User talk:98.197.198.46

Your edits at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Would you mind, if it's not too much trouble, signing up for an account? Your edits at that page are massive and they'd raise fewer red flags if they came from a logged-in user. City Of Silver 05:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider it. I've gotten that request several times, but right now, making edits to improve Wikipedia is just a pastime for me, and I'm probably not going to make as many edits as soon as this hurricane season is up.98.197.198.46 (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you look in the edit history for this page, you'll see that I had trouble figuring out how to indent.98.197.198.46 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your indentation. As for your edit, did you read the link provided by @Yellow Evan:, namely MOS:BODY? It is generally well-understood that each storm's section is a summary of that storm's meteorological evolution, impacts, and any applicable records, so the headers you are adding are entirely redundant.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at Yellow Evan's edit summary and figured that since some of the headers that I was adding applied to multiple paragraphs, what I was doing was okay. Also, no one had previously explained to me that Summary headers were redundant; thank you for doing so, and with that in mind, I won't make that mistake again.

@CityOfSilver:, I wanted to let you know that Jasper Deng just succeeded in doing what you failed to do: Pressuring me into creating an account. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 19:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Disturbances[edit]

This is apparently an alias for a recently-added parameter that I was not aware of the existence of, which was my mistake. It was added about one month ago. If you think an editor has made a mistake or has in fact made a very obvious mistake, be sure to mention it (which you did do here)! Master of Time (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the parameter did exist before then, but not for potential tropical cyclones. Master of Time (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

There is still no reason to use the templates for the dates - it just makes things much more complicated, not to mention when editing the article. I appreciate your efforts to help out, but this really isn't the way to resolve an edit dispute/conflict. The only effective way is to discuss and come to an agreement, usually through the use of talk pages. This issue is already being discussed at the talk page for 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Changing the article format like that really isn't going to help, and mind you, if an editor gets really heated up, even changing the format like that won't stop them from reverting the page to the revision that they were fighting for. In any event, assuming that the format stays, it's going to be removed once this season ends on November 30, so it's pretty much pointless. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your point of view. Most of your reasoning has already occurred to me, and here are my responses:

There is still no reason to use the templates for the dates - it just makes things much more complicated, not to mention when editing the article.

Because only little parts of the article are in the parser function, it shouldn't create a lot of difficulty. If there were large chunks of text in the function, that would be confusing to editors.

I appreciate your efforts to help out, but this really isn't the way to resolve an edit dispute/conflict. The only effective way is to discuss and come to an agreement, usually through the use of talk pages. This issue is already being discussed at the talk page for 2017 Atlantic hurricane season.

I looked at the Talk Page TOC, and I didn't see anything that looked like a discussion about the topic, so I assumed that there was never a discussion (The issue for this specific hurricane season has only come up recently, so any section about it wouldn't have been archived yet.) and therefore no discussion-reached consensus. After you said that there was in fact a discussion, I looked through the individual sections and saw that this section actually discusses it. I didn't realize that at first because the title wasn't obvious (I was expecting a title that contained the word tense, as I did not know that lead was a synonym.), and you didn't give a particular section in the link to the talk page.

Changing the article format like that really isn't going to help, and mind you, if an editor gets really heated up, even changing the format like that won't stop them from reverting the page to the revision that they were fighting for.

My idea was to appease each group by putting what it wants in the page in the page. Also, the past tense wouldn't show until the season officially ended, pleasing the wait-until-the-season-ends group. That was my logic; it might be wrong, but it made sense to me.

In any event, assuming that the format stays, it's going to be removed once this season ends on November 30, so it's pretty much pointless.

When December 1^st comes, it will automatically change itself, which is the point of the parser functions.

BTW, I think there is a general agreement to list the article as "ongoing" until the season officially ends later this week.

That's what I was trying to do with the parser functions.

Some editors may not agree, but we can't satisfy everyone all the time. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that that's what I was trying to do: Satisfy everyone.

What do you think? By the way, I'm going to change the title of that talk page section to make it clearer in the TOC.98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there may not have been a discussion when you first made the edits, but there is one now (which you've probably figured out). Also, the dating tags is only going to be temporary if it is kept; I don't recall anyone using anything of this type on past hurricane season articles before. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that they'll be gotten rid of eventually, but there would be no urgent need to do so if they're included.98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Winter Storm Aiden (January 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MadeYourReadThis was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

References provided are from the weather channel, lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. TWC's storm-naming practices have been frowned upon by the meteorological community which is probably why you are having difficulty finding sources outside of the company itself and it's other brands (e.g. Weather Underground)

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Winter Storm Aiden and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Winter Storm Aiden, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 98.197.198.46! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.