User talk:RandomInfinity17

Thanks for the track, i' am no use the WTPC for the use in Android :( and no have Internet in my PC and me use te Paint, no see, all tracks it (Unknown) i'am me year see the colour ok i'an use two account (Cubano 153 and Unar64) OK, sorry for me english i'am help Unar64P (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I plan to do all the other windstorm tracks soon. RandomInfinity17 (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My date of image it a weather-app seevice. in the app it a wind-weather app, you need download the aplicatation, thanks for the other(s) track(s) https://www.windy.com/ it the link of the Weather Service, All the Storm Liv it no conffirmed european windstorm, in the Groap of the Fub, (Bettina, Elke, Iris and Liv) liv a reppoet of the storm, thanks of the other tracks. Unar64P (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2022–23_Caribean_Storm Season/ my page Unar64P (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

searsh the page please Unar64P (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RandomInfinity17,

You have reverted my edit about storm Nicole on

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I saw your edit earlier removing the automatic updating of the link to the current European Windstorm list and have partially reverted it. Basically the coding needed to reflect that the season is 6-monthly like the Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons. Its simple when you know how :) Happy New Year.Jason Rees (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RandomInfinity17. I have a small question. Do you know how to create those global track images for the Tropical Cyclones in XXXX articles? I think the user (

Probably not because I don't have all of the track data for all the storms. Also, I don't want to pressure Superstorm so don't feel pressured about it. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 16:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, I saw your infobox on the costliest TCs and wanted to suggest that you combine the SHEM lists into SIO and SPAC, since the Australian list will just generally contain TCs that either moved in or our of the basin eg: Freddy/Gabrielle. I also wanted to point you in the direction of the following TCs for the SPAC which almost certainly will need to be listed. Ofa, Val, Gita, Gabrielle, Yasi, Veena, Larry/Monica. (Ie: Systems that impact multiple countries) Also you might want to reach out to @Hurricanehink: who has done some work on this previously as he maybe able to point you in the right direction of some more TCs. Jason Rees (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created that article specifically for the fact that there is not much information of the costliest tropical cyclones outside the Northern Hemisphere basins. I base the damage tolls for a cyclone based on how much damage the cyclone did in basin. Basically, if a cyclone caused $560 million in damages in the SPAC basin and $2.5 billion in the AUS basin (just hypotheticals), I would list the cyclone as having done $2.5 billion in the Australian region list and $560 million in the South Pacific. Hope this makes sense. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not complaining about you making the list as I personally welcome it but just wanted to reach out, be friendly, share knowledge, make a couple of suggestions and save you a few hours of research, since outside of the Northern Hemisphere the basins are not as well defined as we would like. You will also need to be careful when trying to split damage totals into basins, since systems that impact the Solomon Islands can count for both the SPAC and Australian regions.Jason Rees (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 April 2023,

Tornado outbreak of March 31, 2023, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Hurricane Fiona, did not appear to be 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. If you wish to have the infobox changed to read "weather event" rather than "tropical cyclone (which indeed it was) I would suggest that you (as well as Iseriously) take it up on the article talk page. Thank you.   Aloha27  talk  17:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I was just trying to correct Fiona's damage toll (which is still wrong but whatever), I believe that you are mistaken.

good faith, we are trying to move past the tropical cyclone infobox and this is an unnecessary delay. Infinity (talk - contributions) 18:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Aloha27: A discussion on the talkpage is not needed because we already had an RfC on the matter which decided to replace and deprecate the TC infobox and other various infoboxes. Noah^Talk 20:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLUDGEONING that I've seen during my 16+ years editing the project. Were I making the call, instead of closing, I would've at least gotten more input for no consensus. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  22:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Any specific reason why you removed the links to meteorology terms in Template:Infobox weather event/History? Chlod (say hi!) 22:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that linking the terms in the side bar looked weird (especially when between two unlinked terms) and didn't contrast well with the white background when bolded. I know it's not that good of a reason but that's why I did it.

Unrelated, but I couldn't find a way to set the type/category of infobox weather event to potential tropical cyclone on my subpage. If you could help me, that would be great. Infinity (talk - contributions) 23:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though the links in the infobox may appear weird, this is mostly for the reader's benefit, as it is possible that not all of them know what "extratropical" means. Since this is merely a stylistic preference, there shoud be a better reason as to why those links shouldn't be there.

As for your latter point, it seems the NWS infobox didn't support potential TCs. You can now add a |category= parameter to override the category. The reason why it didn't have that parameter in the first place was to avoid editors from supplying the category, which would be redundant as it's automatically calculated. I've thought of a solution for that just now; feel free to use the parameter as you wish. Chlod (say hi!) 01:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can revert my edit there. Infinity (talk - contributions) 21:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong La Nina simply doesn't exist. La Nina has never gotten strong enough for the creation of a very strong category. You can see this here. Noah^Talk 23:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I saw "very strong El Niño" and thought you forgot the La Niña counterpart. Infinity (talk - contributions) 23:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know you are getting annoyed at me, but I hate to say it. Get used to it. It isn't my job to add sources to everything. The editor who changes the numbers should add a new source. I've taken so much flack for not discussing with editors enough & there is tons of unsourced lists in WP:Weather things. I'm working through tornado articles and I don't have the time to clean up after every editor who seems to think not adding a source after changing a death toll or damage total is ok. I've opened discussions and pinged some of those editors who don't add sources and they still don't. So as much as you don't like it, I'm going to keep creating discussions (as I was just mentioned to at an edit warring noticeboard) and citation needed templating every time these editors forget to add a dang source when they change numbers. If I didn't know better, I would take them to AN for failing to source hundreds of edits even after being mentioned that they have to add citations. Sorry, but I've taken too much flack for not communicating with editors, so if you don't like the discussion spam or citation needed spam, get through to the handful of editors who refuse to add citations because I sure can't.

Ok, I get it. It's annoying to me and I'm not the only who shares my opinion, but fine. What I want to ask now is are you fine? Like, there are some edits that I question. Like here, I don't get why you didn't think it was vandalism, it clearly was. Also, on two cases on Tropical cyclones of 2023 and 2023 Pacific typhoon season, you called Typhoon Mawar a cyclone. You did this multiple times and not just in the title, so how did you not notice? Just wondering what's going on. Infinity (talk - contributions) 01:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 03:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Elijahandskip

: Here's why you're always getting hauled to a noticeboard, and here's how to avoid it in the future. You may not want to see me, but I felt like I had to give the following pieces of advice that are going to be critical for your continued success on Wikipedia, so please hear me out and acknowledge reading each and every point in full:

• You have a tendency to
  assume anyone who takes issue with you or something of yours is just out to get you, with the title of this very section being a clear example. Casting aspersions like this is at best the pot calling the kettle black and at worst simply personal attacks. Stop, think, think twice, and think three times
  before you make such statements. It has a chilling effect on others and is most certainly considered uncivil. I very strongly recommend that you ask another editor before you even implicitly accuse anyone of misbehavior.
  • Indeed,
    listen
    to them accordingly, as I expect here.
• Your talk page comments like the ones in this section are confrontational in tone ("Get used to it"–totally unnecessary and inflammatory) and are often
  grinding your axe
  on the community will chafe, bruise, lacerate, and cut them, and will do no favors. Furthermore, outright asking folks not to interact with you will not get you very far; your talk page belongs to the community and not you. You should feel free to ask another editor (strongly suggested to be a very experienced one, preferably an admin specializing in this) how to improve on this.
• The issue the community has with your approach to content disputes is that you continue reverting when you reasonably should know well it is disputed, i.e. it does not have consensus, and take a combative approach in any ensuing discussion. You seem to view discussion as an always or never, all or nothing thing. This is not the case. There is a
  WP:3RRE
  ) apply; if in doubt, just go to the talk page. From this I extremely strongly recommend a combination of 1RR and 0RR rules: you may revert someone else's edit once to challenge it as in BRD unless that edit is itself a revert, in which case you go to the talk page without any revert. If ever in doubt, ask another experienced editor in a neutral fashion (so as to not canvass).
• Going back to your comments, you
  WP:CLUE
  .
• You probably know this by now, but
  WP:RFCBEFORE should always be followed. RfC's opened before smaller scale dispute resolution has been tried has the effect of crying wolf
  and wasting community resources better used for truly intractable disputes.

Given all this, and how most of the points can be addressed by asking for advice, I think what you need is a

WP:MENTOR

. I am too busy in real life to be one, but that would be the best way to get you back on track.

We are all here for you; however, the community's patience is limited. I was this close to writing this as an ANI post in light of your decision to edit war on the climate change article after I reported you to AN3 and the closing admin suggested you attempt discussion on the talk page rather than in edit summaries (i.e. do not try to brute-force search a compromise by repeatedly submitting different versions).

Please please take the time to carefully read this and reply that you understand it, because the next step if you continue any of these behaviors would be ANI and sanctions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read all the posts fully and one question arose that are fairly significant I believe. (1) You said I should seek advice from an experience editor/admin on how to deal with my hot-headedness. To be 100% honest, I did and the mentor abandoned me after one mistake while I got contribution stalked for months. This was back in 2020–21 and since then, I was always defensive due to the constant knowledge of a contribution stalker that made it very clear I should not edit Wikipedia or have any chance to edit Wikipedia. My mentor (an admin) told me to not interact with them as they did have an axe to grind and I happen to be in their way. I have done my best to avoid community problems for long periods of time (example creating

talk) 07:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Complete side note,

talk) 07:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Elijahandskip: I'm sorry it ended that way, but you need to try again and this time be considerate of the mentor's time and energy. I was mentored by 28bytes (talk · contribs

) early in my active editing career (not suggesting him necessarily, but giving myself as an example) and I was always judicious with the questions I asked. Mentors do not absolve you of your responsibility to edit constructively and without disruption, so it's still you who has to make in-the-moment judgement calls, after all.

The community has always been receptive to mistakes, but not when they become both disruptive and repeated (i.e. a pattern). You can't avoid these problems by simple content creation or editing; while these are best for editors like yourself who struggle with dispute resolution and policies, you can't always avoid disputes.

As for the 3RR situation I did not in fact link your reversion of the troll edit. But that's besides the point. When you have accumulated such an extensive record of edit warring and what not, arguing over minute details sadly won't do much for you. It might've avoided a block in this case, but the admin reminded you that 3RR isn't the definition of edit warring.

By the same token, I don't really buy your explanation of the climate change article situation but that detail matters little in the grand scheme of things. It appears that you were the first to introduce the content in question. Even if I give you that you did not in fact violate the letter of BRD, it would be gaming the system for you to say that this approach isn't at all problematic. This would have violated the 1RR and 0RR suggestion I made above had they already been in effect.

If you’re afraid of violating policies further, what I suggested is nearly a foolproof way to do so as long as you exercise reasonable caution and don’t take what I said as an entitlement to do anything.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I greatly appreciate all the advice you gave to me. Hopefully I don’t

talk) 07:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Elijahandskip: For situations where you are not already aware of others actively disputing your edits, such as when you want to propose something first, a tip to avoid being accused of making unnecessary discussions is to search talk page archives for previous consensus, and to ask whether there was a preexisting consensus if you can’t find it, unless the situation is so obviously new that there wouldn’t have been discussion before, in which case you should still try to make the decision with policy first and if policy is not conclusive, only then open a discussion (example: Talk:Miss America#Separate section for the scandal, where I cited policy grounds for either way).—Jasper Deng (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page March 2015 North American winter storm, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

]

List of costliest tropical cyclones

The article

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the

]

Just a head's up

Just wanted to let you know this edit was reverting a SOCK of Andrew5. IP wasn't blocked as at the time of their initial SPI, the admin said blocking wasn't going to help and just wanted to PP anything they were interested in. The sock-master is easy to spot, with a clear

WP:DUCK confirmation if baseball and weather edits occur. Should I have put an edit summary saying it was a SOCK reversion, yes. But, either way, I would like to ask for you to re-revert the edit, since you are technically supporting a reversion done by a disruptive editor (sock-master). Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for taking my suggestions and expanding on your draft so you could publish a vital article! I thereby award you the Original Barnstar. There are a lot of topics that need to be explored in detail on Wikipedia, but thanks to your work, the October 2022 Southern Ocean cyclone is not one of them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Your draft article, Draft:Floods of 2022

Hello, RandomInfinity17. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Floods of 2022

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]