User talk:Zzzs

Welcome!

Hi WildMouse76, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit revert

Please do not go around reverting my edits. I'll grant you the owl one since they consist of two major groups with distinctive facial differences, but snakes and penguins can easily be represented by one image. Particularly snakes, since their body plans aren't all that diverse. They are known as legless reptiles. LittleJerry (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Reverting edits with a conflicting reason is allowed, and anyone is free to do such. Just because you think it's right doesn't invalidate my reverts. I merely provided a counterargumemt. I suggest you establish a consensus (WP:BRD) to determine if the collage should be kept, especially since you did not provide a reason for your bold removals. WILD MOUSE what? 01:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You reverted three of my edits from three different articles within one day. LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@LittleJerry FYI, it was two in a day. The other was was a day before that. Anyway, how does that invalidate my reverts? The reverted edits were all similar actions. WILD MOUSE what? 01:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tree swallow

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Tree swallow in JBWR (25579).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Puffin with sand eels/2

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Puffin (Fratercula arctica) with lesser sand eels (Ammodytes tobianus).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Male springbok

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Antidorcas marsupialis, male (Etosha, 2012).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry

It seems I clicked the wrong button so the edit was false. eunn (meta · phab) 12:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's all good. No need to worry. _ZZ^Z'S 12:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Cyclone Freddy

Hey, I saw your edit in the Met history of Cyclone Freddy. I appreciate it. I think you could help fix the issues in the article to meet GAN standards. HurricaneEdgar 21:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd love to. I saw that you were struggling with some of the issues by Hurricanehink, so I came to help since it's a science-related article. You're welcome. _ZZ^Z'S 21:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the article! I was expecting you could also address the issues in GAN, since Freddy is an important part of the history. HurricaneEdgar 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was doing! There were some parts that I couldn't do since they require referencing, but I'll focus on the grammar-related issues. _ZZ^Z'S 21:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, met! It's been a long time since I started fixing the history. Look at the shape of the article. HurricaneEdgar 15:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems that you've completed all of the tasks. I only checked the ones that weren't checked off. Now we wait for the reviewer's opinion. _ZZ^Z'S 15:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2023 Fagradalsfjall eruption

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:001 Volcano eruption of Litli-Hrútur in Iceland in 2023 Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Tiger image

I do agree that the lead image for tiger could be a lot better, so I advise you to start a thread on the associated talk page rather than edit war. Best, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine XI: I just want to clarify that I wasn't trying to start an edit war, but was following 1RR. I only reverted because the performer didn't provide a reason. I thought about discussing it on the talk page, but it's not worth my time. Someone else can handle it. _ZZ^Z'S 21:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Please use direct links instead of redirections when you edit an article. Pierre cb (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Why should I do that? _ZZ^Z'S 14:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pierre cb forgot to ping. _ZZ^Z'S 15:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Because using a redirection is uncertain to what link one arrives and it is a step more for the wiki interpreter which is inefficient (ex. using [[tornadoes]] is instead of [[tornado]]es is an inefficient indirect link) Pierre cb (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

So that's what you were talking about? I would have done it if the script was also designed for mobile devices. I have to switch to desktop if I want to use it. I'll start using direct links on my laptop because it's easier. _ZZ^Z'S 17:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. Pierre cb (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Musinure

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew5. It is vital that once you recognize them as such (please refer to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Andrew5 and previous sock behavior, and take care not to WP:BITE or WP:DBQ), you WP:DENY them recognition and WP:DNFTT and instead just report them at the sockpuppet investigation for WP:RBI to occur. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dunnock

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Dunnock (Prunella modularis) 3.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

help

hello. how do I add the source 030303wilson (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE _ZZ^Z'S 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Heads up

I think you meant to put this on 2004 Pacific hurricane season, not Atlantic. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to quickly correct that. Thanks for the reminder! _ZZ^Z'S 19:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Unpiping links in Hurricane Cindy (2005)

Hey there, I just wondered why you unpiped all of the links? I prefer piping them so they don't result in redirects, and I'm plannong on taking the article to FAC soon. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

They were a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, so I unpiped them. _ZZ^Z'S 21:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I should probably include the reason in my edit summaries next time so something like this doesn't happen again. _ZZ^Z'S 21:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hah, I totally wasn't even aware that was a thing, I've been doing it the opposite way for years. In that case, thank you for your help. And since you've already started helping with Cindy, I wondered if you might want to co-nom the article for FAC? I'm in the final stages of fixing it up. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess I can be a co-nom. Also, don't worry about it. Not everyone is expected to know everything, like me. _ZZ^Z'S 21:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, let me know when you think the article is ready, I think it's just about ready for FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's about ready. You're free to nominate it. _ZZ^Z'S 21:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Just in case, Courtesy ping: Hurricanehink _ZZ^Z'S 22:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, please notify me once you nominate it. _ZZ^Z'S 22:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! I just nominated it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. All we have to do is wait. _ZZ^Z'S 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Georges in Mississippi

Hey, just checking, have you, or are you going to, merge the information from the Mississippi sub-article? Or was there nothing there that wasn't in the original article? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The same information in the Mississippi article is in the Hurricane Georges article. The only difference is that the Georges article has more information than Mississippi, so no information had to be moved. _ZZ^Z'S 18:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, I kinda figured, but had to check. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey Zzzs, I'll be taking a trip tomorrow for a few days, so I might not be able to respond to Cindy promptly (or get to much other editing). Was there anything else I needed to do for that current Cindy set of comments? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There are still a few tasks left. I might not get to them often as I have school right now. _ZZ^Z'S 20:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

OK no prob, I'll check and try getting to them tonight. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping out with Dennis! I just got back from my trip, so today I'll check if there's anything left to do for the article. Looks like there might still be a few dead links (of course!) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Testability or Verificationism or no link?

Hi, I want to let you know I started a topic in the Science talk page about the opportunity to link the word "testable" in the page incipit to Testability. I see that you removed a previous link to Testability, so I think your opinion can be valuable in the discussion. Fornaeffe (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Mentoring

Hey there, I'd be happy to mentor you! I enjoy the process of writing, and teaching people how to write. I guess a good start would be discussing what aspects of Earth sciences you're most interested in. I have plenty of suggestions, depending on which direction you want to go. If it's something involving tropical cyclones, then I think a list of tropical cyclones in a certain area is one of the best tests for an editor. It involves a fair bit of research, but it's not like you're writing an entire article for a certain storm. Like, Hurricane Katrina for example kinda scares me a little bit, because of how much needs to be written about. On the other hand, when I wrote List of California hurricanes, I realized that there were only one or two storms in a year. And then I realized what storms were the bad ones over the years, and found good references to local climatology.

It's a well-known goal that Wikipedia will eventually have weather lists for every part of the world. So if you want to get away from hurricanes for example, there is also a need for tornadoes in every area. Probably a similar story for floods as well. I recommend trying a list before you tackle a storm article for one important reason. A storm article can often lead to rabbit holes of information, endless lists of sources to go through, and is more of a research task than anything. A list can lean on existing Wikipedia articles a little bit, but make sure you don't copy articles. Open the sources and then write it in your own words. And then if you reach the end of Wikipedia's coverage (that sometimes happens the further back you go), then you'll hopefully already have sources that go back further, which is helpful for those lists. And one more bit about the lists - often when there's a bad storm, there will be a rush to compare it to some other storm. We have the "see also" section, in a way, but it's not good for ranking. A list is good because it focuses on the deadliest/costliest event for an area.

Lemme know what you think, but yes I'd be glad to mentor. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is perfect. I'm trying to learn how to improve the quality of articles for many subjects, but a list is a good start since it requires less work. Unfortunately, I might be inactive tomorrow because I have to go somewhere for a day (it's not fun), but you're welcome to mentor me at any time. _ZZ^Z'S 23:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Well how about we establish some good shorter and long term goals. I made the section below, which you can list maybe three different ideas. Short-term is the sort of thing you can probably get done in a half hour or so, so maybe that's a paragraph here or there, or adding storms from a certain year to a certain list. A longer term goal could be the sort of project you want to spent a lot of time on. Here is where I'd suggest the list, but maybe also another topic, so you're not tied to only doing one thing (which honestly can get kind of boring). If you have any kind of ADHD, my advice to you is to have a few different things you can bounce back and forth on, whenever you're ready. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait, @Hurricanehink. I was on mobile, which affected me from listing my goals. After my "trip," I kind of forgot about it until now. I have listed all of my goals that I believe will help the article satisfy the GA/FA, FL, or GT/FT criteria below. I have a short attention span and concentrating on one article isn't easy. Let me know what you think. _ZZ^Z'S 11:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries! I think a lot of us on here also have attention issues, that's when it's good to have a variety of things to shuffle through. Let's start with the short-term goals you have. As for copyediting, can I suggest Hurricane Nora (1997)? That is a former featured article, and right now has some pretty clear issues: short sections, misplaced commas, and combining the preps and impacts together. I wondered if you could start with taking a look there, and trying to address those issues I brought up, including splitting off a preparations section. I'll give you feedback based on your edits. I hope that's an OK place to start. My one main piece of advice is: don't try to do everything in one edit. Do small bits at a time. And just because I'd like you to make a few edits to that article, doesn't mean that you'll stick with that. This is kind of an important article because Nora was the reason the 1997 Pacific hurricane season is no longer a good topic. Nora is also part of the List of California hurricanes, and one of only 8 articles left before that is a good topic (see talk page). I'll end by saying that we only have so much energy and attention. If you're even reading this, thank you! I appreciate your time and effort, and I encourage you to keep up the good work.

TL;DR - wanna try working on something like Hurricane Nora (1997)? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't see any tedious work that needs to be done and yes I did read it all. I'll definitely do it. _ZZ^Z'S 01:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to check in about copyediting. I saw you made one edit to Nora, changing the dates, but I was curious about your ability to split up the preps/impact, and do some copyediting. Or, have you done any other kind of copyediting by chance? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

With multiple short, unnecessary subsections, splitting is definitely going to take a while to do. I'm more focused on the Cat 5 and/or retired tropical cyclones in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season than Hurricane Nora. For now, I'm going to put it on hold. Let's try something easier, like a list. _ZZ^Z'S 00:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK how's this - List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Can you add references to the landfall table? A lot of them might be the same references for the table up top. Doable? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That sounds possible. Should be easy too since all I have to do is copy the sources from the appropriate tropical cyclone articles. _ZZ^Z'S 00:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

And when/if a source is dead, then you can also take your try at retrieving dead links. Nice. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Any luck on that list by chance? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Not yet. I was trying to focus more on this list, but I'll get to it when I finish for the day. _ZZ^Z'S 19:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh even better! That's a pretty big regret of mine. I got all of the Florida hurricane lists to FL (thus making a featured topic), but I wasn't able to keep up with the present list (the downside of editing for so many years and having so many projects), so it got demoted. It looks like you've added a lot of sources - that was one of the main things missing. I see Mindy and Alex don't have sources. There's probably one too many images in the 2020s section. Are you going to add sources for each of the "deadly storms"? I notice that table has a parameter for that. You also might be able to expand the lead a little bit. There's the bit about the 2004 season, which is good, so maybe more about specific years? 2005 also had a lot of storms affecting the state. Also, do you think the list should be in present or past tense? I'm not sure why, when I wrote it, I did it in the present tense - it might've been because other lists were written that way. But looking back, it should probably be in the past tense. Any interest in making the article be in the past tense? For all of the work you've done, it's probably close to getting back to FLC, if you were interested in your first FLC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's the hard part of keeping articles featured. Sometimes, you're working on so many projects that you have little to no time to keep it featured and avoid demotion, which I absolutely hate, despite it being for the best. Anyway, I do plan on replacing the weak, unreliable sources with TCRs and journals. Obviously, I will add sources for each of the "deadly storms". I'll probably remove some of the images in the article and only add them for years when a storm significantly affected the state. (e.g. Hurricane Irma). The lead could be expanded a bit. I believe it should be in the past tense since the events are no longer occurring and is now history. Lastly, yes, I am very interested in my first FLC since I want to improve my article skills and help in assisting the vital articles. I feel like they're not really worked on since users are more focused on little-known storms like this (for the record, I haven't known about it until now) rather than vital, well-known, subjects that are no longer featured or good like these three articles since more people will visit them. Because they're an FFA, it would make Wikipedia look like they're less reliable. Furthermore, it won't give them the best information since they're not, well, featured/good articles. I also think that some, but not all, editors are less focused on them since they want to increase their count by working on less-known articles, but others don't do it because they don't know how to tackle it and/or it is too overwhelming for them (like me), and that's okay. I really wish more editors would work together on bringing a big, tough article to featured status since it helps the vital articles and gives them even more awards. Sorry that I derailed from the subject halfway, but I just want to express my reason. If you read all of this, thank you so much.

TL:DR: Yes, I'll add the sources, and expand the lead (if possible), and I prefer past tense. Also, I am very interested in my first FLC because my article skills will improve so I can tackle vital and former featured/delisted good articles. _ZZ^Z'S 23:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hah yes I read all of this. So it's tricky trying to foster those collaborations. You want people to want to do it, not feel like they have to do it. You brought up Babs - yea I actually got that to GA status. But with 300 deaths, it's not like that storm shouldn't have an article. And it seems like people are more likely to want to write new things rather than improving an existing article, which is why you end up getting some decent articles for older storms, while more important articles remain unfinished. It's also easier working on an article when there is a pretty specific focus, hence the List of storms for a certain area, or a storm article. The bigger the topic is, the harder it is to manage, like Katrina, or going even bigger, tropical cyclone. Because for that article to be complete, there are a number of articles that also need to be pretty thorough, like tropical cyclone effects by area or List of the deadliest tropical cyclones. So I wouldn't be too upset if important topics aren't done while lesser important stuff ends up getting good articles. It's a forever process - each year there are new storms to add to the existing workload, and at the same time, old sources are becoming easier than ever to access, including old newspapers, or using Google translator to get access to foreign sources. One thing I think we're doing right is merging the sub-articles when a storm article is not complete, and could handle the additional content. That's part of the long slow toward handling everything. Try not to get too overwhelmed, and just take it a little bit at a time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to take it a bit at a time. I'm very eager on the big articles, but trying to master the basics is important. I believe that the only hard parts about it is that you have to have excellent writing skills, the ability to expand content, and most importantly, devote time, a thing I'm not very good at. One has to review the article thoroughly, search for and mine the resources, and make sure each link is working. It is definitely a time consuming process, but in the end, it is worth it. I want to be that person, even if it takes an eternity. Anyway, I'd probably work on the article when I feel like it because I want to focus on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season's storm articles, but if it's for the best, I guess I could start working on it. _ZZ^Z'S 00:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yea, having written many articles, I know how much time it takes, and another factor is the want factor. If you really don't want to work on an article, why bother? But if a topic intrigues you, then try chasing that interest. The "excellent writing skills" isn't as big of an issue as you think it is. A lot of times, that isn't fixed until you take an article to FAC, when some phrases are going to stand out for their wording, but otherwise the topic is reasonably complete. So that's why I suggest starting with something small, like the links on the List of Cat 5 Atlantic hurricanes, or List of retired Atlantic hurricanes. Both of those are pretty important lists too. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Noted. I'll try to work on the Cat 5 and retired hurricanes list for both basins first before going at the Florida hurricane list since it involves less work, @Hurricanehink:. _ZZ^Z'S 16:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice! If you want to look at the WPTC in a hierarchical way, we have a few basic ways of dividing storms: by intensity, by location, by basin, whatnot. And everything we're doing is to eventually finish all of those tasks. That'll mean eventually getting each list done, hopefully with the most important first (like Cat 5 and the retired ones). As for location, Florida is one of the most important since it's hit so often and the state is so populated. Similar story for Texas. So hopefully you're not experiencing the feeling of overwhelming that typically affects longtime WPTC editor - that realization that there's still so much to do, and not nearly enough time for it all! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Zzzs, I saw your note on Dennis. It's been a crazy week for me, really haven't had much time for editing. I saw you mention your work for List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. How's that going adding those sources? I feel like that list could be at risk of being removed, since the referencing is rather poor for the storms. For example, the deaths and impacts for the 1938 Long Island hurricane is cited to IBTRACS, which mentions nothing about deaths/damages. At least for Dennis, the article is in a pretty good place right now. I still have a few journal articles to add before FAC though (including some in Spanish, ugh). But Google translate takes a little time, so that'll have to wait. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the very long wait. I was again busy with the previous user I linked on the Dennis talk in preparation for making the list a featured topic like the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season by uploading better satellite images. I haven't gotten to adding the new sources (which should be easy since they should be in the TCR) due to other external factors, but I'll get to it eventually. _ZZ^Z'S 16:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Make sure you don't get too bogged down with the minor stuff. It's why I'm not rushing the Isabel merger right now. It's low priority, and can't be done properly at the moment. As for the satellite images, that's useful, as are sources, are spotchecks, as are expanding on articles that aren't yet done. Recently I've been finishing up a major project in real life, so I tend to do more minor edits these days, which is why I haven't finished Dennis, or started on any other 2005 storms. My next project would probably be finishing up Stan, and/or co-nominating Wilma for FAC with 12george1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Zzzs, just wanted to check how you're doing these days. I wondered if you've gotten around to any article writing, or figured out any projects. I haven't been the most active on here, but I'm trying to help out when I can. I'll have a lot more time for editing in like two weeks, finishing up a big work project here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Goals

Short term

• Copy-editing
• Repairing dead links for both images and citations
• Editing the article to comply with most, if not all MOS guidelines

Long term

• Detecting copyright violations
• Making well-written, professional articles (according to WP:FACR)
• Making technical articles understandable
• Expanding sections and articles
• Finding, appropriately using, and mining many reliable/high-quality sources
• Cleaning up articles according to their maintenence tag(s) (e.g. not following a neutral POV, missing inline citations)
• Making an article comprehensive and how to identify when one is not
• Splitting and merging sections and subsections

Florida article link in Hurricane Helene table

Hello, I'm unsure as to why the Florida article link is MOS:OVERLINK while the other states in the impact table are not. Shouldn't the other state's article links that are heavily mentioned in the article such as Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee also fall under that and not just Florida if there is an issue with the Florida article link in the table? Raskuly (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Florida is more widely known than the other states your mentioned. For the others, it depends on how much they are linked. I recommend only linking them once when mentioned in the first section. For the table, I think it's fine, but don't link it in the infobox. _ZZ^Z'S 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So you're fine with it being linked in the state impact table? That is where I'm referring to. A little bit confused, apologies. Raskuly (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed topic from Talk:Hurricane Milton

Hey there, I left this note because the article needs to be updated, both in the short description and in the article's body, which doesn't mention the downgrade last time I checked. I'm not familiar with editing storms' articles, so I left the not hooping someone could attend to it. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane%20Milton&diff=1250112740&oldid=1250110847 BhamBoi (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I too am also sorry for the very long wait. I removed it because it could be interpreted as trying to start a forum discussion and I didn't want to be on the err side since talk page spam was on the rise for tropical cyclone articles and they add to the clutter. _ZZ^Z'S 16:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Revert Maria Eugenia Giron

Hi Zzzs

I would like to understand why you have reversed my last issue on this personality. I have studied his career and accomplishments in order to expand on a person with extensive accomplishments, being a public figure.

Thank you very much

María Eugenia Girón Wikigeorgejorge (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am profusely sorry for the long wait, but I saw your changes to the short description that exceeded the 100-character mark. I thought that was the only info you changed so I reverted it. _ZZ^Z'S 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Sorry to hear about the stress - here's a digital cookie, and not the type that tracks what websites you use! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's all good. It's just that the community is seriously wearing me out. First, they think the most useless article that is hindering the hurricane from being a FT should be kept just because of some archaic policy that no one has heard of, giving the non-TC community more power than the TC community, the latter agreeing that the article is genuinely useless. Then they think this article shouldn't be merged into its parent just because it has "unique information" and it being a FA, despite it being the least impacted state that has its own article and its only 17k bytes, including the unnecessary stuff outside the preparations, impact, and aftermath. Now, they think the least notable Cabo Verde fish storm of hurricane strength of the season should deserve its own article just because it caused "catastrophic" damage and one fatality, saying the latter automatically makes the storm notable, which is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. And when I visibly expressed by frustration with the ridiculous outcome, I get warned! I am seriously considering quitting due to the utter amount of nonsense consensus is giving me. Usually, I wouldn't hold grudges, but the fact people would believe in the most ridiculous reasons for keeping the darnedest articles and not actually improving the main info people are coming here to see baffles me! _ZZ^Z'S 23:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And don't get me started on the peak images. _ZZ^Z'S 23:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oof someone sounds stressed! It's OK hah. You have to remember a few things about Wikipedians. First, we like rules and consistency. Second, most of us probably have ADHD to some degree, so if you have strongly held convictions, sometimes it's better to do your own thing. That's why I typically don't work on newer articles just a policy, unless I wanted to chime into a talk page discussion. As for the Katrina timeline, eh, I do think there could be some use for that once all of the Katrina articles are done. Such a timeline would probably include when the last FEMA payments went out to Katrina victims. And given how popular of an article is, I wasn't surprised at all that people voiced their opposition to merging the timeline. There are a ton of articles and a lot of information to be covered, so that article wasn't going to make or break the project. Also as for Isabel, you'd think I would be the one being annoyed, since I wrote the sub-articles :P But honestly I don't care as much, as long as the info is on Wikipedia. I hope you don't quit, as I think you're a valuable editor, so long as you don't put all of your value in trying to get people to change their minds, since that's never gonna happen! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what I don't like about Wikimedians. They just believe in the darnedest things on the planet and stick to that belief for eternity. I'm definitely never touching the Timeline article ever again, even if it means jeopardising the existence of Hurricane Katrina as a featured topic. I'll probably renominate the Delaware subarticle for merging sometime in the future, but might be met with criticism due to the parent article's size. Also, about the quitting part, I can't garuntee that, but I'll most likely do a clean start and edit in a different topic rather than just stop editing at Wikipedia. However, anything can happen. _ZZ^Z'S 02:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There's always the option of working on an article that almost no one else works on. For example, there's a need for older typhoon season articles 1903-1934. Or older retired Atlantic storm articles. Trust me, it's tough trying to convince people of anything on this website, particularly with any popular or controversial article, so I find it's best to go with the flow. I usually find niche topics, or work on articles that are needed. Even attempting the 2005 AHS is outside of my usual comfort zone, and I'm still very much petrified of all of the work needed to finish Katrina. But at the very least it's good to be real about expectations and emotions, which are some of the trickier parts of navigating being a Wikipedia editor. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably not participate in the older typhoon season articles because most, if not all of them are not vital/important enough since little people would view it. I just want the retired names (e.g. List of retired Australian region cyclone names) and tropical cyclones that reached the highest category of their respective basin's scale lists (e.g. List of violent typhoons) and their subarticles to be at featured status, as well as some notable seasons from each basin. Also, the Hurricane Katrina article, while may look tedious, shouldn't be too hard since we can just take the info from the appropriate subarticle. While some of the sources are outdated and will take a while to revive the dead ones and replace the unreliable/non-academic ones, unless you're trying to do Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and Effects of Hurricane Katrina in the Southeastern United States, it doesn't seem too hard to repair. Also, merging some of the shorter, less useful articles (some examples can be found here, here, and here) would increase the parent article's comprehensiveness and would make getting it to featured status easier. _ZZ^Z'S 03:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, good strategy then. I agree that the retired storms lists should be a high priority, both in terms of getting the lists done, and eventual featured topics. As for Katrina, it's not just taking info from the subarticles, it's also researching the mountains of information that's come out over the last 20 years, whether it's talking about the displacement, or the rebuilding of New Orleans, to the political fallout. Mergers aren't gonna help too much, not when there are tons of articles that need writing. IDK, are there any Katrina articles you think you might want to tackle as a starter? I'm not ready to do those articles, but I can give you some pointers if you wanted to tackle any of them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd most likely do Hurricane Katrina first since it is arguably the easiest one out of the topic and vital to getting the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to featured topic. _ZZ^Z'S 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Katrina subarticles

Not gonna revert you, but why did you restore the numbers that didn’t agree with the TCR? Crete44 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the edits didn't agree with it too. _ZZ^Z'S 23:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn’t have the New Orleans death toll then. We can’t perpute inaccurate info and the 1392 is very clearly wrong. Crete44 (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove it if you must, but keep the SEUS info. _ZZ^Z'S 13:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that I've blocked Crete44 as a confirmed sock account.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Cat

I don't like people reverting my edits not once but on several occasions. In this case, your edits, and more importantly your edit summaries, are automatic, so of course I won't read them. That said, if you have a problem with my edits then say it to my face; there's no need to play this game. Also, your use of edit summaries like "Didn't you read what I wrote?" are questionable. The whole point of this message is to tell you that it's not wise to use userscripts and start feeling the need to revert more experienced users many times over. I strongly advise you to communicate next time out. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit summaries that did not mention anything about non-breaking spaces were not automatic, but I seriously believe you should start reading them, automatic or not. Also, are you assuming I'm trying to play games with you? What "games" are you talking about? I literally said why I reverted your edits, which were inappropriately removing non-breaking spaces. What's getting on my nerves is that you continued to remove them even after I said why. Even worse, you did not provide a reason. Also, about feeling the need to revert more experienced users many times over, I only reverted your edits once after removing a useful non-breaking space. If the other edits look similar, then that's a coincidence. Also, a user's experience level does not give them the right to violate MOS guidelines without a good reason. Lastly, I strongly advise you to communicate next time out, I was most definitely going to start a discussion on your talk page if you removed a non-breaking space again as I did with the Narwhal article. Also, if you could so much as to avoid wording like there's no need to play this game would be appreciated. _ZZ^Z'S 04:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You are so aggressive, man. If my edits violated MOS, you should have taken it to my user talk page and discussed it with me instead of reverting my edits as if I were a vandal. I find your actions extremely disrespectful, and I urge you to stop. This behavior is typical of you, as evidenced by the "Edit revert" section, where you reverted an established user like LittleJerry. Personally, you have lost all of my respect. @Hurricanehink: Can you comment on this? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Really? You're going to call me "aggressive" now? Is there something wrong with my tone because this isn't how I wanted it to be. I just said that I would have discussed it on your talk page if you reverted it again like what we did with the Narwhal article. I don't know how you think I was reverting your edits like a vandal because that is definitely not how I would treat you if so. I simply told you what was wrong with your edits, but you edited like you ignored it. The incident with LittleJerry was that they instated a bold edit. I boldly reverted it, but they kept restoring it. Stuff like this is why Wikipedia is ticking me off. _ZZ^Z'S 15:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

OK folks, this is a Wikipedia page about a cat. Two points to bring up as an admin. Wolverine XI (talk · contribs), you did undo the very thing Zzzs edited by removing the non-breaking space, and only had the edit summary "Ce", presumably "copyediting". However, that's not an improvement to the article. All numbers should be formatted in a way that the numbers and whatever number they're referring to appear next to each other. 22.3 billion and 22.3 billion might look the same to you and 99% of other people, but it's annoying for the 1% of people where the size settings makes them appear separate. Second, Zzzs (talk · contribs) should probably have given a heads up in the future after the first revert, rather than the edit summary "did you read what I just said", because I'm gonna be honest, most people don't read the edit summaries. They're useful for the people who do read them, but a lot of people approach Wikipedia from their own point of view. Not everyone has a watchlist. Most of us are not out to get each other. We're just trying to write an encyclopedia, right? So in the spirit of good faith, I'm going to assume both of you don't actually have any ill will toward each other. And to Zzzs, if stuff is annoying you and you're taking it personally, then that might be a good time to take a break. There's no need for stress. We're just trying to write about everything in the known multiverse. That shouldn't be too difficult, right? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems fair. I guess I'll just move on. Thanks anyway, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

HUGS!!!!!

Aww man I saw that you're suffering from health issues. Sorry to hear that. Sending virtual hugs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It's all good. _ZZ^Z'S 11:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw your one comment - "What is wrong with Wikipedia". Mind if I give you some advice? Stop trying to convince people of things on Wikipedia! You're doing a lot of talk page discussions, but I think you'd have a lot more fun actually writing articles/lists. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I know, but it's hard when the opposing users say the darnedest stuff against something that would actually improve the article. It frustrates me that we have too many people who do that. _ZZ^Z'S 22:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, writing articles is very hard to do on mobile since looking through sources is tedious and most editing scripts can't run on mobile. _ZZ^Z'S 22:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you able to edit on a computer at all? Writing articles is the whole point of Wikipedia. Also, everyone has differing opinions for the best way to improve an article. For what it's worth, I think it's best to have a few sub-articles and see how they develop, rather than shoving it all into the same article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I edit a lot from devices like those. _ZZ^Z'S 22:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. Yea, then I suggest anytime you get annoyed on the talk pages, then take some time and focus on a project on your own. I'm finally getting around to the Hurricane Katrina effects article, btw. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Your closure of Talk:Snowy albatross § Requested move 29 September 2024

Your closure of the RM appears to be outside the scope of WP:RMCI as you were WP:INVOLVED, having previously made a !vote in the discussion. The editor has reopened the RM instead of discussing this with you or initiating a MRV so there's no point in litigating this close further. I'm just letting you know so you are made aware and to avoid making the same error in the future. Thank you, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

With that said, will you strike your closing summary so it is not relied on in future RMs? Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That one was on accident. I forgot about that rule and my instincts got the best of me. Yes, please strike my closing summary too. _ZZ^Z'S 00:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I’ve stricken your close at your request, and I'll invite you to partake (but not close the new RM)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Snowy albatross § Requested move 21 October 2024. You're invited to this discussion as you participated in the previous RM, which result has since been stricken. Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Page length being too short

Hey there, I saw you add the tag to Arlene. Any chance you could try yourself expanding the lead? And then maybe seeing if there's anything else to do for the article? The 2005 AHS topic is getting momentum, so we'll need to make sure all of the articles are up to code. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite tired today. I don't think I will be working much on article expansion. _ZZ^Z'S 00:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey I saw you propose another merger (typhoon). Is there a reason that’s your main focus these days? By merging articles, it’s not like any new content is getting added to Wikipedia, and as I’ve pointed out many times, there’s a big need for new articles to be written (whether it’s expanding leads or articles). Just checking. It feels like every other day I see another merge proposal, but I only see a few editors actually writing articles. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Can't do that on mobile. I have to source check, which is really difficult and annoying to do on mobile. Even if I don't edit on mobile, I don't feel like I have the confidence and knowledge to do that. It looks really difficult, even though it kind of isn't, and every time I try, I just give up or forget about it. _ZZ^Z'S 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well good thing you have a friendly neighborhood administrator/writer at your service! There are two points here. One is the sort of editing you do on mobile. There are some great tasks that can be done easily on mobile, without being too difficult to navigate the source. One is working on tables, and the other is lists. For example, the List of United States hurricanes. On the talk page, a few users have been working on a table to add to the main article by listing the impacts for each storm. That can be very easy to add, you just need to know the right number for US damage, or deaths. For the damage, most of it is from the same NCEI source -link here. The death toll is trickier. Sometimes it's the TCR, but sometimes the TCR doesn't include the indirect deaths, but Wikipedia doesn't always make that distinction. A traffic death and a drowning death would both be included. And that's the sort of thing that you might need to copy from a certain page, which might be easier to do on a computer.

But as for the other thing, "don't feel like I have the confidence and knowledge to do that", I can understand the confidence part, but definitely not the knowledge part! It doesn't take a PhD to write about articles, and in fact, that can be problematic if you know too much about a topic, and make it too confusing for the everyday reader. I guess I should ask, how much do you understand the basic mechanics of how a tropical cyclone develops, moves, and eventually dissipates? And follow up, are you familiar with the general type of impacts that severe tropical cyclones cause?

Consider this as part of your longterm mentorship/guidance I guess. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I just got on my computer right now. The main problem I have with mobile is source checking. Sometimes, the source is a website and others, it's a PDF. Mining the sources is time consuming since I always have to go back and forth between the source and Wikipedia, regardless if it's a PDF or not. The main problem with the sources is finding and identifying which sources would be appropriate to use because some of the time, I don't know. I also have to put a lot of time writing the information from the sources. I'm also not experienced in working with sources. Another thing I'm worried about is the general knowledge of some topics. While I do know the basics of tropical cyclone formation, movement, and dissipation and its impacts, there are some topics like certain tropical cyclones, more specific articles, and others that I'm not very experienced in. Overall, it is too complex and time-consuming for me to get used to, but I will still try my best. _ZZ^Z'S 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I get that. Writing about storms can be complicated when the storms have crazy tracks and ups and downs. Also, you mentioned about identifying which sources are appropriate. That's a great question, and depends on the storm and the area. Storms in the United States will have the highest quality information coming from the NHC, NCDC, or NCEI. Different story for Mexico, where you might struggle to find an appropriate Mexican government source since it'll probably be in Spanish. And I'm guessing you mainly speak English? If that's the case, do you think you're mostly limited to storms affecting English-speaking areas? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, English is my native language. I don't believe I am mainly restricted to English as I understand the very basics of Spanish because I am taking a course on it. I'm planning on taking language courses for French, Portuguese, Dutch, German, Italian, and Esperanto, respectively. Also, I can just use Google Translate for the material. In addition, the languages have some similarities like cognates, so reading articles in different languages while being fluent in a similar language (aka Spanish and Portuguese) wouldn't be too difficult since the language barrier is weaker. Also, thanks for the source suggestions, although I don't know which sources to use for the other basins. _ZZ^Z'S 13:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well then I'm glad those other languages aren't too daunting for you! That means writing about Spanish or Malagasy storms won't be too difficult. In that case, I think the best thing to do is find an article you're really interested in. I'm just trying to figure out what editing difficulties you're having, and if there's anything I can do. You had mentioned trying to improve the List of Cat 5 hurricanes - how's that going? Do you think you could add a source for Milton's deaths, or perhaps the damage total for the 1935 Labor Day hurricane? Those seem like pretty easy edits. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Whoa there!

This makes Wikipedia a failure? Zzzs I'm a little disappointed! There are going to be times people disagree with you. Don't take that disagreement as evidence of Wikipedia failing. It's part of the process. There have been countless times I've either been wrong and corrected by others, or been on the wrong side of an argument. It sucks, but it's part of getting along with other people, who have their own views of how to make Wikipedia better. I appreciate your editing energy, I really do, but not when it's so anti-Wiki like that edit summary was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Jarrell tornado image

Hi Zzzs -- I see you reverted me replacing the unfree image of the tornado with a free one. All good -- but I just wanted to let you know that I've now tagged the unfree image for deletion, since we have a free alternative. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate references tag

Rather than spending the time to add the tag of the duplicate references, have you tried just combining the refs? It's really easy and doesn't take much time or coding work. I can help you if you need. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Never tried again because I don't know how to do it. The last time I did it, it broke the code, so I thought it would be better if I just let other people know about it since I believe the more people exposed to it, the more likely someone will fix it. _ZZ^Z'S 18:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hah breaking the code isn't the end of the world. Sometimes people just get used to the tags at the top of the page, so I encourage the attitude of, "If not me, then who?" If you ever wanted to try it, go down to the references section of the article, and click on the footnote for where the reference was used the first time. That way you can see what the ref name is. And speaking of, do you know what I mean by ref name? It shows up as <ref name="tcr"/> - something like that. When you have the duplicate references, go to where the other reference is, and just remove all of the coding, replacing it with <ref name="tcr"/>. What usually breaks the coding is if the end of the reference isn't closed, so that's very easy to check. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey Zzzs, I see you're adding more of those duplicate reference tags. At a certain point, too many tags just clutter up the page. It's better to be bold and just do the edit you want to happen, rather than tagging it. I know you were worried about messing things up, but things aren't going to get better unless people take action. So while I admire your action toward identifying a problem, I'm encouraging you to go the next step and just combine the references. Again, all you have to do is figure out what the reference name is, then replace the duplicate reference with the basic reference name. It's just about as easy as adding the tag to the page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI

Just as an FYI, you grabbed Joseph Ca98's vote and not your own vote in your strike edit on Talk:Tropical Storm Sara. I've corrected it since it contained a selfclosing tag error and was clear that it was a misgrab. Almost no HTML tags here on Wikipedia end with a slash; only two I can think of are break tags <br/>, and calling a predefined named ref. Best wishes, Zinnober9 (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Too much experience with break tags. Instincts got to me. As a person who knows HTML, I use break tags a lot. Thanks for fixing it. _ZZ^Z'S 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

2005 AHS topic

Hey there Zzzs, now that Dennis is finally getting some traction at FAC, looks like the 2005 AHS topic is one step closer. I wondered if you still had any interest in helping on that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I am planning to work on the retired or Category 5 hurricanes, but I'm still confused about how to get the articles to FA status. The biggest problem I have is the main sources to use for its effects and meteorological stuff, especially for older storms and certain basins. There are other questions I have, but I'll ask them later. _ZZ^Z'S 01:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's actually impossible to get the Cat 5 hurricane to FA status! But that's because it would be a featured list. As for sources, if it's before 1970, then the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project is probably the best bet, save for maybe the Monthly Weather Review, for meteorology stuff. If it's just intensity or how many hours a storm was at a certain intensity, you can use the Template:Atlantic hurricane best track. As for damage, that's a totally different story, and depends on the area. For the United States, there is pretty good record-keeping going back to around 1870, when daily weather data started being kept. In Mexico, your best might be newspapers if it's an older storm. When I wrote List of Mexico hurricanes, I had to go through some old searches to find some Mexico-specific information. For Cuba, it might also be in Spanish, so have searches like "huracan [name] daños". As for other basins, again, depends on the area. Australia and New Zealand has a lot of good records that go back a while, not so much for Madagascar or Mozambique. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I meant the tropical cyclones in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season that peaked as a Category 5 hurricane. Also, I was testing my FA skills because I really, really want to get Jupiter to a featured article because it being the only good article in the list of planets bugs me a lot. I'm a bit nervous about whether I'll mess up on something, but can you watch my edits and point out anything that was done wrong or needs fixing? _ZZ^Z'S 06:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, well I am working on Hurricane Emily (2005) right now, which is the easiest of the four '05 Cat 5's (since it wasn't retired). Do you have any interest helping on that one? What's needed is thorough impacts for each area affected by the storm, as well as its impacts and aftermath. But if you're more interested in Jupiter, I can give help you there. Keep in mind that it being a planet article, it's going to be very different than a hurricane article. For starters, Jupiter has been on FAC several times, meaning there will probably be comments there, and it is currently a good article, so you might want to check with the user who got the article to GA status for what's needed for FA (Praemonitus). As for watching your edits, I'm not sure what articles you're editing, but if you tell me what you're working on, I can give feedback. What article is your focus these days? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I just want to get the main topics/branches of various scientific fields to FA status because I want Wikipedia to be a good place for learning. For meteorology, there are a lot of articles I want to improve, but the most important (the articles that, in my duration of being on this site, must be and stay featured) are the articles in this category. I'm practicing my skills on Jupiter since I believe it is pretty close to FA status as well as close that annoying quality gap in the Solar System topic. I could try to help with Hurricane Emily (2005) if I have the courage and time, but if you want to, you could give me some suggestions (I'd prefer specific requests so the chances of mistakes or misinterpretations are lower) about its quality or anything that could help the article attain featured status here. Also, which websites are you using to get the sources (not the ones you get from the NHC's TCR and NDNC or something like that)? _ZZ^Z'S 04:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I get that, but it's going to be very difficult working on a top importance article if you've never even written a low importance article. You're going to have to figure out how to write references, or expanding sections. Let's take Jupiter since that seems to be your focus. What have you been doing as far as your edits, and what do you see as the biggest thing that needs to be improved before another FAC? Here are some other comments.

• One thing that stands out to me is the units. I see "gigameter" being linked in the first paragraph, but it's not used at all after that. The infobox uses millions of kilometres.
• Make sure to also include imperial units for the table for "Flyby missions", for "340-kilogram", "75 million km", "10 km", "12 cm", and any other metric units that don't have conversions.
• Make sure the referencing is top-notch. I see there's not a source at the end of "Name and symbol".
• There are also small parts that you want to make sure are accurate and up to date. For example - "The first of these, 588 Achilles, was discovered by Max Wolf in 1906; since then more than two thousand have been discovered." According to the article for the Jupiter trojans, there are millions, of which 7,000 have been catalogued. Way more than 2,000.
• "In his 2nd century work the Almagest, the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus constructed a geocentric planetary model based on deferents and epicycles to explain Jupiter's motion relative to Earth, giving its orbital period around Earth as 4332.38 days, or 11.86 years." - while this is good stuff, there's nothing in the article saying how the orbital period of "4,332.59 days" was figured out, which is the figure in the infobox.

In short, there is a fair amount of work to do. I wonder what you've done so far and what your plans are? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Also lol, looks like the anonymous IP address we've been dealing with across various pages, plus the guy who has been insistent on working on Hurricane Irene (and being a bit hostile on the talk pages tbh), was just blocked because he's a longtime sockpuppet. I had a weird feeling when the user had a surprising knowledge of policy. Shame on me for assuming the best in people. Also, one of the IP users who vandalized your user talk page also got blocked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed. So the accounts that pushed my buttons and almost made me do terrible things were operated by the same user, a sock puppeteer, all along? That's why I'm not a fan of globally banned users. Anyway, I'm still working on some of the advice you gave me for Jupiter; I've only implemented about half of those. I have been trying to follow the comments on the article's failed featured article candidate nomination before running it through another peer review and finally nominating it for another (and hopefully last) FAC. Yeah, top-importance articles are pretty painful to work with given the amount of information about some articles (like Light, Volcano, Tornado, Atom, you get the rest), but I want to know how to tackle them so I don't have to rely on other editors to do the work when I could be doing it instead. I started this page so I could write notes about the article improvement process for science-related topics and read the page while following the directions to improve an article instead of memorising all of it in my head. _ZZ^Z'S 02:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey Zzzs, just wanted to reach out and check in, see how your progress is going with Jupiter, or any other articles. I see your edits now and then, so I wondered if you've tackled any of these projects you mentioned, and if you needed guidance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It's going alright. I checked the references for reliability and removed those that are not high quality. I'm still working on most of the suggestions since I mostly forgot about it. There seems to be another user named 750h+ who is also working on the article, so that could reduce the workload for me. I'm also working on redesigning my user page. I am still preparing a guide to help me with getting an article for GA/FA. _ZZ^Z'S 18:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, before writing an essay on writing a GA, you should probably write a good article first! And like I said, it's probably best to try it with something that isn't top-importance, so it's a little easier. That's why I like working on less interesting storms at times, like Hurricane Juliette (2001), since it should obviously have an article, but it doesn't need as much work as a retired storm article. It's also good when you have someone to collaborate with, but part of article writing is getting used to doing things yourself - doing the research and writing. And then maybe at the end having others helping you out by cleaning up prose and providing peer reviewing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk page minor edits

Hey Zzzs. I noticed that you have marked several talk-page and article edits as minor edits, which I believe are not acceptable minor edits. Edits like these [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] were all made within the last 48 hours and were marked as minor edits. Don't worry. I was recently made aware of myself wrongfully marking minor edits. Even in that discussion, the person who brought it to my attention also had wrongful minor edits. Anyway, that discussion made me become a little more aware of them, so our recent editing disagreement brought it to my attention. I just wanted you to be aware of that and to be a little more cautious with marking edits as minor edits, especially on talk pages.

For a note, any edit marked as a minor edit is one that has zero chance of ever being brought up by another editor. So for example, this reversion on Orbital spaceflight is not "obvious" vandalism. Obvious vandalism is something like changing the first like of Tornado to say X political party causes them. However, in that edit, (which was over 1,300 bytes), it is not very obvious vandalism. WP:MINOR actually states, "Any change affecting an article's meaning is not minor, even if it concerns a single word." The other user who changed the content did not mark it as a minor edit, but your reversion, which also included no word-based edit summary, was marked as minor and clearly changed the article.

Like I said, you do not need to worry about this message/reminder at all. Since I recently became more aware of what to mark as minor, I happen to notice it, where I would have ignored it beforehand. So, I recommend quickly reviewing WP:MINOR and then continue editing to improve Wikipedia! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

#1: Removing a duplicate reply by that was accidentally made when both actions (the reply and the removal) were performed by a user is a minor edit and would reasonably be met with no opposition

#2-5 and #7: The topics were either violating WP:NOTFORUM or were complete gibberish and would also reasonably be met with no opposition

#8: The image was already used in a different date, so one storm can only have one image representing them for one date, not multiple; I do not see how that could not be met with opposition

The rest of the edits, well, could reasonably be met with opposition. I'll try to be more careful when marking an edit as minor so stuff like this doesn't happen again. Thanks. _ZZ^Z'S 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hernan merge discussion

Hi there, Zzzs. I mean this in the nicest of ways, and I supported your proposal, but I don't think you should have closed the merge discussion for Hernan. WP:BADNAC warns editors against closing discussions in which they were involved, especially if the close matches the editor's own opinion. Granted, there was only one editor in opposition to merging Hernan's article and several in support, but I still think we should have waited for an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Grammar fix to ISS

Legitimate question, how is fixing a grammatical error, (based on a precedent set by another article) not an improvement? Not criticizing, just looking for answers. Thank you! 69.167.204.2 (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The word you're changing has the same meaning, but different spelling. Unless you have a compelling reason (no, it's not a grammatical error), then the spelling should not be changed. _ZZ^Z'S 03:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what would it be classified as then? The semantics of the change reason are not reason enough to change it back, I think. At any rate, having an article on "man-hours" with no mention of "'person-hours,'" and yet using the latter over the former is disconcerting, at the very least. One or the other should probably be changed. 69.167.204.2 (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"Fair enough", but I'll keep asking another editor the same question on their talk page. Please desist. Seasider53 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Because @Zzzs actually gave me a response and didn't just blank the talk page, three times. Also, WP:HOUND much? 69.167.204.2 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)