User talk:Seafoxlrt616
Welcome
[edit]
|
August 2022
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1999 Pacific typhoon season into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Reply to your question
[edit]Hi Seafoxlrt616! First off, thank you for creating Tropical Storm York (1999) and contributing to Wikipedia. So the only reason I added that extra citations tag to the article is that only one of the four sources is a reliable secondary news article. In general, the notability of tropical cyclones is based on the amount of news coverage a storm gets. Primary sources, which for weather articles are normally from a government meteorological organizations (JTWC, NOAA, etc..), are always needed as citations for articles, but a few news articles from reliable sources help to show the "why this tropical cyclone should have a separate article rather than a small section in the seasonal article". The quality of the article looks great to me, so really the best thing to do would be adding some extra news articles as citations throughout the article, and it will be a good article. I hope that helps and if you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask! Elijahandskip (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. I replied on my talk page, but I accidentally messed up the reply-alert template. I do not believe it would have let you know I replied, so I did a copy/paste of my reply here, which would let you know my reply. If the original reply message worked, I am sorry for the double-reply notification. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also what kind of criteria is present for a page to be promoted from Start-grade to C-grade? Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- In addition is there sufficient amount of sources now? Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 14
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tropical Storm York (1999), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sai Kung. 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) 09:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
hi
[edit]I stumbled upon you here. Firestar464 (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the results of any national or sub-national election, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- So far I made and plan to make no edits in relation to the controversial infoboxes despite I have my own opinions. The focus of mine remains on making opinion poll graphs. Thanks for the reminder anyway. Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)