Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Typhoon Feria, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Tommi1986 let's talk! 11:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Just fyi from your recent edit in the 1979 Pacific typhoon season, TY Sarah was classified as Sisang and Uring, while Roger was classified was Trining by PAGASA, and not the other way around. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. see WP:WPTC/RS also we use RSMC, not a JTWC. HurricaneEdgar 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. And yet again I would like to know why you reverted my edits in regards to 1979's Typhoon Sarah? Just fyi from your recent edit in the 1979 Pacific typhoon season, TY Sarah was classified as Sisang and Uring, while Roger was classified was Trining by PAGASA, and not the other way around. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Akbermamps. I've recently partially removed some of your added content to Tropical Storm Zita since it was not supported by a reliable source, which is required to keep Wikipedia verifiable. I believe I have found where you have found this info in List of disasters in Thailand, however we are not allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source as it constitutes circular referencing. Additionally, the article appears to be almost wholly uncited with a complete lack of inline citations, which is not a good indicator of its reliability. The only sources I could find online that supported this were a magazine website and a travel guide, both of which likely used Wikipedia anyway since the original edit to the original article was made in 2012. If you could find any reliable sources to verify the sentence, it would be greatly appreciated. Akbermamps 11:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Pls dont not link, like you did Typhoon Surigae this is may cause confused the reader. also pls use the edit summary thank HurricaneEdgar 13:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! HurricaneEdgar 13:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Chiang Mai. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use your sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm not sure what you want to do with the Typhoon Yagi article exactly, but please note information should not be cut and paste to create new article titles. The correct way to move an article is described at WP:RM. Best, CMD (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Typhoons in the Philippines, Chieng Mai, or 2010s, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop making disruptive edits. You are making messes all over the place, and it is absolutely unacceptable. Almost every single one of your page moves was completely inappropriate and had to be reverted, and the majority of your edits are problematic as well. Please note that competence is required in order to edit on Wikipedia. If you disrupt the site again, you will be reported. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you move a page disruptively again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is your last last warning if you move a page, without consensus you will be block from editing HurricaneEdgar 10:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept!
|
|
Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Typhoon Noru, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop making the disruptive page moves. All of your page moves were grossly inappropriate and had to be reverted. Honestly, given your level of inexperience and the ongoing competence issues, you shouldn't be moving any more pages for the foreseeable future. You've been making some other disruptive edits as well. Please note that competence is required in order to edit on Wikipedia. Thank you. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed LightandDark2000 gave you a warning about this already, but it doesn't seem like anyone has actually told you what is actually wrong with your pagemoves and editing pattern. Specifically:
- Do not do pagemoves to test the pagemove functionality. If you want to mess around with moving pages, do it in WP:USERSPACE. That means creating a page that's a subpage of your userpage, for example User:Kritphon/sandbox (note the slash). Then, you can go ahead and move that to different locations so long as they begin with "User:Kritphon". e.g. moving User:Kritphon/sandbox to User:Kritphon/sandbox2 then immediately moving back is acceptable. Doing this with actual articles (as you often do) is not acceptable. If you want to create a WP:redirect, just make the redirect directly.
- Additionally, you can use your userspace (or the general Wikipedia:Sandbox) to make other test edits. A good place for this would be User:Kritphon/sandbox. If you want to just try out an edit to an article to see how it looks, you can WP:Subst that article into the sandbox (make sure to fill in the edit summary when you do the substitution and say what page you got the content from; this is important for copyright reasons) and edit to your hearts content. For example, you can put {{subst::Typhoon Chaba (2010)}} into your sandbox with the proper edit summary. When you save the page, the entire article will be copied into your sandbox and you can edit and self-revert as much as you want. I am telling you this because it is disruptive to repeatedly make edits then immediately revert yourself. You do this very frequently. Be aware that whenever you make these edits it alerts everyone who is watching the article and it fills up the page history with meaningless edits.
- Finally, some of your pagemoves are not compliant with policy. For instance, moving Typhoon Noru to Typhoon Noru (disambiguation) doesn't comply with WP:NOPRIMARY. Disambiguation pages are only given the brackets when there is a WP:Primary topic for the term. That means the most important (or most used) topic for a given term. In those cases, a page is created for the primary topic and a disambiguation page is created to collate other topics a term might refer to. For the term "Typhoon Noru", the consensus is that there is no primary topic that the phrase "Typhoon Noru" refers so, so the disambiguation page becomes the primary page and doesn't get labelled as (disambiguation) in the title.
- Another problem with your pagemoves is that they don't comply with WP:COMMONNAME, such as when you moved Surigao Airport to CAAP Surigao Airport. The commonly used name for that airport is Surigao Airport, not CAAP Surigao Airport.
- In other cases your pagemoves are just wrong. Moving Yehliu to Yehliu Geopark is one of those examples. The article covers the whole cape of Yehliu, not just the park located on that cape. I don't understand why you did this move.
You have done a lot of good edits in the past. Some of your pagemoves have been good as well. But you need to stop moving pages until you better understand article titles and page movement in general. You also need to think before you make an edit. You repeatedly make edits, wait a few minutes, then revert yourself. Try not making the edit, then using those few minutes to think about the edit before performing it. Continuing the aforementioned behaviour in the future will likely lead to a second and longer block. You can leave a message on my (or someone else's) talk page if you have any questions about this or want me to clarify things further. I hope you edit better in the future. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your recent edits (such as this, this, and this) show that you need to reread Chess's second point: making test edits, and then immediately undoing them, is considered disruptive. If you're unaware, the "Show preview" button next to the "Publish changes" button allows you to see the effects of whatever you change without actually making the edit. Persisting with this sort of edits to articles outside of your sandboxes (which I see you haven't created despite Chess's advice) will be considered vandalism, which may be addressed by further warnings or, worse, blocks. I hope you can take these warnings seriously and change your editing behaviour. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to 1975 Pacific typhoon season. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Please reread the warnings from July; it doesn't look like you've heeded them. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear project member,
This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (MOS:ACCESS). We had partially implemented a proposal earlier this year, however, it was objected to by a number of people and additional issues were presented that made it evident this wasn't the optimal solution. We tried to come up with other solutions to address the issues related to color contrast, however, none of them gained traction and no consensus was generated.
We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our project page for additional details. The proposal phase will close no later than December 31st at 23:59 UTC. NoahTalk 03:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
-_Good_pic.jpg)
