User talk:MarioProtIV

Archives

1, 2

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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

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

Archives

1, 2

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

@MarioProtIV: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think this is a different weather system. Starting April 23, we had a lot of rain in North and South Carolina and the flooding is quite serious if you compare the river levels in this article to Hurricane Matthew. I seem to recall tornadoes with this system too. How we do it other than going to the person who did most of the edits I don't know, but it seems there are two systems which can have their own articles in April 2017, or perhaps two systems that could be part of one article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware the April 23 system didn't have that much tornadoes but for the flooding it may need an article in the future, IMO. Would just have to get some consensus from higher up people for that. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tornadoes may have been a separate system.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: I can understand why you removed some of my edits since I'm new here but one of the EF0 tornadoes from edit 778063642 was removed as well as another EF0 that needs to be added in. WeatherDudeEF5 (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep in mind the flooding occurring right now in the Carolinas is from rain that fell last Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. I'm sure that's a separate system from what is causing problems now. I fast-forwarded through the local news last night and the damage that I could see even then was pretty bad. I assume those are the tornadoes you are referring to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just got finished looking at some real newspapers. No references to tornadoes. I'll work on the Carolinas flooding and see how we can get that into an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more on that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another storm system?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can you please stop creating an article for Stephanie and respect the consensus formed at [[1]]. Otherwise you may find yourself being blocked from editing.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Got it, will try to keep it cool with both that and the GF edits. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Resilient Barnstar

I know it's annoying when we revert, merge, or change your contributions, but that's only because have a solid hold on project standards, and because we all went through our own trail/error phase too. Take this barnstar for being on top of all things Wiki for both severe weather and tropical cyclones, and for not giving up on us yet. ;) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Went ahead and started new discussion. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had worked on the draft. I want to thank you for your hard work in trying, but we have to respect the other members of the project as well regardless of the outcome. This is how it is sometimes, I hope you aren't discouraged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Do you think Hurricane Isaac in 2012 can be a primary topic? --219.79.127.186 (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@219.78.127.186: 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)[reply]

Could we possibly avoid having so many requested moves/page moves just to knock the year off and make something the primary topic. It isnt like the world is going to end just because the article for the name Isacc has the 2012 on it, lets just use some common sense with this stuff please.Jason Rees (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey, there. Me and @ChocolateTrain: have discussed regarding to the Hurricane Dora image situation that has been going on (see User talk:Typhoon2013#Hurricane Dora image). 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)[reply]

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

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

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

Ask Supportstorm (talk · contribs) for that, I just ask for requests. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 05:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supportstorm adds color to the black-and-white images after the matter. Master of Time (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

prokaryotes (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Just thought I'd drop a line to say thank you for using a proper infobox image for K2-72e. Works really well on this page, much better than an concept image, and the article reads well too. nice work! --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

So much for the process I tried to lay out. If you were so rushed, you couldn't just move the draft over the redirect at Hurricane Maria (2017)? And what's the deal with you always requesting that Cyclonebiskit move pages but you totally bypass that step this time around? Master of Time (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hurricane Maria (2017) was only a redirect, so he should have been able to just move the draft over it since he was autoconfirmed long ago. Plus, since Wikipedia is not a news source, it is perfectly acceptable to wait a brief period for an administrator to move the page if need be (although it shouldn't have been needed here). Fragmenting the page's history, though, should never have been on the table. This should all be fixable, but it will take a little while. Master of Time (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Master of Time: I'll be sure to move it over the redirect next time we have a draft for a storm rather then fragment it. But like Jd said I was wanting to get it quickly out and about. Obviously I see that didn't really work as much as I hoped it would. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

The image you provided for hurricane Maria has a while half circle which disrupts the image. The image I have uploaded is clearer. Please don't change it. Thank you. Toonami1997 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Why did you create this redirect before the system was named in NHC advisories? We shouldn't be prematurely creating redirects just because a system will probably be named (and for this advisory, it was not). Master of Time (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maater Of Time: - it really doesn’t matter when a redirect is made. You could make them for the rest of the names in the season, and it wouldn’t matter. Ditto the next five naming lists. Since the media was reporting on a potential Hurricane Nate affecting the US in a few days, I think it was beneficial, actually. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Time (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see this. :D – LR Guanzon^tce 11:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Would you please expand it and fix the text, or at least give an indication of when would be the time to make the page more than just a redirect page, instead of just hitting the Undo button?50.235.102.246 (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

• 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.

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)[reply]

I just wanted to tell you to calm down and don't get too excited. As per your edits a few days ago where you already considered/declared the end of both the EPAc and Atlantic seasons. Since it has now ended, that does not mean you should create the 2018 Atl and EPac seasons because 1) too early and 2) barely any sources. But the Atlantic I'll deal with that as me and other users had a huge convo about creating the next season articles last year. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Template talk:United States winter storms#Major changes - 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)[reply]

Which I want to know why, why do you move/merge an article without any reason. I easily reverted all of your edits and the Haikui article will still be up. Don't worry I'll add more if you're not satisfied. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all there is for impact, then, yes, a case could be made for merger, although given that the 2017 PTS page is over 100kb, more leniency should be shown. I also don't know why any impact wasn't moved during the merger. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The project consensus has always been to use HURDAT as the official source for intensity, which will be updated when the results of the 1960-65 reanaylsis are approved by the hurricane best track committee as @Cyclonebiskit and Thegreatdr: will tell you.Jason Rees (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For now it can be noted in the article but until its official (which it isnt yet, since its still being looked at by NHC) we do not change the formal windspeeds.Jason Rees (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention it in prose but since HURDAt hasn’t been updated yet. Also Mario, if you’re curious about precedent, look in that age histories next time before starting an edit war. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when 1960-1965 updates will occur. I think the review passed 1963 and then the overall progress stopped as last season ramped up. Once the TCRs are out, progression might occur. I wouldn't expect it this April. Next April maybe. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
By making additional reverts, you are edit warring just as much as him. Resist the temptation to revert for the sake of restoring your own version. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This source. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 12:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I'm being nice and giving you one more warning, but this is definitely your last after you conducted a third reversion and accused the other of edit warring even though you reverted the other side's edit before the other side reverted your reversion of its edits. I repeat: This is your last warning. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 04:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

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

Just to note that the 2018 season really has not started yet because it developed in 2017. Otherwise we'll wait for other users like JR, though I did mention him about it in the 2018 talk page. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Information about the system can be found here: Nor'easter#Notable nor’easters. 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)[reply]

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

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

Yes; that's fine. Thank you. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I 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)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

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

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! B dash (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just fyi. the usual procedure is to redirect to the first article created on a topic, then discuss the article title. I create articles on events fairly frequently, but perhaps you were not aware of this convention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
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)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments about my work on the MH for Gita and I have no problems with working on the MH for Hola, I will make a start on it shortly.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Of interest: WP:NOTNEWS. Gryllida (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Kittens are cute right?

HorsesAreNice (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient in terms of Jelawat. Doesn't mean the JTWC stopped issuing advisories, doesn't mean you have to take the infobox. The JMA is still warning on it so I will revert you. I know you're excited but be calm please. Typhoon2013 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But actually, in this case, I will not revert you just for the sake that itt isn't 18Z yet and for sure the JMA will stop tracking this. But PLEASE, keep this in mind in for the future as the JMA is the RSMC. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you again. Please be patient. The JMA still has Jelawat active in their weather maps. You have been here in the past two seasons and this is what we've been doing and you know that. So please wait until the JMA doesn't mention Jelawat in their weather maps. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Mateo, I mean Mario, you are a very persistent and great editor on Wikipedia, and your efforts in getting the right things done are rewarding of this Barnstar! CooperScience (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work! HorsesAreNice (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I passed this by a few people in the project before adding it. It was a well referenced section in an increasingly degrading article which I was trying to improve. Again. Other articles talk about this, implying that it's very relevant to the Camille article. You removed all the improvements I made to the reference section. Why exactly? This doesn't fit the spirit of Wikipedia, from what I can remember. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not related directly to the storm, so I'd prefer it mentioned in more depth in one of the TC naming pages. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is related though. How could it not be? I can see the content being in both sections. If you want it to be in the TC naming pages, that's fine. But some mention of it in this article should be warranted. I checked the length of the content; it doesn't approach undue weight. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not related to the actual storm itself. Literally nothing about the storm changes if the storm was named Carol instead of Camile except for the name itself. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply] 

You seem to forget that the death toll in PR from Maria is highly uncertain and is likely >500. Maria also did $90 billion to the island which in 1928 would be higher then the actual damage the 1928 hurricane did in its currency year. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing a game here and you don't even know what you are doing or the rules on this site. It's not a revert to add to info. Thus I did not break a rule, however you have broken the three revert rule. Also it's clear from your actions in the past you are doing this often and upsetting others. Watch your actions although it's too late in this instance. You can learn however. Furthermore you are in error. Additionally you get very involved in certain articles, particularly storms. Lastly, you don't seek remedies or use talk pages properly. Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in 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.

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)[reply]

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. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I’ll try not to run into situations like that again. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Hi MarioProtIV, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept!

--B dash (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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, Figfires^{Send me a message!} 21:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

You should probably give your input at the discussion here. I would like to comment sometime soon, but right now, I'm getting tired of this, and I'm sure you're more informed on the latest hurricane death toll counting than I am. I agree with you, but if this keeps up, another ugly edit war could break out. I suggest bringing more contributors into the discussion as well, especially if he isn't as willing to listen. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. B dash (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but the current infobox needs to remain as WPC is still issuing advisories on the active flood threat posed by Florence. Until they issue the last advisory, it should stay. We did the same thing when NHC issued advisories on the Remnants of Beryl earlier this year.Figfires^{Send me a message!} 21:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Λυδαcιτγ 06:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to remove comments (including warnings) from their own talk page, so please don't revert them. – Joe (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
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)[reply]

Your removal of Sergio has been reverted because it is in violation of WP:Page blanking. The system is likely going to have watches issued tomorrow and will have some kind of impact on Thursday so proposing for deletion now would be uncalled for. There is a decent amount of media coverage on this system and the draft had a decent amount of material. That is why the article exists now. This was considered a violation of the blanking policy because the entirety of the material related to the structure of the storm is absent from the seasonal article. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Compare_strength/intensity_with_continental_US_hurricanes if you would like to discuss further. -Gruepig (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Let There Be Sunshine 14:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@MarioProtIV: I think this notifies you? Just trying to make sure you notice. YellowSkarmory (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@YellowSkarmory: So even though Maria technically killed more people that Jeanne, the reasoning for having Jeanne in the lede instead of Mitch is that the latter system killed over 11,000 people; more than 3x the number of fatalities caused by Maria. Since the death toll of Jeanne is similar to Marias total, it is more reasonable to say that Maria is the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since Jeann. Comparing Maria to Mitch is a little much. Undescribed (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Undescribed: Ah, that makes sense. Might want to add something saying that Maria caused more deaths than Jeanne, though.

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

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. B dash (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just thought I'd give you a courteous reminder that I checked the song's cover art and its source, I can indeed confirm it is real, according to these sources below:

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have moved both articles to Wikipedia mainspace, after making some revisions. I finally decided that I didn't want access to the articles to be entirely exclusive to me anymore (it seems kind of selfish to keep them there, on further reflection). If those articles end up getting redirected or facing deletion, though, I'll restore them in my userspace as drafts. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every reliable source reporting on it is calling it an album or LP (another word for album). So you pushing it as an EP on several articles ([2]) can be construed as disruptive. Do you have any basis for this claim?--NØ 16:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Volume XIV, Issue 39, May 31, 2019 The Hurricane Herald is the arbitrarily periodical newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The newsletter aims to provide in summary the recent activities and developments of the WikiProject, in addition to global tropical cyclone activity. The Hurricane Herald has been running since its first edition ran on June 4, 2006; it has been almost thirteen years since that time. If you wish to receive or discontinue subscription to this newsletter, please visit the mailing list. This issue of The Hurricane Herald covers all project related events from April 14–May 31, 2019. This edition's editor and author is Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs). Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve the newsletter and other cyclone-related articles. Past editions can be viewed here. ← 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 →

Article of the month, by Jason Rees History of tropical cyclone naming - The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back several centuries, with storms named after places, saints or things they hit before the formal start of naming in each basin. The credit for the first usage of personal names for weather systems is given to the Queensland Government Meteorologist Clement Wragge, who named tropical cyclones and anticyclones between 1887 and 1907. This system of naming fell into disuse for several years after Wragge retired, until it was revived in the latter part of World War II for the Western Pacific basin. Over the following decades, various naming schemes have been introduced for the world's oceans, including for parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The majority of these lists are compiled by the World Meteorological Organization's tropical cyclone committee for the region and include names from different cultures as well as languages. Over the years there has been controversy over the names used at various times, with names being dropped for religious and political reasons. For example, female names were exclusively used in the basins at various times between 1945 - 2000 and were the subject of several protests. The names of significant tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Australian region are retired from the naming lists and replaced with another name, at meetings of the various tropical cyclone committees. Storm of the month and other tropical activity Cyclone Fani was an extremely severe cyclonic storm that made landfall in Odisha, India on May 3. The storm achieved peak intensity as a near Category 5-equivalent cyclone with 3-minute sustained winds of 215 km/h (130 mph), 1-minute sustained winds of 250 km/h (155 mph), and a minimum central pressure of 937 hPa (mbar). Fani caused over $1.8 billion (2019 USD) in damage in India and Bangladesh and killed at least 89 people. Since the last newsletter, twelve systems have formed. Southwest Indian Ocean In the Southwest Indian Ocean, Cyclone Kenneth made landfall in Mozambique approximately 1 month after Cyclone Idai, causing widespread flooding and destruction. Overall, Kenneth killed at least 52 people and caused more than $100 million in damage. Additionally, Tropical Cyclone Lorna formed over the eastern portion of the basin in late April and dissipated in early May without affecting land. Australian Region In the Australian Region, cyclones Lili and Ann formed in early May and both affected land. No deaths were reported, although Lili caused moderate damage in the Maluku Islands and East Timor. South Pacific In the South Pacific, a tropical depression formed in mid-may, but failed to intensify and dissipated a few days later. South Atlantic In the South Atlantic, Subtropical Storm Jaguar formed in late May and lasted for approximately two days before becoming extratropical. Western Pacific In the Western Pacific, three weak tropical depressions existed during the first half of May. North Atlantic In the North Atlantic, Subtropical Storm Andrea formed on the same day as Jaguar, but failed to intensify and dissipated on the next day. The Eastern Pacific hurricane season began on May 15. The Atlantic hurricane season will begin at 2:00 AM EDT on June 1. The Central Pacific hurricane season will begin sometime after 12:00 AM HST on June 1. Recent storms of the month Edition Storm 36 Cyclone Idai 35 Typhoon Wutip (2019) New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter in April 2019 More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue in April 2019. Sorted chronologically. Struckout users denote users who have left or have been banned. Super Typhoon Eden (talk · contribs) SaiTheCyclone (talk · contribs) To our new members: wel × × €4.95 / month Favourites List Audio Listining Color Mode Monthly New Updates Fullname * Email * Credit or debit card Subscribe A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 68 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 68 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Subscribe Now × €4.95 € 9.90 / Modal title × Close Save changes × User_talk:MarioProtIV" id="cancelSubscription" name="cancelSubscription" class="mb-0"> A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: user_membership Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 208 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 208 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Harry Potter Books × A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: products Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /var/www/wikizero/data/www/wikizero.com/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once