Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Pacific typhoon season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuuk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems you're a little lost on what to do on Wikipedia. Do you need assistance? If so, I'll gladly guide you along. You have great enthusiasm toward hurricane articles, which is great! We can definitely use some of that around here. You just need to learn the ropes a bit more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you finish one of the GA reviews before "claiming" another one? You have five open, which prevents others from reviewing then, but you haven't done anything to them yet. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've reverted several of your recent "claims" to GA reviews, pending follow-ups to Talk:Typhoon Maysak (2015)/GA1 and Talk:Tropical_Storm_Mekkhala_(2015)/GA1, which you initiated several days ago. I appreciate your enthusiasm in tackling these reviews, but each one requires special attention, and it's not fair to the article writers to essentially stall multiple nominations while they await your comments. Thanks for your understanding, and if you need any help with the aforementioned GANs, feel free to ask. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• As you have fewer than 200 edits on Wikipedia, and no prior experience in the Good Article space, let me point you to the good article criteria, and also to the WP:GAREVIEW page. As a beginning reviewer, it is strongly recommended that you start with one (or maybe two) reviews at a time, and not take on more until you have completed these. Also, it's suggested that you have a mentor look over your review before finalizing it, so what Juliancolton offers above is well worth taking advantage of. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've also deleted your empty GA review pages for the two articles I mentioned above, seeing as it's been ten days without any comments or even an indication of when you might begin the review. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just had to revert a clearly inadequate and improper listing of Typhoon Maysak (2015) as a Good Article based on the review at Talk:Typhoon Maysak (2015)/GA1. No Good Article criteria are actually mentioned in the extremely brief review, although I mentioned them above, and a mentor was not engaged prior to approval although I strongly urged it be done and Juliancolton had offered. While your enthusiasm for the process is appreciated, your lack of understanding of how it works and what it means is causing damage. I am formally requesting that you do not do any further reviews until you have gained considerably more experience here at Wikipedia, preferably including making a GA nomination of your own and seeing by virtue of having it reviewed what is involved from the other side, since you seem uninterested in working with a mentor on your own reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to confirm what BlueMoonset has said, I'd still like to help. Unfortunately, there's not much I can do until you've at least acknowledged some of these messages regarding your edits. You seem to have an interest in the GA process, but frankly, it's unlikely that any of your reviews will be allowed to stand until you've made an effort to communicate with more experienced reviewers. Since I'm certain that you must have seen your talk page notifications, I'm a little unclear on why you haven't responded to assure us of your good intentions. However, I get the impression that there may be a language barrier getting in the way. We encourage people from all regions and cultures to participate, but if you're not very comfortable with English, it might be more gratifying and productive for you to contribute to your native language Wikipedia. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated malformed and incomplete GA reviews and review claims are disruptive, for the reasons outlined in the above threads. If you do not refrain from starting new reviews without soliciting the help of an experienced reviewer, you may be blocked from editing. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Tropical Storm Thelma article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. --Laser brain (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

N-C16, you are currently nominating a large group of articles at GAN en masse, and these are articles, so far as I can determine, where you are not a significant contributor to the article. According to the GA instructions, people who have not worked on articles should not nominate them for GA status unless they have first consulted with the article's regular contributors, something you have not done.

Please stop nominating articles until you have obtained consensus that they are ready to do so. This is not the first time there have been issues with you at GA; you were doing invalid reviews last year. I strongly recommend that you proceed with caution and according to the rules. Thank you.

I am afraid I am going to have to revert your out-of-process nominations for the moment. Please proceed incrementally in future, not all at once. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You did this in this edit to the Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti. I've done most of the work to the article, and I know it isn't anywhere near time for a GA nomination. If you want to be helpful, try adding information in. I'm only one editor, trying to keep up with the sheer amount of information. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please cool it with the warnings. While those edits which were restoring the Hurricane Gaston (2016) article were arguably unnecessary (as the information was better suited as a section of the main season article as Hurricanehink said), they are not the kinds of edits that should be responded to with vandalism warning templates. Some of those editors you warned are established users, and I can ensure you that their edits were vandalism. Additionally, those edits were days ago. Dustin (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you have any questions or anything else, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I just thought I'd mention it. Dustin (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you change the strongest system of the season from Haima to Meranti!? Haima and Meranti had the same pressure, but Haima had a higher windspeed. Please state why you made this edit. Thank you. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 13:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@HurricaneGonzalo: My question is where you got the 130-knot figure. It was inserted as IP vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Oh, thanks for telling me. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 17:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Any reason why you moved that article back? It's unquestionably the most notable version of the store (similar to Cyclone Yali), so I don't see any point in having the year. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agatha is not retired yet. It can refer to other stroms of the same name, e.g. Tropical Storm Agatha (1992). This storm also caused some damages. --N-C16 (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What does that have to do with anything? It's clearly the primary topic. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I moved it back. It is the most important storm named Agatha, so it should redirect here. Also, you should slow down on the move requests. I'm not sure if you knew, but there are really only about 10-15 regular editors involved in hurricane articles, and I'm including you in there. If you want a lot of articles moved, or want to talk about anything that affects multiple articles, you should post it on the talk page for WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

{unblock | reason=I haven't had multiple accounts simultaneously. I don't know why I am blocked. I tried to declare all the possible conflicts on my user page. I listen to other's opinion. I am trying to adhere to all Wikipedia policies/guidelines and will continue to do so. I always assume good faith. Please unblock. N-C16 (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)} (Unblock disabled as repalced by one below Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC))

First, you don't have to edit simultaneously to violate policy, but in fact you did have multiple accounts simultaneously. Second, your userpage didn't exist. Third, some of what you did was obvious trolling, e.g., edit-warring between yourself using different accounts. One of your accounts created an absurd page. Your main account then nominated that page for deletion. It looks like your principal activity at Wikipedia was malicious deception.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear administractors, I understand what I am blocked for abusing multiple accounts, I promise that I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead, so the block is no longer necessary. I hope you can give me a chance to let me fulfill my promise, Thank you. N-C16 (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The fact that you started out by simply denying that you had done anything wrong, and then only apologized after it was spelled out to you in undeniable detail, makes me think you're just saying whatever you think will get you unblocked. Coupled with the apparent nature of your disruptive editing, that does not convince me that unblocking you would be to the benefit of the project.

For an unblock request to have any change of success, I'd suggest that, as a minimum, you would need to disclose every account you have used, explain what you did with them and what you did wrong, and then explain what you would do in future to help the project. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I set up one more account: User:BFF12, but this account doesn't participate in English Wikipedia, see Talk page of User:BFF12 in Chinese Wikipedia. These accounts made edits mainly on topics about tropical cyclone. I am abusing multiple accounts because I mage some disruptive edits, e.g. edit-warring by using different accounts. I won't abuse multiple accounts. I will continue to participate in Wikipedia, mainly on topics about tropical cyclone. Thank you. N-C16 (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sockpuppetry. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So you first say your only other account is User:BFF12, which "doesn't participate in English Wikipedia". But then you go on to say you were "edit-warring by using different accounts". Those two claims contradict each other. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: BFF12 is the only account that was not blocked. "Edit-warring by using different accounts" means the other two accounts. i.e.CBA Meal, FRG2. --N-C16 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, so the full list of accounts you have used is User:N-C16 (this one), User:CBA Meal, User:FRG2, and User:BFF12 (Chinese only) - is that right? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I want to add something here, Boing!. The amount of disruptive editing without logging in is just as much a part of this block as the use of named accounts. The user wasn't simply forgetting to log in. They were intended to be abusive and deceptive by their very nature. Because I can't reveal the IP(s) used by this person, that evidence will remain private except to another CU if they are interested, but the fact that it cannot be shown does not prevent it from being included in the body of evidence of abuse against this person.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Understood, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not disagree with Administractor DoRD, but as I have mentioned before, I alreday admitted that I am abusing multiple accounts. I have also stated all my alternative accounts. Dear administractors, if you want me to do something before unblock me, e.g. to apologize, please state it clearly, thanks. N-C16 (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with the above: Your salami tactic of admitting the obvious while denying everything you could plausibly deny does not inspire confidence that you are here in good faith. Huon (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've revoked your access to this page. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Read this before editing for Nepartak. [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meow (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, N-C16. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #16963 was submitted on Nov 23, 2016 08:21:20. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #16987 was submitted on Nov 25, 2016 13:00:51. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #16997 was submitted on Nov 27, 2016 09:02:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17039 was submitted on Dec 03, 2016 04:59:11. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18152 was submitted on Apr 28, 2017 02:16:53. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh hi there and you must be new. So recently I have seen your edits within the Wikimedia commons for TC images. I really just want to note that, there is someone here (you may know who he is) who is wasting their time making images that are not 'high-quality' or accurate enough. So just saying, to keep an eye out for him, too, as he likes 'his' images better than the NASA gallery version images. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18996 was submitted on Aug 15, 2017 02:44:35. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Note checkuser evidence  confirms that this account has been evading their block via logged-out edits for months, up to as recently as last week. For any unblock to be considered, the standard offer date has been reset to February 11, 2018 (i.e. 6 months from the last confirmed socking).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20589 was submitted on Feb 11, 2018 02:39:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

A1Cafel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have followed the SO, waiting 6 months without socking and block evasion. I am here to request an admin to take my unblock request to WP:AN. I promise not to use alternative accounts for inappropriate reason. I know that socking is a serious problem in Wikipedia, so I won't let it happen again. If I really need an alternative accounts, I will state them clearly in the user page and follow WP:SOCK#LEGIT strictly. B dash (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As a result of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I am unblocking you subject to the following three conditions.

1. You must not edit at all except from this account. Note that this restriction goes further than your offer of stating any other accounts on your user page and following WP:SOCK#LEGIT strictly.
2. You must not make any GA nominations.
3. You may ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for these conditions to be lifted, but not until one year has elapsed from the time of the block being removed. It is possible that further discussion may lead to a change in this restriction, but unless you are informed otherwise it remains so.

The discussion which led to this can be seen here.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have posted this to AN for you, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Standard_Offer_for_User:B_dash. SQL^{Query me!} 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: At that time I don't know the procedure of nominating GA and have some inappropriate nomination. After that, I have stopped. I will promise to read the instruction before nominate them. --B dash (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: I promise this will be my only account used in Wikipedia, no other accounts. Also, @Dlohcierekim: no GA nomination. --B dash (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you give some indication of what editing you expect to do if you are unblocked. Many administrators are very reluctant to unblock an editor with an extensive history of unacceptable editing unless there is evidence what he or she is likely to do after being unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Mainly articles related to tropical cyclones. I will just do some maintenance and update edits, seldom have major edits. As I have mentioned before, I won't do any GA nomination, and won't use more than one account to contribute. --B dash (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard Offer for User:B dash, indicating a support for unblocking. However, it will be necessary to wait to see whether there is any more input there, and especially to wait for the administrator/CheckUser who blocked this account to have a chance to comment. Unfortunately this means that you are likely to have to wait some time longer, but since you have already waited for well over a year perhaps you can bear to hang on for a few more days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I'm fine. Thanks for remindering. --B dash (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note the very first sentence of this guideline. --Calton | Talk 02:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurricane Franklin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GPM (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) 09:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather than just saying "per Mario" and offering no real explanation for your revert at all (I do regret that my edit summary may have been impolite), please enlighten me as to how removing material on the warning history of that hurricane is helpful to readers. Master of Time (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I didn't realize you were responsible for the original revert, else I would have taken more steps to avoid becoming embroiled in any kind of edit war. Regardless, that table takes up a very small amount of space, so I don't see how removing it is in any way helpful to readers. When people are interested in learning about a storm, we don't just list an external link pointing to a TCR; we write about it and put the statistics into tables. Master of Time (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the incorreft data on Cyclone Debbie. I had found data from another website that had seemed reliable. HurricaneCalebN (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi B dash, regarding your request here, the deleted article content consisted solely of a near-verbatim copy of this content. The text had been cut and pasted twice in the article for some unknown reason and it included the same two images used at the redirect article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited January 2018 lunar eclipse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Placitas, New Mexico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Before you change any more images around and get yourself involved in more edit wars, can you please comment on the {{Infobox_hurricane}}_and_{{infobox_hurricane_small}}_images proposal here. Otherwise you may be blocked for edit warring.Jason Rees (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a warning going out to all editors involved in the multitude of edit warring across WikiProject Tropical cyclones. This is a preemptive warning to cease the edit warring before another incident arises and the consequences of ignoring this warning will be enforced immediately. The endless reverting and replacing of images with or without valid rationale has reached the point of being disruptive. These edits are generally a waste of time and focus should be placed on the content of the article rather than a single image. Continued edit warring will result in temporary bans—for 36 hours or longer—at the discretion of administrators. At the time of this warning, the project discussion on these images is still open and arguments within do not constitute project policy. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop! What you're doing is wrong and don't know how to read the NDRRMC files. The damage for all three storms is $26.2 million and that's it. It's an updated file and will keep updating until they stop. So please leave it as it is. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The August 5 is a typo on the image you removed from the infobox. It was meant to be August 6 as it was taken at 0200 UTC. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 10:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

How long should the meteorological history section be before adding in subheadings in your opinion? I have seen many other pages with a lot less content in a section (Beryl and Bud are both examples) and they have subheadings. To be honest, I see no reason not to have them as it would make it easier on the reader to find content about a specific period. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 01:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

RE: Formation and development into a TS is a somewhat small section, but the Eastern Pacific section is a good size (2 decent sized paragraphs) and the Central Pacific section has really expanded in the last day or so. I have had some difficulty really expanding the page as I haven't gotten a lot of help with new content. I have contributed over 90% of the page. I guess I could work on the formation section some now. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for better photo and better eclipse (more than I made from Moscow yesterday) for article! But I'll want to find some more photos, including places in Siberia, f.e.. What type of license should be used for usage the photo on Commons? Commercial use & mods allowed, am I right? I find one interesting photo from Saint Petersburg and one better from Izhevsk, but I suppose that both are unfree...:( --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 14:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hurricane Hector (2018) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Hector (2018) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I don't know how can he say this

Typhoon2013 will only say 'his image is clearer',how can he say this,I don't know. Another image is better,zh,ko,ja wikipedia still using it.At least,on resoulution,this one is much better.

And also,he uploads images from nnvl,then replaces the original one. He thought,those images were better,too? THE OCEAN LOOKS PURPLE(PREETY DARK). Surely not better.I think.

Rumbia's img was replaced,too.That image is not at peak intensty.

Rumbia's original version is back till now.

Unboxes (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Pontus Jansson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Before issuing warnings such as this one, you ought to read what it says at WP:BLANKING. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi B dash. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I think the word you were looking for was ambiguous :) Dawnseeker2000 08:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurricane Sergio (2018), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chihuahua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that RecentEdits hasn't changed his signature yet, and it's beginning to become slightly confusing -- especially because both RecentEdits and Figfires work on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. It might be time to take action? Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 21:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Figfires informed me that you're not an admin -- oops. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 21:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Could use some help expanding Vicente's impact section. I threw together an article tonight after seeing it was notable. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 00:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering why you reverted my edit on Reputation, where I removed the redirect link for “Don’t Blame Me”. If you click on it, it takes you back to the album page, indicating there is no page for the song, so why is a link included for a page that doesn’t exist? Just wanted to ask! 156.12.253.148 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I saw you tried to separate out the deaths. It is honestly impossible to do right now. Sources have claimed John caused the same deaths that Ileana did (excluding the tourist that died from rip currents). The 2 children in the lagoon, the man in the river, and the 4 people from the car have been attributed to both or either John or Ileana solely. I simply added notes to the table on the seasonal page and John's infobox on its article. Hopefully the TCRs will be able to clear this up. I feel the notes were the best way to go about this for now. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 16:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@B dash: The updates were based on PAGASA's severe weather bulletin. hueman1 (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did you add a protection template to Religion in Israel? I don't think that article should be so protected. Please explain. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(I asked the same before I reverted) He added a template to a page already protected but didn't have the template, IIRC, it is Oshwa who added the protection. I agree with you the page should not be protected. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Atlantic_hurricane_season&diff=869355145&oldid=869340152 Enigma^msg 03:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Enigmaman: I think it isn't, because the IP was just fixing the wrong value. --B dash (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, B dash. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For what reason are you blanking the talk page of compromised accounts that are locked and replacing them with a template? Natureium (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

i am worried about getting blamed for disruptive editing, is it official?Terryfirut (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Should we add Macau to typhoon mangkhut's Areas affected list?Terryfirut (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, B dash. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello B dash. As you may have seen from my RM closes at Talk:2004 United States presidential election and Talk:2014 Scottish independence referendum, a bot is due to move all the articles in the next few days, so there's no need to request RMs. You're welcome to move articles manually where you can - these will just be ignored by the bot when it runs. Cheers, Number 57 13:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I was just wondering if you could help with fleshing out Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018)'s impact section? From what I have seen, this TD did hundreds of millions in damages. I have researched sources for the flooding in general and specifically for Baja California. I would appreciate it if you could help. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi B dash. I notice that you have recently been granted page mover status, and have been enjoying the new privilege. Please not that there is a very long standing consensus not to move existing articles about Australian places from "Place, <state>" to "Place". If you want to increase the proportion of articles with the shorter form of titles, please create new articles for the places that don't have one yet, and make the redirect from the longer form to your new articles. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

can images like this be acceptable? https://preview.redd.it/yk7ieikbq5u11.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=df3d1a675cfbdf94a78fb7cbba7c67123aea4a84Terryfirut (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

In the last few weeks you've nominated nine (9) files I've uploaded for deletion of which: six (6) have been kept, one (1) will almost certainly be closed as keep, and the other two (2) were deleted because I didn't see them in the whirlwind of your deletion tagging and didn't get around to contesting the nomination. If you need to familiarize yourself with WP's copyright policies this (Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright) is a good starting point. Slapdash nominations create a significant strain on everyone's time. Chetsford (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

why does this picture of mangkhut on September 14 shows it at peak intensity https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mangkhut_2018-09-14_0501Z.jpg when its peak was on September 12? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryfirut (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tropical Storm Sanba (2018), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fais and Ngulu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I am currently a page watcher of Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012. There has been a recent change of the image used in the infobox, through this edit to the data module. Was there a reason for this? I prefer the other image since it has the stages of the eclipse. Codyorb (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the template discussion! Polly7423 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Helene (2018)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 04:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solar eclipse of March 9, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonthaburi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 219.79.97.234 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You left a message on my talk page regarding a file I uploaded a year ago. I took the photo myself using my mobile. How do I edit the file to attribute ownership to myself as the person who took the photo? Sorry if this may seem like a stupid question to you. Cheers! Robvanvee 06:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: You may use Template:Information to add back the info. --B dash (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me give it a bash, hopefully I don't destroy Wikipedia. Robvanvee 08:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, are you going to complete the implementation of the proposal? The other part was to redirect the lowercase title to The Fox and the Grapes. I don't see an evaluation of consensus on that proposal, but I believe that 2/3 of participants (counting myself as proposer) supported it. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel your closure of the RM discussion of Democratic Action Party was a bit premature since a) I had just pinged two users to get their replies to evidence I presented and b) because neither the nominator nor the two supporters of a move gave any evidence to support the move (nb WP:VOTE). I was wondering if you could please reopen the discussion or at least if you will support me opening a new RM. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  04:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• @AjaxSmack: You may simply revert my edits. --B dash (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  06:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings B dash! I wonder why you chose to relist the move request at SpX-DM1;[2] there seems to be ample support for the move. — JFG ^talk 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I relist the RM because there seems to have a split on moving to two proposed name. --B dash (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for executing the page move. In the future, you can use Draft:Move as a holding pen for round-robin page moves. Hope this helps. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 06:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi B dash. As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_to_lift_the_restriction_for_the_unblock_(2nd) - (permanent link) - the restriction on your making Good Article nominations is lifted. The one remaining restriction in place is a requirement to only edit from a single account. This should not be an onerous restriction, however, should you wish to lift this restriction then you must either return to the Administrator's notice board and make your case for this, explaining why an additional account or accounts are necessary, or, if you feel there are privacy concerns, to contact the Arbitration Committee privately. I noted this restriction was not logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions so have remedied this. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Regards, Fish+Karate 09:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi B dash! You closed the move discussion at Talk:Landing Zones 1 and 2 as no consensus. However I totaled the actual votes to move to SpaceX landing zones as 4 to 2, which given the number of editors working on the page seems like a clear consensus. I would like you to remove the no consensus tag and to close the discussion as in favor of the move. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• @UnknownM1: IMO the inputs are spread so I close as no consensus. Since it has been days after I close the discussion, if you disagreed my closing, you may go to WP:MRV to contest, regards. --B dash (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a heads up that we are discussing Idai's importance here if you want to participate. Noah^Talk 01:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the article. It has been very emotional to update. This topic is just so sad. The toll is predicted to well exceed 1000.... I can't even imagine.... Noah^Talk 02:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Just keep in mind the 624 total I posted was correct. There should be 56 deaths in Malawi, 66 in Mozambique from the first landfall, 242 in Mozambique from the second landfall, 259 in Zimbabwe, and 1 in Madagascar. Noah^Talk 02:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Carlotta may have actually had a broad impact. Two deaths were reported as far inland as Aguascalientes (indirect), which means surrounding states (ones located to the southwest) must have been impacted as well since Aguascalientes is a pretty small state. I will have to conduct a large scale search for information, which will take some time to complete. Noah^Talk 19:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by QueerEcofeminist was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 13:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, B dash! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 13:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above was my only basis for initiating the 'speedy delete' process, which is more an explanation than an excuse. A moment's checking of the sources you provided would have saved my blushes. I'm not a doggy person and so miss an aspect that is very important to some editors. I was too quick to see a spoof. I hope that you have not been discouraged by the experience. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Was this revert intentional? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Because I don't have the rights to edit the page. --B dash (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well I do, so if you close it I can do the rest. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you be interested in extending the Madeleina Kay article? There are now some images of Kay as EUsupergirl. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey.. I appreciate your help, but please don't change the names in the refs to last, first format. While I generally do not agree with using the author format, that was what was used in the majority of the refs in the article already. A general rule of thumb is not to change what the majority of the refs have. Noah^Talk 18:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a pointer to Bandari dance. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

If an RfD has no discussion after a week, then the default action is to delete rather than relist, per WP:RGUIDE. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Also why would you relist CP(? —Xezbeth (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". --B dash (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete." Two deletes > one delete. RfD is crowded enough as it is without making it even worse. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The requested move of Grahamstown to Makhanda, Eastern Cape was proposed since reliable sources have been using the new name of "Makhanda" after the official change 6 months ago, with examples of reliable sources using the new name. There was one opposition !vote using a claim that had no supporting evidence (even after a request was made).

You made a non-admin closure against the proposal, but such a closure should not be done by a non-admin since there is no clear consensus whatsoever. Please undo your NAC. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

May I ask why you relisted the move discussion for Fixed-Field alternating gradient Accelerator? There appeared to be consensus on the result. If there was a technical problem with the way the move request was closed, we would appreciate assistance doing it the right way. Thank you --Kronhjorten (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I still see an oppose, so I relisted it. --B dash (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The oppose is me, but my opposition was to the previously suggested title. I agreed with the title that was settled upon and moved to, as is made clear lower down in the page. I left the old oppose there to show the evolution of the discussion; should I have removed it? -- Kronhjorten (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kronhjorten: Yes please. --B dash (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Somehow you have managed to relist Cardinal protopresbyter and Results of the 2020 Rio Carnival at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 28 and' Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 29. Please fix this and be more careful when relisting in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a reason you have not yet fixed this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: I see it right now, the problem has been fixed. --B dash (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused why you relisted the discussion now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 5#Crusaders (DC/Marvel). There is a clear consensus for delete, so it does not need to be relisted. Per WP:RELIST, discussions are relisted because there are only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, which is not the case with that discussion. If you feel there may be a consensus to delete, please leave it for an admin to handle. Otherwise, you are contributing to the WP:RELISTBIAS problem. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fucking Brexit. Since you had some involvement with the Fucking Brexit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)