User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2020/December
44th edition of The Hurricane Herald!
 The Hurricane Herald: Happy Thanksgiving Edition! The Hurricane Herald is the semi-regular newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The newsletter aims to provide in summary the recent activities and developments of the WikiProject, in addition to global tropical cyclone activity. The Hurricane Herald has been running since its first edition ran on June 4, 2006. If you wish to receive or discontinue subscription to this newsletter, please visit the mailing list. This issue of The Hurricane Herald covers all project related events from October 5–November 30, 2020. This edition's editors and authors are SMB99thx, Weatherman27, Chicdat, Hurricanehink, Cyclone Toby, Typhoon2013, and ChessEric. Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve the newsletter and other cyclone-related articles. Past editions can be viewed here. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: News & Developments New articles since the last newsletter include:
New GA's include:
From October 5 to November 30, two featured articles were promoted: From the Main Page documents WikiProject related materials that have appeared on the main page from October 5–November 30, 2020 in chronological order. There is currently one featured article candidate: WikiProject To-Do
Current assessment table Assessments valid as of this printing. Depending on when you may be viewing this newsletter, the table may be outdated. See here for the latest, most up to date statistics.
Project Goals & Progress The following is the current progress on the three milestone goals set by the WikiProject as of this publishing. They can be found, updated, at the main WikiProject page.
Storms of the month and other tropical activity for October and November  SotM for October: Typhoon Goni / Rolly  SotM for November: Hurricane Iota
The active Atlantic hurricane season continued. In early October, Tropical Storm Gamma dissipated over the northern Yucatan and was absorbed by powerful Hurricane Delta, which was the season's third major hurricane. Delta weakened before hitting Quintana Roo, but restrengthened in the Gulf of Mexico, later hitting Louisiana as a low-end Category 2 hurricane in nearly the same location as Hurricane Laura in August. Delta killed six people and left US$4 billion in damage. A few days later, Hurricane Epsilon developed southeast of Bermuda, becoming a major hurricane and brushing the island to the east. Hurricane Zeta followed a similar path as Delta, striking Quintana Roo and later striking southeastern Louisiana as a Category 2 hurricane; it killed 8 people and left U$3 billion in damage. At the end of the month, Hurricane Eta developed, becoming a strong Category 4 hurricane before striking Nicaragua. After killing hundreds of people in Central America, Eta reformed in the northwestern Caribbean. It made another landfall in Cuba, moved over the Florida Keys, and briefly became a hurricane again in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, before weakening and striking Cedar Key, Florida as a tropical storm. In early November, Tropical Storm Theta developed from a non-tropical low and moved across the eastern Atlantic.
Member of the month (edition) – Robloxsupersuperhappyface  Robloxsupersuperhappyface joined Wikipedia in July of this year, and has become the most prolific tropical cyclone editor relating to current events, as well as playing an enormous role in creation of newly formed tropical cyclones that eventually became destructive in many regions they are affected in (Hurricane Sally to Gulf Coast of the United States, Typhoon Goni to the Philippines, and Hurricane Iota to Central America respectively - Also, both Goni and Iota are Storms of the Month!). Because of that reason, Robloxsupersuperhappyface's articles are the one of the most viewed tropical cyclone articles in this year - as well as helped us on inviting prospective tropical cyclone editors to this project as they edited Robloxsupersuperhappyface's articles, leading into why we have more than 100 members in this WikiProject leading to this issue. As the result of brilliant Robloxsupersuperhappyface's contributions, we want to give many, many thanks to Super for helping this WikiProject grow so much recently. Happy Thanksgiving! New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter - project membership is over 100 now! More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue. Sorted chronologically in order of which they joined.
To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the to-do list at the bottom right of the newsletter for things that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions! Let's talk about that - An opinion piece by Weatherman27 Before I start, I would like to link everyone to a new essay regarding Force Thirteen. Here it is: WP:F13. I recommend users (old and new) to read this to understand why we don't use Force Thirteen as a source, and why it isn't a reliable source. If you want to see what good reliable sources are, read this: WP:WPTC/AS Now, I will get to the main point of this opinion piece. Recently, I have gotten more involved in talk pages, and sharing my ideas and/or my opinions on different issues or ideas that have come up, primarily on 2020 Atlantic hurricane season's talk page. As I have discussed these thoughts and ideas with other editors, I have noticed and experienced some things such as being personally attacked, which has led me to want to reiterated some key points here. Despite the fact that they are mentioned commonly at the top of talk pages, I want to bring these up as it is important to have a good base where people can properly chat and discuss topics in peace. 1. Treat others with respect This one can't be stressed enough. Especially on talk pages, it is a place where you and your peers communicate issues, opinions, or ideas to each-other. This means discussing topics in a kind and adult manner. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing in what somebody may say, but that does not mean that you have the right to put them down for not having similar views. It is simply the Golden Rule. 2. Assume Good faith Along with my first point, I feel this one needs to be brought up. People have different opinions, and that is all right, but just because you may not agree with it or what they say, does not mean that it was not out of good faith. They were most likely voicing what they think on the subject, and that is alright. This also goes for edits. Unless it is pretty obvious that a user as vandalized something, it is always good to assume good faith, as other people might not know the rules as well as a more experienced editor. 3. Avoid Personal attacks This is a very important subject that needs to be remembered not just on talk pages, but on all other parts of Wikipedia as well. On talk pages, discussions can get pretty tense and heated, and I admit that I have gotten into a few of these arguments as well. Despite this, it is never okay to attack someone. As a user who has gotten personally attacked before, I can definitely say that it does not feel good, and usually the person who made the attacked will get warned or blocked, so please be kind and accept what other people have to say, because you will get nowhere by being rude. 4. Come to a consensus (preferably a clear one) On talk pages, whenever there is a discussion regarding something important like the merging of an article, people need to decide what the outcome of something important on a talk page. For example, if there is say, a merge discussion for an article on a tropical cyclone, many people will give their input. Usually, different people will have different views on whether to merge or keep the article. Sometimes, the editor will close the discussion early, but this is usually for unrelated reasons, though it sometimes may be because the editor had a change of mind. Now, if there is support for say a merge of the article, then that will be the consensus and the discussion will be closed and the article merged. This can also happen on the opposite side, if an article is to be kept, the discussion will be closed and article kept. Simply put, it is important to discuss and come to a clear decision if there is a consensus involved, to avoid difficulty with the article or page in the future. These are just a few examples of things that editors of the WPTC need to remember when using talk page discussions. There are plenty of other things not mentioned here that are just as important when it comes to using talk pages. I made this simply to help remind editors the key points when using the discussions, and I hope these were helpful to new users as well as veterans. We need to really get better at staying calm and keeping civil. I have noticed lots of hostility and arguing lately, as well as edit warring and disputes. We need to work this out. We are supposed to work together as WPTC editors, so please fix it. It is sad seeing so many editors getting reported or having to get blocked from this. Once again, keep discussions civil and have a good day. Signing off, My experiences as a WikiProject Tropical cyclones member by SMB99thx Hello again, people of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones! In here, I want to tell how my experiences with WikiProject Tropical Cyclones changed my views on WikiProjects, helped me out of trouble and to be able to regain the trust of many people in Wikipedia. When I joined WikiProject Tropical cyclones, it was the second WikiProject I have ever joined. The first WikiProject I have ever joined is WikiProject COVID-19, and the reason why I joined that project is to gain trust of people when I contributed to COVID-19 articles and as well as my fight against an IP editor which turned out to be the LTA named Bedriczwaleta (and has been active much more longer than I thought, since February of last year (!!!!)). I have the same thought process (and combined with my plans of editing old season articles, which is not done yet) when I first joined this WikiProject, but joining the WikiProject Tropical cyclones turned out to be something different. It led me to know what are the purposes of WikiProjects are and in turn led me to join many other WikiProjects since. As such, what made me change my views on WikiProjects during my time as a WikiProject Tropical Cyclones? First of all, I have seen that WikiProject Tropical cyclones members always actively work together to advance project goals, actively participating in discussions and give much-needed advice on new WikiProject Tropical cyclones members (including me). Second, WPTC really cares about our articles (and the assessments) as part of their project goals. 2018 FT project and Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian (Four Award!) is a prime example of this. Third, we are actively welcoming the new members of this WikiProject and giving these members opportunity to succeed with us by i.e. giving out WikiLove (barnstars). Fourth, we, like WP COVID-19, actively fight against vandals and other LTAs e.g. Sidow........., UnderArmorKid, and Iphonehurricane95. These kinds of activity led me to change my belief on what WikiProjects truly are. You could see this kind of activity on other good WikiProjects like WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which I just joined recently on 26 October 2020 as of this newsletter and WikiProject Articles of Creation, which I have interest on joining but I might not be able to. Now, why WikiProject Tropical cyclones brought me out of trouble (and Chicdat, for that matter)? WikiProject Tropical cyclones is generally a content-creating WikiProject. We really care about improving tropical cyclone coverage on Wikipedia. Members of this WikiProject generally encouraged to communicate and discuss (in Wikipedia, in Discord, or in IRC channel), and this is what helped me and Chicdat out from trouble since our discussions from what I have seen is not always administrative. Before I joined WikiProject Tropical cyclones (and when I was still new to WikiProject Tropical cyclones), I have been putting myself on trouble numerous times. I was an ANI regular, and as an ANI regular I detailed about my struggle to deal with the LTA Bedriczwaleta and I'm was also putting up IBAN proposals of User:Jadebenn and User:Moamem as well as User:U1Quattro and User:1292simon. While I have managed to get my proposal succeeded and finally got Bedriczwaleta back on track for a while (what I thought), in August 20 (as I was about to finalize my decision to enter my college I'm currently in right now) I got myself into serious trouble against IP range 185.66.252.0/23 (which is apparently good at programming - I'm not). I tried to get them blocked for PA (calling me a thief who has a black soul), but this is where when I realized that I had to attribute things I copied within Wikipedia and I had to apologize to the user. Since then, I did my best to attribute everything I had copied articles from (Example) and I also realized that ANI is not for me (as I do not want to get into troubles by just being there), which led me to quitting ANI until November of this year when I decided to involve myself on Miggy72 dispute (now banned for sockpuppetry - Miggy72 could have been invited to WPTC if he stopped on insisting to create non-notable topics). After that incident with the IP range 185.66.252.0/23, I have stated that I do not want to get myself into trouble as a presence in ANI. As such, I decided to focus on what I want to do, which is to continue my project of splitting season articles of the yesteryear and began to increasingly involve myself within the project - to look for help and giving the best help that I can do for this WikiProject. The activity from that September led me to become Member of the Month in the previous edition of this newsletter. It was a comeback that I needed, and I want to thank WikiProject Tropical cyclones (especially Hurricanehink) for getting me on this situation. Without their help, I'm not sure if I could be here on this day. Now, for the final question – why this WikiProject helped me (and Chicdat) regain trust of many people in Wikipedia? As I stated before, this WikiProject encourages discussion within other members of this WikiProject, which in turn encourages close involvement in all sides of this WikiProject. Because of this, some people are actually helping us learning policies in Wikipedia as the time goes on, rather than falling in into blocks. As such, with time, I have seen that some admins are open for Chicdat to become a rollbacker, while I got hold on several automated gadgets that was more useful. It appears that these tools are the reason why these people are one of the more trusted people in Wikipedia, which in turn helped me a lot at gaining trust. Someday in the future, I'm looking to become an admin by myself. But that's for the another day. For now, what I'm currently doing now is to work at my craft to eventually prepare for the day when I will seek for adminship in the years ahead. In conclusion, you can see that this WikiProject helped me to regain my standing, alongside Chicdat, Nioni1234, Cristianpogi678, HurricaneTracker495 - and of course - CyclonicallyDeranged! If not for this WikiProject, I don't think they are will be here. Chicdat could have been CIR-blocked like Prahlad balaji and PythonSwarm, Nioni1234 and Cristianpogi678 ending up like Binbin0111 and Miggy72, HurricaneTracker495 would have a trouble establishing himself (or probably will never establish theirselves and stay as an IP) and CyclonicallyDeranged fully driven out from Wikipedia. By the way, to me, both Binbin0111 and Miggy72 are young, but unfortunately they took on the wrong path (Binbin0111 was one of the earliest Force Thirteen insinuators - Binbin0111 is probably the impetus of Force Thirteen policy in this project (as it was made back in 2017), while Miggy72... we know what happened). I feel bad for them, especially Binbin0111. Had Binbin0111 is willing to learn and took steps forward to become productive young editor like Yellow Evan and two other resilient young editors I have mentioned did, Binbin0111 could have been one of the most valuable editors in this project, especially in matters related to Western Pacific basin, and in extension, Vietnam. That's it. That's what I have to say. College is increasingly getting into my feelings right now, but I will do my best as I can coming into December. Sorry if I have a bad English. Thanks for reading this opinion piece! Greetings from Indonesia, |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Thank you for your editing about tornadoes a gd fan (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) |
@GeometryDashFan12: Thanks bro!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Leslie
Im going to be working on getting Leslie to good article status. I did some research tonight and will be writing it up in a sandbox over the next several days. Will take some time to do. I'm wondering if the met split may be needed after all lol. NoahTalk 03:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah: If you're planning to get that article to good article status, then a split of the MH will be necessary! LOL! I may help with that, but I'm busy improving and expanding tornado articles right now.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I will be able to get it... just will take a while to do. NoahTalk 11:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah: Gotcha! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I will be able to get it... just will take a while to do. NoahTalk 11:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1876 in rail transport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern Railway.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Re: Question on the Palm Sunday outbreak
Personally, I would split tornado outbreak sequence of April 7–9, 1965, from the Palm Sunday tornado outbreak sequence of April 10–12, 1965, for the following reasons. 1) The definition of an outbreak (sequence).[nb 1] 2) SPC and NCEI list a cluster of at least six tornadoes with no more than a six-hour gap between each tornado from 19:15 CST on April 7 through 01:55 CST on April 8. This constitutes an outbreak per item 1). Then another cluster, also an outbreak per item 1), occurs from 13:20 CST on April 8 through 02:45 CST on April 9. 2) Additionally, an isolated tornado occurred at 16:10 CST on April 9, more than six hours after the second cluster/outbreak ended and nearly a day before the next cluster/outbreak began on April 10. So this tornado belongs to neither the outbreak sequence of April 7–9 nor that of April 10–12. So I would recommend two separate articles: one for the outbreak sequence of April 7–9 and another for the Palm Sunday sequence of April 10–12. I am currently working on the latter; feel free to work on the former, if you wish.
- ^ An outbreak is generally defined as a group of at least six tornadoes (the number sometimes varies slightly according to local climatology) with no more than a six-hour gap between individual tornadoes. An outbreak sequence, prior to (after) the start of modern records in 1950, is defined as a period of no more than two (one) consecutive days without at least one significant (F2 or stronger) tornado.[1][2][3][4][5]
- ^ Schneider, Russell S.; Brooks, Harold E.; Schaefer, Joseph T. (2004). Tornado Outbreak Day Sequences: Historic Events and Climatology (1875-2003) (PDF). 22nd Conference on Severe Local Storms. Hyannis, Massachusetts: American Meteorological Society. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
- ^ Hagemeyer, Bartlett C. (September 1997). "Peninsular Florida Tornado Outbreaks". Weather and Forecasting. 12 (3). Boston: American Meteorological Society: 400. Bibcode:1997WtFor..12..399H. doi:10.1175/1520-0434(1997)012<0399:PFTO>2.0.CO;2.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
- ^ Hagemeyer 1997, p. 401
- ^ Hagemeyer, Bartlett C.; Spratt, Scott M. (2002). Written at Melbourne, Florida. Thirty Years After Hurricane Agnes: the Forgotten Florida Tornado Disaster (PDF). 25th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology. San Diego, California: American Meteorological Society. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 October 2008. Retrieved 24 November 2019.
- ^ Grazulis, Thomas P. (2001). The Tornado: Nature's Ultimate Windstorm. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-8061-3538-0.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
CapeVerdeWave (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @CapeVerdeWave: Understood! Just let me know when you are finished so that I can update Tornadoes of 1965 page accordingly. I will work on the former article when I get to that year as I'm still currently working on 1963.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Davontae Harris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jimmy Smith.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for your encouragement. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC) |
- @Destroyeraa:Your welcome!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Edits
Pardon the inquest: why did you remove the "Refs." section from the draft? You used it in all your other articles. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @CapeVerdeWave: After the EXHAUSTING task of creating the Tornado outbreak sequence of May 14–June 1, 1962, I decided to create a hybrid table that utilized the modern way of organizing tornadoes by time combined with putting the source for them in the previously used sources section at the bottom of the chart. I was trying to do that save time, effort, and work needed since most of the stuff in the article comes from the same source. Sorry I didn't tell you beforehand. Should I not do that?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: No problem. However, be sure to restore the "Refs." section in the final draft before publishing the/an article. Keep up the good work. I'll keep adding data from Grazulis in tandem with your efforts. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @CapeVerdeWave: Thanks bro.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 07:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: No problem. However, be sure to restore the "Refs." section in the final draft before publishing the/an article. Keep up the good work. I'll keep adding data from Grazulis in tandem with your efforts. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)