User talk:CapeVerdeWave/Archive4

Hi friend! Can you remember, which sort of publication was the source? I can't find any document with such a title on the Kéraunos Observatoire website, nor anywhere else.--Yellow Horror (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Fernanda 94 peak.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1967 Iowa–Minnesota tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ebenezer, Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Gilma 94 peak.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Kenneth 94 peak.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:TS Bud epac 06 vis3a.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:TyphoonMike 1990 peak.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:HurrBud epac 06 vis3a.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there CVW. I hope you've been well in these crazy times. It's great to see you editing - I saw you working on 1949 Florida hurricane. Your writing on those older Florida hurricanes is impressive, I really appreciate that. I wondered if you might want to nominate any of those older storms for FAC? The project has a lot of really good articles, but many of them aren't featured when they really should be. Just food for thought. Be well and stay healthy :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an A-class review (pre-FAC review), I can do one if you'd like. I'm sure TheAustinMan appreciates the review for 1916 Texas hurricane. I think you'll find that your writing and depth of research holds up to the best of the hurricane articles, so I'm glad you're exploring a future FAC :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:TS Carlotta epac 06 vis1a.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am 1 of the newest Wikipedia editors. I just joined the Severe Weather Project and also plan to join the Tropical Cyclone Project, but have been monitoring Wikipedia for 6+ years. You do some amazing work, so I hope that we get along well! Feel free to check out my page and contributions to learn a little more about me!

I also, want to let you know, that I have also started to reorganize the tornado charts in order to make them easier to read as well. We can coordinate together so that we can work on this project effectively! ChessEric (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me with my new 1953 articles! I had to make alot of inferences/assumption on the damage so you were a HUGE help. By the way, if you go to my page, you'll see a progress page on the User:ChessEric/Early-December 1953 tornado outbreak sequence I'm making. I will be either merging or making that the main article to the 1953 Vicksburg, Mississippi, tornadoes article. Can you help me with that as well? I would really appreciate it. ChessEric (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your suggestions! I really appreciate you taking the time out to talk to me about these things. I will admit that I'm a bit lazy when it comes to references so since the Tornado History Project uses only official SPC data, I've been using that. Plus, the NCDC doesn't have any damage info so it can get a little annoying to track. Also, they list events by county and not by track so it can be hard to follow.

As far as ratings go, I've found ratings for every tornado to about 2016. The SPC has the ratings in the Excel documents on their websites so I have no trouble adding ratings to every tornado.

The format I use for the tables comes from the Tornado outbreak of January 10–11, 2020 page. I should probably use older pages to make the charts though since the way tornadoes are listed now is different from back then. I actually helped in the making of the 2020 Easter tornado outbreak, although I was just getting started then and mostly working non-table things. The formatting I use converting is mostly a copy-paste version of whatever I find available to me at the time.

1 more word of note: a lot of my edits come from my flip phone, which I can't really copy-paste with and have a nightmare time typing with. This is another reason why I don't do long citation. Please keep that in my mind.

Thanks for everything. ChessEric (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you are making a page for the 1964 Hurricane Isbell tornado outbreak. I actually made a section for that article in the Tornadoes of 1964 article. So that can be worked on and uploaded. ChessEric (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you are making a page for the 1964 Hurricane Isbell tornado outbreak. I actually made a section for that article in the Tornadoes of 1964 article. So that can be worked on and uploaded.ChessEric (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! I appreciate it!ChessEric (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was an outbreak page I made that you never put any damage info for. Can you please do so? Thanks!

P.S. I'm going to see if I can order that dang book. LOL!ChessEric (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look up this tornado for me? The track is jacked up to kingdom come and I wanted to make a section on it, but can't because of it.ChessEric (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you, but 2 outbreak pages that I recently created (one from 1955 and the other from 1960) need Grazulis data because I didn't have any/enough damage info for some of the entries. I'm also working on an outbreak page for Hurricane Carla and was horrified to see that Storm Data has NOTHING for Louisiana for the ENTIRE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER in 1961. Grazulis data will DEFINITELY be needed there. Anyway, I hope I'm not being too much of a bother to you, but I really need your help here. Have a good day!ChessEric (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the outbreak from 1960. Found data for that as well.ChessEric (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Hugo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not going to template, but just wanted to point out that this edit is most certainly not minor. Any edit that changes the meaning of the text in any way that's not insignificant is not a minor edit, and while I personally agree with the edit you made, others may disagree (as you didn't add a source), and if they did, they may also take issue with mislabeling it as minor. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hurricane Hugo you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hurricane Hugo for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hurricane Hugo you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hurricane Hugo for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Please do not move 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict unless there is established consensus for it. Furthermore no reliable source has used the term "war" so far. Resapp (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are working to improve the 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak article. I was actually planning to make an article on the outbreak that happened between April 7-10 (which is how I split it on the main Tornadoes of 1965 page) and keep the Palm Sunday outbreak separate for improvements. Thoughts?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CapeVerdeWave: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 01:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 01:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there CVW. Good start to the draft, but does Andres really need an article? It looks like it stayed far away from land. According to the season article, the storm only caused minor rainfall in the southwest US. I prefer to work on articles that hae more of an impact on land. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before you delete the draft, maybe check if you can add anything to the section in the season article, so your work isn't lost. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start removing the THP refs that don't have archives off the tornado pages since it still hasn't returned. Can I ask for your assistance with that?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I know we have crossed paths every now and then with weather articles, so I wanted to invite you to a new WikiProject, the WikiProject of the Twenty-Tens decade. It was proposed near the end of May, but it was officially created today. Not sure if you would be interested, but I thought I would drop you an invite and say hi. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]