User talk:Yellow Evan/Archive 15

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

Timelines[edit]

Might need your help. STO12 won't give up on the timeline symbols. See his talk page. United States Man (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JTWC[edit]

This is the JTWCs website: http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/ and not http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/index.html.Jason Rees (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The only thing i use it for is GPs summaries.Jason Rees (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking on Hurricane Wiki[edit]

Sorry if I had started an edit war and got us both blocked. I don't understand that 4-revert rule, it doesn't make any sense! So one person gets their way, and the other has to be blocked, I don't think that's very fair. Does user Isaac829 even know what he's doing? I thought Wikia was a free editing community, and the revert+block policy goes against the free editing rules on the main Wikia page, who made this rule? And how can we prevent this from happening again? Would you like to help me figure this out? STO12 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012[edit]

OWNing images[edit]

I know that nobody owns images; which is why my edit summary was what it was in reply to Supportstorm's "Whoever keeps replacing my images I'm going to hurl a cinder black at you".--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supportstorm's edit was labeled a minor edit, by clicking the This is a minor edit checkbox on edits. It'll hide it from people who have set their watchlist that way, and means in theory that it's an uncontroversial fix that no one should object to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012[edit]

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter[edit]

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
  2. Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
  3. Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
  4. Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
  6. New York City Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
  7. Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
  8. Canada Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: Russia GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), England Ealdgyth (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions), Poland Piotrus (submissions), North Carolina Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), Cherokee Nation The Bushranger (submissions) and North Macedonia 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclone Rona-Frank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Port Douglas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012[edit]

A pie for you![edit]

Congratulations on your new-found autopatrolliness! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012[edit]


Timeline of recent events[edit]

There was no agreement between the project to remove the Timeline of recent events section from the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season page. Please do not do it again without further discussion on the main project talk page. Thanks. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1992 Pacific hurricane season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inflow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tropical Storm Norman (2012), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chihuahua and Mph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Norman[edit]

I wouldn't include it yet. The floods might be article worthy, but at the moment it's unclear. I'd wait to see if the media picks up on calling it Norman more, or if any NWS offices do so as well. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter[edit]

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Canada Sasata (submissions), Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Scotland Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012[edit]

Help wanted[edit]

Hello, there is a new article called 2012-13 United States winter storm season that is providing information about the new naming system that The Weather Channel is giving major winter storms. I would much appreciate help from you there. I understand that you might be only based around tropical cyclones, but the way that the page should look is expected to be similar to most hurricane articles. Stop by and comment on the talk page if you would like to help, thanks! STO12 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on proposed Template talk:Infobox hurricane current changes[edit]

Hello, Yellow Evan. I am proposing a new version of the Template:Infobox hurricane current template, located in its sandbox. Would you like to comment on this change?

Thank you,

–– Anonymouse321 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You received this message because you have contributed to tropical cyclone related articles and I thought you would be interested.

October 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at 2012 Atlantic hurricane season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Just a head's up. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tropical Storm Norman (2012), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"WPTC sucks"[edit]

Regarding your edit summary here, what sort of different info would a Hector article have than what's already in the season article and what's in Ernesto's article? The WPTC is just a project. If you want something changed, you can propose it or do it yourself :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does WPTC suck because of what I said? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't understand. We already have the season article, why would there have to be another article to cover what's already there! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But could you explain your logic why you don't like how it's done? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we had the argument over the past few years, and the general consensus was that not every storm should get an article. Do you disagree with that? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then how can you be such a strong proponent of your proposal number 1? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But why? That's the same mentality that all storms should get articles, if a storm reaches an arbitrary wind threshold that it should automatically get an article. How is that a good idea if there isn't enough info to write on it? How is it better to have hundreds of additional articles when we already have hundreds of stubs and start class articles? How is it better to have a two paragraph separate article on a Category 4 hurricane when the same two paragraphs would fit in fine in the season article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more talking why those articles shouldn't be created. We have an existing precedent. It'd be more dramatic to change that and go through all of that drama again. So why is a Category 4 hurricane more notable in 1988 than 1987? Why is it more worthy of an article? Is there that much information on any post-1988 Category 4+ hurricane that can't fit in a season section? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they shouldn't automatically get an article. No article should. If there's too much for a season section, then I can see it getting split off, like longer storms like Nadine 12. But they shouldn't be split off automatically. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even most articles shouldn't automatically be split off. The current WP standard is that if there is too much info to fit comfortably into the section of a season article, then it gets split off. How does that make the project suck? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that seemed to be your biggest point of contention, that we deal with season articles and sub-articles in the consistent manner that I outlined above? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But most seasons don't indicate why it was inactive or not. Why have 15 sub-articles for a season, half of them only two paragraphs long, and give each of those storms at least a one paragraph summary? Do you have any idea how much redundancy that is? How is that much redundancy actually good for the encyclopedia? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But again, do you realize how much redundancy that is? How is that a god idea? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UVU in WAC[edit]

I'm not sure why you wrote "Source?" when I cited Salt Lake Tribune on the addition of UVU to the WAC. Why did you revert my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reds0xfan (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012[edit]

Supporting GAN! Consider reviewing today! :)[edit]

I've noticed you're interested in supporting GA! :) That is fantastic. Please consider reviewing a Good Article nominee to help in the 450+ article review backlog! :) Your assistance and support of Good Article is appreciated. :) Clearing the backlog is important in terms of recognising quality work by Wikipedia's contributors! --LauraHale (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul damage total[edit]

Regarding this edit, be sure you add the source to Paul's damage total to the season article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it has to be in the article somewhere. Otherwise there is a citation violation. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not in the article though. It has to be in the physical article for 2012 PHS. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just add the source from Paul's article into Paul's section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012[edit]

Timeline artice[edit]

I've posted a discussion on the talk page. I've tried doing so on his talk page with no success. Like I said, this really shouldn't be an issue. We had a perfectly good, sourced article before. Now it's unsourced and missing information. The edits should either be done in segments or in a sandbox. There's no need to gut the article and rewrite the whole thing, leaving it blank and unsourced in the mean time. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012[edit]

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter[edit]

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

  1. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2. Canada Sasata (submissions)
  3. Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions)
  4. Scotland Casliber (submissions)
  5. New York City Muboshgu (submissions)
  6. Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions)
  7. Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions)
  8. Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012[edit]

Discussions concerning non-tropical cyclones[edit]

Since you've been involved with articles on non-tropical cyclones in the past, I thought this might be a relevant area for you to give some input. At the moment, there is discussion going on about whether we should adopt The Weather Channel's new procedure of using names for winter storms that will have a significant impact. There are two discussions going on: an AFD of the article about the current winter storm season and a proposal to not use TWC's naming system as the title for an ongoing storm. Out of full disclosure, I've started both of those discussions, and while I have my own opinions, I wanted to get fresh opinions from editors who, like me, have a history of editing similar articles in the past. Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclone Drena, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Inflow, Northland and Southland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NHC review[edit]

Everything I could deal with has been dealt with. I still can't find anything (online or otherwise) about when the HWO's were disbanded. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012[edit]

Cyclone Osea[edit]

Did you see that the DYK for this page has been held up? You'll need to review another nomination before this can be approved for DYK. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK rules state that everyone must review another nomination when nominating a self-created/self-expanded article. Exceptions are given for those who are new to DYK (defined as having fewer than five DYKs), but a quick review of your talk page archive shows that you've had at least seven DYKs. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cyclone Yali (1998) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Westport, Nelson, Picton, Aniwa and Tanna
Cyclone Osea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Times-Union

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Osea[edit]

We would greatly appreciate a response on the DYK nomination page of this article at the above link, as to whether you are planning to do a quid pro quo (QPQ) review of another DYK nomination, which is required for people who have submitted more than five of their own articles to DYK in the past. Your nomination cannot proceed without that QPQ. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cyclone Yali (1998)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012[edit]

Sigh[edit]

Thanks for reminding me why I generally don't do more here than correct the occasional typo in articles I read. For better or worse, Wikipedia's become a bureaucracy. The OR policy is generally a good thing, and I'll admit that strictly speaking it isn't yet official that Miriam will be on the 2018 list, but given that it was so inconsequential that it doesn't even rate an article of its own, the only way it won't be on the 2018 list is if they toss out the current naming system altogether. In any case, the article needed to be edited so as to not make it sound as if the name hadn't been used yet this year, which I've done. Carolina wren (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cyclone Osea[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]

Local Time[edit]

Whats the problem with adding into Evan what the local time is? When i wrote the article i opted to call it UTC +13 to keep it simple rather than adding in WST, FDT and NZDT all of which are UTC +13.Jason Rees (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yellow_Evan/Archive_15&oldid=550799699"