User talk:iPhonehurricane95

I award thee the Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You have continued your pursuit in improving the Hurricane Gilbert article despite a setback (GAN failure), which many editors on here might not have done. It is an important storm article to improve. I therefore award you the Barnstar of Diligence, hoping the article can be improved/raised to GA status in the near future. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! JG ^{(edits · sandbox)} 00:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See Also section advice

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section, the See Also section is mainly meant for incomplete articles which certain wikilinks are not included within the article body yet, but would be if it were a GA. It does mention that it is not a place for wikilinks already included within the article above. Someone clarified me on this a few years back. Now you know. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note

Before seding an article to GAN that you have not worked on, please notify the primary author. Thank you. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Which article did he do so for? He's been working on the Gilbert article. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Hernan (1996). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

GAN

Hi Jeffrey! I just finished reviewing Hurricane Gilbert and I have some suggestions for you. However, I was wondering if I could first do a thorough copyedit myself. If not, I can post all of my copyediting suggestions for you too along with the rest of the review. It's no trouble either way. Thanks for all your great work! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Hey man, how have you been doing? I noticed you haven't been editing much. I just wanted to make sure everything is alright. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Ignacio(1991)

While this article is not terrible, it is not at the right location and while is somewhat notable and an okay idea, it is a little on the short side not to mention the fact that they are tons of more important storms without articles. I suggest you work on more important storm like Pacific typhoons or storms in the Southern Hemisphere as they are many more storms with good info. as well as many key storms in those basins that do not have pages. Thank you. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm out of ideas for other storms (BTW, I can't seem to find a Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone) iPhoneHurricane95 02:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Tropical Storm Vera (1989)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Ramon

I deleted the redirect, go for it. --Golbez (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done iPhoneHurricane95 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent articles

Hey there JG (can I still call you that?). I was wondering if you thought to do more important articles ever? Most of the articles you've made in the past few days are of very marginal notability, and most previously had articles and were merged for a reason. You used to do WPAC articles on some pretty key storms. Is there a reason you stopped that? Hope all is well, cheers. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Raymond '83

I see that Raymond of 1983 was merged due to there being not enough info. However, I had the ability to create a sandbox of Raymond and I found as much info as I can, using this and this. Here's the sandbox. iPhoneHurricane95 22:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Mind if I edit your sandbox to see if it is actually worth an article? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. iPhoneHurricane95 22:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a tendency to include too much trivial information though, like Hurricane Charley (1980). You don't have to include every factoid in an article. Here are some examples.

• "predicted that the main island would feel the effects of rain, strong winds, and high surf on October 15" - every storm produces rain, winds, and high surf along the coast.
• "Forecasters say that Raymond is larger than the the hurricane that pounded the island of Kauai two days before Thanksgiving the previous year and caused $234 million (1982 USD)." - how is this relevant to Raymond? Was its size ultimately important? No need to mention the bits about Iwa. It'd be one thing if it was the first storm since then, but Gil 83 has that honour.
• "A National Weather Service (NWS) assistant stated that Raymond may be "one of the most powerful hurricanes ever to enter this part of the Pacific"." - how is this preparations? And why is it important? Since it's not true. Ioke is the strongest storm in the CPAC. Even if it was at the time, that was 30 years ago, not exactly that relevant anymore.
• "Civil defense officials urged Hawaiian residents to begin preparing for the worst." - why is this worth mentioning? That's pretty typical for hurricanes.
• "A hurricane watch was issued for all islands on October 14" - you mentioned that earlier.
• "Meteorologists say that Raymond is capable of spawning thunderstorms before any actual arrival at a landmass. Moving at a speed of 15 mph (24 km/h), meteorologists predicted that Raymond was to reach the islands in about three days." - and?

That's only the preparations, and it shows how bloated the article is. It looks like a decent length, but when you look at the actual content, it's pretty scant. I would reconsider making the Raymond article, personally, since there is little additional good information than what is in the season section. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

JG, I did you a favor and did an extensive copyedit. The above should not apply anymore. I am leaning toward a Raymond article atm, but I am still not 100% sure as I still need to see how an article-less season section would look like. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

'Abandoned' template documentation subpage

Hi, could you please delete (or otherwise modify) User:IPhonehurricane95/sandbox/Template:Hurricane Same Name/doc. It appears to be 'unused', and is being filed in Category:Documentation subpages without corresponding pages, which I am attempting to clean up. Thanks. Revent (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Orlene '92

[1]. iPhoneHurricane95 01:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A helicopter crashed unofficially as a result of Orlene. iPhoneHurricane95 01:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All seven died in the helicrash. Is that enough? iPhoneHurricane95 15:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Rollback request

Seriously, I'd advise you do some reversions before you ask for the rollback permission again. It's clear they're not going to give it to you. Make about 50 to 100 revisions and maybe they'll give it to you next time. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 19:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--iPhoneHurricane95 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IPhonehurricane95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am extremely sorry for creating sockpuppets, I was just bored. I swear to god that the sockpuppeteering shit won't ever happen again. Im not kidding. I apologize very much. May someone unblock me and also my doppelgänger CaliforniaHurricane25? :-

Decline reason:

No. You'll need to find some other way to deal with your boredom. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC))

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IPhonehurricane95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hmmmm, another way.........oh oh! I have an idea, how about a mentorship? I was mentored a few years back and it was successful :-)

Decline reason:

Doesn't look very successful to me. I feel it bears repeating that you are allowed this avenue of appeal as a courtesy and if your next unblock request isn't a lot better than these two that courtesy will not be extended any more. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IPhonehurricane95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After thinking for weeks and weeks, I have decided that I have learned why I have been blocked. I, JG, hereby apologize for sock puppetry. This block has taught me a lesson. It has hit me hard. I want to contribute constructively. I Will Refrain from making any mainspace edits for a long period of time, instead focusing on my own userspace (sandboxes, my userpage, etc.) because this block hit me hard. I admit the sock puppetry, and I swear to god that I will not do sockpuppetry again. Sincerely, iPhoneHurricane95

Decline reason:

Your current request for unblock is declined as you continue to create sock accounts. As has been noted elsewhere on this page, following the standard offer is likely the only way you will be able to find yourself able to edit (legitimately). Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to reviewing admin: this user created yet another sockpuppet two hours and two minutes before this request. I suggest that six months away without evading this block would be a reasonable condition to returning to editing Wikipedia. Regarding this request, editors that do not make mainspace edits are not Wikipedia editors anyway. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sock?

Were you User:BlueTropicalWave? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) unfortunately, yes. :( ugh. I honestly do feel sick from this dsockpuppetry. So sorry! Don't be mad at me! iPhoneHurricane95 12:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just, how can we believe you're not going to do it again? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Read the blue box above. iPhoneHurricane95 13:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yea, you said you've been thinking for weeks, but you were just blocked on your other account yesterday. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

那是因为我太想改文章了， 所以才那样子。^_^ iPhoneHurricane95 13:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

对不起 如果这是错误的，谷歌翻译...

中文打字并不能帮助我们. 这是更好地保持所有的英语.

That said, despite your words your past actions are not helpful towards your claim. Circumventing blocks and sockpuppetry don't go over well in the long run, especially coupled with a history of having a bad temper. If you really want to stay and edit, you're going to have to take things really slow and understand (not just listen) what other editors tell you. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

okay. iPhoneHurricane95 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh. I still remember what an admin said to me a long time ago :'(:

I had blocked your IP for 10 days because of vandalism originating from it, for which you are responsible. Your IP has been hardblocked, i.e. your account was also blocked because of its the underlying IP. This was done intentionally. In addition to the vandalism, the block is also a result of WP:COMPETENCE issues related to page protection; you had been warned multiple times but you persisted in causing disruption both at the noticeboard and article affected. Also, blocked users should not use their talkpage as a sandbox while blocked; if you do that again, I will apply the block on your main account, with talkpage access disabled.

I understand that you're a genuinely good-faith editor (except the vandalism and page-protection issues), and it is not my intention to drive you off the project. The folks at the hurricanes WikiProject are nice, helpful, and seems to be already informally mentoring you. I hope that you take their advice seriously. However, I must warn that if there are still similar issues after the block expires, it will likely result in a new one; see Wikipedia:Competence is required. Maxim(talk) 16:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(Sniff, sniff) why did it start sockpuppetry 1 and a half years later, why? :( iPhoneHurricane95 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd read WP:OFFER as well, you may have to wait months before getting unblocked. But I agree with all the above. You have to listen to what all of us tell you; it is hard, I know, but you do. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

얼마나 오래 차단을 해제 얻을 기다려야합니까? 일주? 1개월? 반년? iPhoneHurricane95 23:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Six months. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am SICK of this block. If you nonsense people think that I should be blocked for SIX MORE MONTHS, then fine. <redacted>. YE, I am sorry for making personal attacks against you earlier this month, it's all because of this block.

THIS BLOCK IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING! I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT ANY FURTHER! iPhoneHurricane95 00:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's either six months or nothing. JG, age has nothing to do with getting blocked/unblocked. If you don't care, why will you not tolerate it any more? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I need to go and finish up or create my sandboxes, you should see User:iPhonehurricane95/Orlene.

you should note that I am currently in Beijing. iPhoneHurricane95 00:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IPhonehurricane95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I can't wait half a year to be unblocked! Please, just give me a second chance! This block taught me a valuable lesson - never ever do sockpuppetry. I am sincerely sorry for the sockpuppetry. I was blocked for that reson, and I will not make illegitimate accounts ever again (BlueTropicalWave will be a doppelgänger as I may abandon this account and use that instead). I have a proposal - to get adapted, and this is NOT an excuse to get me unblocked

Decline reason:

This is a private website, and you agreed to the rules when you signed up. You MUST "tolerate" the block because you personally earned it. You have been advised that you must not edit Wikipedia for a minimum of 6 months - either anonymously or with another account. It is by doing this that the community will decide whether or not you can be trusted - because up until now, you have done nothing but break the rules. If you create EVEN ONE MORE ACCOUNT, or make even ONE MORE EDIT, the offer will be withdrawn, and you will likely be subjected to a lifetime WP:BAN discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Now I am looking for adaption. iPhoneHurricane95 02:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Will the offer be withdrawn if i sock on commons? iPhoneHurricane95 09:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You may edit on Commons, and constructive contributions there will count in your favour when the time comes to consider unblock here. You should not sock on Commons, in the sense of using multiple accounts for improper purposes, but that wasn't what you meant, I hope?. JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notice

Hello Iphonehurricane95. One of your recent edits to this talk page added some personal information about yourself that you may not want publicly known. I have taken the liberty of removing it. Feel free to email me if you have any questions. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IPhonehurricane95, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IPhonehurricane95, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IPhonehurricane95, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Dustin (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ban Proposal

There is an ongoing ban proposal regarding you at WP:ANI due to your excessive disruptive activity, as well as your request here to get banned. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the proposal for a community ban has been declined, an admin has pointed out that as per this part of Wikipedia's Banning Policy, you are automatically banned by default from all Wikimedia Project sites indefinitely, because you have continued your disruptive behavior, even after receiving an indefinite block on your main account. I sure hope that this satisfies your request here, so please distance yourself from editing from this point onward, unless you want Checkuser patrolling and SPI investigations to continue under your name. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

IPhonehurricane95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #16888 was submitted on Nov 12, 2016 07:53:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

IPhonehurricane95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17124 was submitted on Dec 15, 2016 07:20:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Most intense Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes

Template:Most intense Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Typhoon Orchid (1994)

Hello, IPhonehurricane95. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Typhoon Orchid (1994), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Typhoon Orchid (1994)

Hello, IPhonehurricane95. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Typhoon Orchid".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)