Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Tropical Storm Dorian (2019), you may be blocked from editing. If you believe the article should be deleted, nominate it at WP:AFD. Edit warring to blank the page is extremely disruptive. ‑Scottywong| [converse] || 03:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottywong: It is problematic when new users create articles for storms that aren't deserving due to lack of notability. AfD is not the proper venue for these articles as a redirect is needed. I explicitly told that user to make a draft then wait and see if the impacts were severe enough before making an article (on his talkpage). We don't need a duplicate of content in 2019 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Dorian. As for the explanation I gave, WP:TOOSOON is good enough for storms that may have impact in a few days, but haven't yet done much. We have criteria that need to be met in order for an article to be created. That simply hasn't been satisfied at this time due to lack of land impact. There really isn't much in that article and the content that is there is bloated (Also other massive issues). Keep in mind NOT ONE, BUT TWO of us reverted the article and more agreed that the storm was not deserving of an article (I would be willing to get them if you need the proof). Noah^Talk 10:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on whether or not the article should be deleted, I haven't even read it and it doesn't matter. The point is that you can't just go around replacing someone's work with a redirect, especially when you've already tried to replace it with a redirect once and you were quickly reverted. Replacing the content of an article with a redirect is the same as deleting the article. Wikipedia has procedures for deleting articles: WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD. If you try to blank the article and someone reverts you, the next appropriate step is to either start a discussion on a talk page (the user's talk page or the article's talk page), or nominate the article at AFD. Trying to repeatedly blank the article is disruptive, it amounts to edit warring, and you'll eventually get blocked for it. ‑Scottywong| [converse] || 13:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also good to remind of Article Guidelines, Hurricanes, typhoons etc should only receive a separate article if they are long enough not to be considered a stub. If there isn't enough to write about, the text can go inside the article for the hurricane season. When creating a new article for an active storm when it may or may not be appropriate (i.e. a major hurricane currently threatening land), it is generally best to put a request up in the discussion for that hurricane season (e.g. Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season) and discuss it with others. However, we would also encourage you to be bold and make the article if you think it is notable or is very likely to become notable within 72 hours.

I say this as just looking up the notability of storms after it's been a while. – The Grid (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, 3 days after the article was created, the storm became a hurricane, and now it's national news. ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 15:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottywong: Every storm near the US is national news regardless of intensity. It happened to turn early and miss Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, which allowed it to become very strong. We aren't fortune tellers. Just because it is newsworthy does not substantiate notability. As a project, we ended the days of every storm getting an article. The storm has to actually do something to deserve an article. At that time, the requirements were not satisfied. Wyatt prematurely created the article. No article should be posted with such minimal content available. I had him create a draft and the situation was resolved by the time A1 decided to report it. A1 got full protection on a page once when a dispute had been resolved at least 12 hours prior, which caused a headache since nobody could update it with storm information. Noah^Talk 02:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank You for the message on my talk page. I do still feel sad, but you kind of made me feel a little better. Though it is still devestating to think what those people are going through. I really would like to thank you, Noah. Wyatt2049 | (Talk) or (Stalk) 13:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the message I left on User Talk:Jasper Deng for a prayer. Pray for those people. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 13:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks
	I was wondering where you were at ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! what is a ‎MH Article:? ~mitch~ (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchellhobbs: An article discussing the meteorological history. I will likely just make one myself and publish it after the storm dissipates so it has better flow and we dont have to worry about the infobox needing updated there too. Noah^Talk 10:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian Wow! Looks great Noah ~ very informative ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchellhobbs: Glad you like it thus far, but it isn't complete just yet. Noah^Talk 20:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noah! I know that you may be surprised by what I may say, But none of the following message is a typo. So. I think that you are great editor, and you have done many many contributions. You seem to have combated vandalism and have requested the protection of pages and have gone through. For these reasons, I would like to nominate you for Requests for adminship. I think that you will make a great admin. Let me know if you support the nomination, and I should create you an RFA page. --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 17:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyatt2049: While I have done a decent amount of work in content creation, I would be brutally ripped apart in a RfA for my overall lack of work elsewhere. I quite simply would not stand a chance at adminship. Noah^Talk 19:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still though, I think your a great editor, and you should keep going. You can do it! --Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 19:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]