Sausius

Hello, Sausius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 19:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Culebra. 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) 06:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just wanted to apologize for some of the changes you had to make from my edits. I was tired and was just trying to keep them updated through the night, and totally forgot to switch them over, I just left it on what it was. Thank you though for fixing that. Weatherman27 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome and also no problem, I was updating the page anyway so yor mistakes didn't cause me any axtra work they just confused me. I just added them to my edit sommary in case the EDT thing in particular was done intenionally for reasons I was not aware of and I am sry if that caused that edit summary to read like an attack. Sausius (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I completely understand. I hadn't gotten to updating all of the stuff, and as a result there were a few things that I had missed, and combined with keeping the storm info updated, I left a few gaps. I didn't think your summary read like an attack, I was apologizing for any confusion you had, totally did not mean any of that to happen. Again, I should be the one apologizing, and I really am sorry for the confusion. The EDT thing was by accident, I didn't even think to change them to CDT as it was still on EDT and I thought that was what was supposed to be there. That was an error on my part, and I am sorry that it caused a bit of a mix up. Thank you though for taking the time to fix those edits, and making the article better Weatherman27 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Destroyeraa. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hurricane Delta without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Can you please explain this edit? In addition, you removed inline source templates, which is disruptive. Please don't do that again. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well I just made a routine update to the article and got an edit conflict because someone had made unrelated changes to the article. Some of them seemed fine so I allowed while others were clearly erroneous mostly formatting errors and I just noticed want you meant. That was an honest mistake on my part there were so many sections it was requiring me to check and I just didn't notice these inline source templates. The reasons I took these out accidently was because they were in sections that contained errors before them so because I didn't notice these inline source templates I "removed" them in resolving the edit conflict. Are these inline source templates still missing? If so the article would have to be reverted to that old version and I would than just manually correct the errors that caused me to accidently remove the inline source templates and repeat the updates I made. Depending on how many changes were made since than it may be easier if I just add the inline source templates and content I removed back manually. I just looked and everything I accidentally removed seems back. Sry again for the inconvenience I have caused to you or whoever readded that content. Sausius (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's okay, Sausius - edit conflicts happen often when you update an article that is being heavily edited. Thank you for updating the storms and the current storm information. I'll try to re-add back the inline citations next time, but a whole chunk of information (~1,000 bytes) was removed. Cheers! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurricane Juan (1985), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mid-Atlantic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

While it is indeed true that the IMD has had major issues with intensity estimation, it is incorrect to use the JTWC's (or anyone else's) pressure rather than the official pressure of the RSMC. Additionally, please don't use terms like the IMD being on crack. JavaHurricane 14:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Ah yes rather have a almost certainly wrong and potentially misleading pressure number that doesn't fit with all of the other numbers then have a correct number just because it is the RSMC (even if that one routinely sucks), while the JTWC which we are already using for one minute wind-speeds has a much more reasoble number available. Sounds Reasonable, have a nice day. Sausius (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

That is what Wikipedia's sourcing policy says though, and there's no scope for WP:IAR here. JavaHurricane 01:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) It would be incorrect for us to use unofficial pressure estimates for current systems when there is a more official (aka the RSMC) available. We don't use ATCF data because it changes often. Additionally, it is said in the WikiProject's project resources that "Reports, bulletins, and other products issued by Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers (which the JTWC isn't) are the authoritative source on meteorological information pertaining to tropical cyclones in their respective basins. This includes both quantitative and qualitative information about a storm's characteristics, including intensities, durations, and locations." And yes, I agree with you that the IMD can have issues at times with intensity, however doing otherwise and putting the JTWC's unofficial pressure estimate would mean going against the World Meteorological Organization's decision to appoint the IMD as the RSMC. Akbermamps 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok then, I guess i will not edit indian ocean wikipedia artcicles then. At the risk of sounding like a weather weenie or just a general smartass, I do not trust the IMD judgement at all and usually totally disregard what they say. Using the information they put out therefore goes against my principle of not providing objectively false or unreliable information. Guess I'll have to stick to basins then that have a decnet RSMC, like pretty much every other basin. I mean I could also go on a rant about how it is literally making wikipedia worse to blindly follow some rules or conventions even tho it is rationally dumb but I will spare you that. Sausius (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2021