User talk:HurricaneLove05

Welcome!

Hello, HurricaneLove05, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Tropical Storm Andrea (2013). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Please do not unmerge previously merged articles. Darby has been merged because it fails WP:N. Thank you for your cooperation. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 02:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, WP:N can be very confusing, and has tons of different interpretations. However, I agree with him; unless impact fully related to the storm can be found, I don't think Darby should exist and fine with it being re-merged. Also, of note is Hurricane Kay (1980), which has been merged. Please make it a proper hurricane article (like Andrea's) before re-merging. Thank you. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew (can I call you Matt?), please don't un-merge Kay. Kay isn't notable (except for a few records), and it had been re-merged. If you want to create a new storm article please read WP:N. I'd be happy to help if you need any. Cheers, iPhone Hurricane 95 02:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention it was a c/p season section. And those records it set were not real records by any means. I am 95% sure Kay can no get an article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

why does an article need wpn its silly. HurricaneLove05 (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wpn? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notabilityHurricaneLove05 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent pointless articles on stuff nobody reads. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

its a silly rule HurricaneLove05 (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a silly rule. Again, as YE mentioned above, it prevents pointless useless articles on topics nobody reads. If there are too much articles nobody reads then it would be wasted. Again I'd be open to help. iPhone Hurricane 95 03:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, I don't the rule either. But you, some people and I can't do anything about it.CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policies

Matt, please read our policies and guidelines. You've just violated WP:CIVIL on Talk:Tropical Storm Kika. Also, please read WP:MERGE. Kika was not notable, and may face merging soon. That is disruptive, and you may be blocked from editing. iPhone Hurricane 95 03:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why does wikipedia have soooo many unfair useless silly policies????HurricaneLove05 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a playground for children, you know. If these rules do not exist, the mainspace will end up being a WP:SANDBOX. You should consider reading the Wikipedia:Five pillars prior to making rash comments. Thanks - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 03:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will NOT let you people merge Kika 2008! HurricaneLove05 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read WP:MERGE. You can't tell people to not merge an article. And may I remind you of WP:CIVIL again. Again, not letting people merge articles with no notability and not maintaining a civil tongue is disruptive. If you continue such behavior, you may be blocked from editing. iPhone Hurricane 95 16:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can but given that seven people are in favor of such merge, you likely won't be able to convince us 7 to keep the article (though I'm quite article flexible compared to other people in WPTC). However, I do agree with IPhonehurricane95 a bit; I understand you are frustrated and I understand your position (I use to think polices like WP:N were stupid when I first joined the site five or six years ago), but it is still not right to shout on a talk page (though your last post was not that uncivil). Like the poster above, I am happy to help you, and I hope you have a good day. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

jtwc

The Jtwc is the official wrning center for the typhoon ocean and will always be, not the jma!!!!!!!!!!!!HurricaneLove05 (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the JMA. Who told you it was the JTWC? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well I look at there journals stating that the min pressure of typhoon gay 1992 was 872 but in the article is 900HurricaneLove05 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WMO considers the official RSMC for WPac to be JMA. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 01:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know some journals use the JTWC's data, but the JMA is consider offical by the RSMC. Don't blame me, blame the WMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this message? The JTWC is not offical for the WPAC nor any basin. We don't have any control over this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please do not use shouting edit summaries. Doing so is disruptive, as it is a violation of WP:CIVIL. And please understand that the JMA is official, not the JTWC. If you continue to use disruptive EDit Summaries and removing intensities, you may be blocked from editing. iPhone Hurricane 95 17:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the Typhoon Bess (1982) page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop using shouting edit summaries. You did it again on Bess '82. Shouting is disruptive, and you may be blocked from editing without further notice if you continue. iPhone Hurricane 95 17:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop un-merging Kay, Matthew. You are in danger of breaking the WP:3RR. Thank you. And please, again, read the notability guideline. If you want to create an article the two red exclamation points here need articles. Cheers, iPhone Hurricane 95 18:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not endanger of breaking 3RR, actually, but it is best he is aware of such rule. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Your recent editing history at Please stop un-merging Kay. If you continue, you may be blocked. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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. iPhone Hurricane 95 18:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Your recent editing history at Please stop un-merging Kay. If you continue, you may be blocked. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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. iPhone Hurricane 95 18:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]