha. Patience is key then. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed
An arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
 * is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
 * is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
 * is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * A set of best practices for leaders and/or moderators of off-wiki chat platforms to consider adopting

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Maddie Ziegler infobox
Hi Mario; thanks for upholding the current consensus on Ziegler's article regarding infoboxes. However, please do be aware that an infobox is currently being discussed at at this thread here. As such, based on how the discussion is going as of writing, I'm inclined to inform you that consensus is likely to change. Just thought I'd point that out. Happy editing! InvadingInvader (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Halloween Ends. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * So then why do all of the other films of the series like Kills and 2018 were written the way I had it? Very confusing. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It is always possible for other articles to get it wrong. We need to follow what reliable sources say the trends are, not try to identify these trends ourselves in the individual reviews. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Halloween Ends synopsis
Appreciate the additions, but as it stands now, the synopsis reads a bit clunky and seems too long. My intention was to keep it as short as possible, and I thought the "crossing paths" with Michael would already be covered by the "series of events [...]"; the "final (?) confrontation" between Corey and Laurie could also be left out in my opinion as we're really only trying to cover the very basics in the lead. Any idea how we could condense the material? Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 01:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * At the very least leave the Myers bit in there since that’s still a central theme despite less screen time. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 07:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Draft:El Muerto (2024 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:El_Muerto_(2024_film)&redirect=no Draft:El Muerto (2024 film)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
Hello, I'm Trailblazer101. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Deadpool 3, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Even though an actors' strike has been called, it does not begin until midnight on July 14. Even with that, we still need a source confirming when production halts, and we don't just add material pre-maturely and hide it because a source doesn't exist yet. Please be patient, as there is WP:NODEADLINE in adding information to Wikipedia. Once a source on the situation eventuates, it will be added.'' Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

MCUFILMCAST
Hey there. I notice that you invoked WP:MCUFILMCAST the other day when you added several cast members to Multiverse of Madness. Please note that — as noted at WP:MCUFILMCAST — we are ignoring the "grouped" names at the end of the MOE title sequence, i.e. the ones you added to MoM. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Blue Beetle (film), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Kindly add an inline citation when updating gross figures of films. Thanks.'' The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

September 2023
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Jasper Deng (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding storm tracks
What thing do they violate? Im pretty confused on that Insendieum ALT (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Basically, we can’t use the “track” files on new storms since those are the old colors - we have to wait until someone uploads the path version. With older storms they are grandfathered in for now until we can upload new tracks. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ohhh alright cant you just enter in |color=new though because I have seen that in other articles before Insendieum ALT (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As the creator of that parameter, I can say it won't. That parameter controls only the color legend below the caption, not the colors in the image itself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus
This special advisory is being issued to update the current and forecast intensity of Otis. Satellite images show that the very rapid intensification observed earlier today has continued, and the latest data support an initial intensity of 125 kt. The intensity forecast peak is updated to 140 kt, category 5 strength, since the environment isn't forecast to change much before landfall, and there are no signs of this explosive intensification stopping. This is an extremely dangerous situation, and all preparations for Otis should be rushed to completion.

Mother of God... <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it’s really bad. Hurricane Otis - taken care of and it’s now BOLDly the main title. Have at it as I’ve just copied the framework over and it needs a LOT of polishing because of the major threat to land. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wrote up a bit on the precursor through the formation of the TS. I dont have time for more rn unfortunately. College... <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 00:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Superman (DC Universe)
Hello, MarioProtIV. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Superman (DC Universe), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Superman (DC Universe)


Hello, MarioProtIV. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Superman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleting article of current event and redirecting it.
Hello, you deleted a page that I created about the as of now current winter storm in North America and redirected it to the broader page for winter in North America this season. I realize now that I was wrong about when it started, but why did you delete it? There is a page for the January 8-10, 2024 North American storm complex, shouldn’t there be one for this storm too? MountainDew20 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have just now seen your newest edit. So, all I have to do is not call it a blizzard, right? MountainDew20 (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this OK or is something still wrong?
 * January 12-19, 2024 North American winter storm MountainDew20 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a draft in progress for the earlier winter storm (which was responsible for the majority of the deaths currently especially in the South. I may likely create a new one for this current storm, which would likely be at Draft:January 16–19, 2024 North American winter storm. The title you made was factually inaccurate as the current winter storm had no blizzard conditions or warnings aside from the mountains, which, in the article name POV, is not sufficient enough to leave at the current title. That would likely be the storm I redirected it to, although a better title would be January 10–13, 2024 North American blizzard since we’ve had many winter storms in a short period of time (similar to the February storms from the 2020–21 North American winter page. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it’s best we create a disambiguate page for all of these storms at January 2024 North American winter storm. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia research
Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Hilary
Hey there, I saw you editing the aforementioned article. I was glad you removed the global warming "juiced up" bit, but was there a reason you removed the part about Hilary's remnants moving across the western US into Canada? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Mario, I have undone all your edits to the article for reasons I explained in the edit summary. I have told you numerous times now that you should be using edit summaries, yet your edit summary usage rate remains unacceptably low. Your edits frequently become controversial in part due to this, so instead of a request, this is now a demand.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly forgot to add the summary for the edit and it was meant to explain why I removed the last bit about Hilary’s operational track since it got shortened (now I just reworded it), and I admit I was maybe a little biased in removing Maue’s claims because he can make wild claims in regards to the hurricane season, so that was my fault. I will include edit summaries more often now though so thanks for the demand. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both Mario and for chatting rather than getting to an edit war. Now that we've brought up the storm, I'm wondering both of your thoughts on the global warming bit? For what it's worth, I agree with Mario's original edit, removing the global warming bit, which, to their (his?) credit, had an edit summary that said "while likely true, I don’t think we should elevate his takes given he makes quite outlandish weather claims. Also not really appropriate for the section either." I honestly think this is true for most storm articles with the global warming connection. Hilary just happened to be one of many storms in recent years to have some sort of connection with global warming, even though climate change refers to much longer term patterns in the Earth's climate, not solely connected to one individual storm. Before bringing up the discussion on Hilary's page (or the project), I wondered if I could ask both Mario and Jasper's thoughts on the global warming section in general for storm articles. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the linkage to global warming should be relevant and mentioned in the storm articles that generate widespread news coverage and mentions of these kind of events. I.e Harvey, Patricia, the big anomalies. Hilary is kind of borderline because while it did get close in the technical sense to a California landfall, there have been numerous instances in the years and decades past of similar close call events or their remnants affecting California in a big way. That’s different from extreme intensity in Patricia’s case or dumping feet of rain over a major metropolitan area in Harvey’s case, of which both have very clear global warming discussions centered around them. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense I suppose. Hilary was just another Nora or Doreen, a once in 25 year event for that part of the world. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit on Tornado outbreak of May 6–9, 2024
Hello MarioProtIV, I personally don't agree with your addition of Template:Multiple image on the Barnsdall, OK tornado section, which you added here. It adds too much whitespace to the section and makes it look empty, while before, the prose seemed to fill in the section in a more effective manner, even if there was still some whitespace present. I believe that it should be reverted and the extra image should be placed elsewhere until more information comes in for the tornado that would better fill in the section with the double image. Just wanted to let you know so that we could discuss the issue, and for me to hear what you have to say about it so we can come to an agreement. {  Chris Wx  🌀 ( talk -  contribs ) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging as he has removed the section from the article due to it not containing enough information. What do you think about reincluding it with just the one image in the infobox, or do you believe it's still too short to include regardless?  Chris Wx  🌀 ( talk  -  contribs ) 14:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The section removal had more to do with the section not having enough information than it having to do with the pictures. However, I do agree that having two photos in the infobox is too much. Only one is needed. Chess  Eric  16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I wanted to clarify what the requirements for a "Daily Statistics" table is, since it seems @MarioProtIV removed it; I also started discussing this topic on the current outbreak. I just wanted to know if there was a standard for this element or if it should be removed from existing articles, since it appears to be be infrequently used overall. 2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the outbreak is like 3-4 or so days long then it can be added - I removed it because I moved the page to be the 26th-28th instead since the 25th was essentially an isolated incident not really grouped in with it. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, there really is no requirement from what I know. I added a daily statistics chart to the March 31 - April 1, 2023 outbreak article last year because...I thought it would look cool. LOL! I guess it's up to the discretion of how editors of the article want it. Chess  Eric  18:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Deadpool & SYNTH
Regarding your revert here, your explanation would violate WP:SYNTHESIS. We can't just assume these names will automatically apply just because it is the same actors playing similar, if not the same, roles (especially since we've seen cases where this is not always the case). We also should not use the wait-and-see approach as justification to leave unsupported material in an article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * But if they do have the same names in the movie and said explicitly then I could re-add it back right? Guessing the MoM tactic applies here too since it’s credited differently in the credits. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You would still need a source for anything you add or talk page consensus to do so (which I presume may be needed in this case if the credits differ from what many sources state). Yes, similar to Multiverse of Madness, if their real names are not used in the credits, we should not use them in the article unless reliable sources (particularly citing those involved) use them to refer to the characters. Unlike the many MCU articles where many characters return with the same names, these are different characters who could be from different universes and as such, they could have different names. Given none of those names were sourced for  film specifically, we can't just assume what was done in prior films applies to this one, which is SYNTH. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Move
Huh? I am moving it to mainspace. Delectable1 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Info box map
Clear your cookies/data. It’s a cached display so it loads faster. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, BSBA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 20:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Didn’t work. I use Google chrome on my phone so I cleared cookies and cache from the last week and it didn’t fix anything. It appears fine when I put the file in a thumbnail though, so it’s something with the infobox. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Avery just reuploaded it and it works now. I guess it was something due to the fact I was the uploader of the image. Not sure how that would cause the issue. All resolved though. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Beryl Cost
I'm curious, are there any accurate sources on how much damage Beryl has done in terms of cost? I was unable to find a source for the 6 billion figure listed on the Wiki page. NesserWiki (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hurricane Beryl, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Mario, you know better than to try to sneak in unsourced claims without an edit summary. . The latitude claim is not justified.'' Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:January 2024 North American cold wave
Hello, MarioProtIV. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:January 2024 North American cold wave, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes Improvement Time!
Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.

There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!

If you wish to participate, please visit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)