User talk:ABC paulista

Please don't add things to articles with comments like "with real terms" unless you are prepared to find a source to confirm that. I recommend reading WP:RS and not using webzines. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ABC paulista, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Iune Happy editing! — Iune(talk) 01:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

I had added sources, but they were removed because they were not reliable. But I think a site like progarchives.com is pretty reliable when it comes to prog music. Also, the page about technical death metal does not have the sources it needs. There is not a single source to be found where they say tech death is the same as prog death, so at least the first line of that page should be altered. DarthSivius (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Do you want me to merge this User:ABC paulista/sandbox - with your new Cyclone Ron article? That way you have the complete edit history under one page. Good work on it, too. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove it and use the sandbox for something else. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the Chappel/Bate report you are citing to say that BoM said X or Y, does not back you up as it clearly states on pg 1, that it contains info obtained from RSMC Nadi, TCWC Wellington etc. I also note that if the BoM had issued warnings then it would have in bold at the top of the section, (TCWC Perth, TCWC Darwin or TCWC Brisbane) depending on where the system is (WA, NT or Qld) like it as for Sid or Selwyn. I also note that that the GP summary is primary based on Operational Data.Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doom metal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
html "Bayern Munich heavily favored to beat Borussia Dortmund in UEFA Champions League Final"]. ''Yahoo Sports''. "Bayern faced Dortmund in four matches during the 2012-13 campaign and recorded Jupp Heynckes Would Welcome A Return To Real Madrid, Reveals Agent"]. ''The Hard Tackle''. "The Bayern Munich manager, who will be in charge of his last game at the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologize for asking a question, its the only way we learn. Also i hope you didn't mind me undoing your edit to Susan last night as I personally feel that short sections aren't needed and would rather have a short overall summary of the systems impact. Regards.Jason Rees (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think there is going to be any major aftermath that cant be worked into the impact summary. Unless off course is able to chuck in an Freedom of Information request to say the Australian or New Zealand governments for any recorded information they have on Cyclones KVC, Susan and Ron. I found the results of such a request for Cyclone Betsy to the Australian Government earlier this week, made by someone back in 2012.Jason Rees (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a good go through of KVC or Ron might turn up a good source or two, but to be honest i think Susan is more or less complete.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I see the source which confirms speed metal is considered an extreme metal genre?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to La Niña may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 16 - 23, 2010 |accessdate=08 Noverber 2014 |publisher=California Nevada River Forecast Center }}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of my agreeing. You were the one who changed this recently to add the term "calendar year." If challenged, the burden is on you to convince others that the change is worthy. We have grand slams and non-calendar year grand slams. We have golden slams and non-calendar year golden slams. Please self revert and discuss if you don't like the consensus view. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was being WP:BOLD and made the section like the Super Slam, and since there was never a consensus about it and no sources backing up a restrict definiton about Golden Slam, I wasn't the one that should have opened that discussion. Well, I've answered back in the talk page. ABC paulista (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is great and fine. Encouraged at wikipedia. But when you change something, and it is reverted, you are then supposed to bring it to talk to change peoples minds... not revert again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, I reverted your change so you were the one supposed to bring it to talk. But well, let's just keep discussuing about the issue itself. ABC paulista (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute baloney. It was stable for years. Even Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges it. Get rid of that edit and bring it up elsewhere if you want to change consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert myself, no matter how much you ask, unless you show irrefutable arguments about Golden Slam. For now, you have shown only one source that's from Encyclopedia Britannica, but it is not even reliable for itself since encyclopedias fall on the WP:TERTIARY. I've shown sources that are on the WP:SECONDARY, so I expect that you show secondary sources as well.

And where is your so called "consensus"? I didn't found one anywhere, or it simply doesn't exist? ABC paulista (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

brbr Tetra quark ^(talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the South Atlantic tropical cyclone page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cyclone Ron page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Atlantic–Pacific crossover hurricanes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hurricane Debby. 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) 08:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I was wondering why you moved Diana? The storm was retired in 1990. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hurricane Alberto (2000) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and Atmospheric Administration|date=May 20, 2011|accessdate=October 3, 2012|title= Subject: E7) What is the farthest a tropical cyclone has traveled ? |url=http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E7.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Slam (tennis), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Crawford. 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) 11:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI The Overall El Nino article needs to be gone through with a very fine toothcomb as it mentions the occurrences several times when one section would probably do. This is what I was attempting to do earlier but got distracted with other things. it woudl also be good to get rid of the summuary of the current event from the article since we have the 2014-16 El Nino event article now. Jason Rees (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your suggestions as too my edits and I will try and act on them. Anyway I see on the La Nina article that you have used BoM's data and chucked the timeline back to 1900, which is good. However, the article does need to be gone through with a fine toothcomb as well and expanded out, so I will see what I can do with it though im also curious to develop the La Nina/El Nino event pages out further especially the 2014-16 El Nino Event.Jason Rees (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think to the layout of EL Nino article now - id be curious to hear some of your thoughts.Jason Rees (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thougths and feedback on the state of the El Nino article, I needed a push in figuring out where to take it which is why i asked for your comments. The Antarctica section is located within the impacts on the global climate section, because it generally consists of impacts to the climate rather than specific impacts though it could do with copying to the ENSO article. I think we do have to upgrade the ENSO and La Nina articles, but all 3 will take quite a bit of time to do as we need to figure out what needs to go in them and where. At the moment we have an ongoing EL Nino so theres a lot around about it, if we get a La Nina later this year as predicted then no doubt it will change.Jason Rees (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edits for El Niño were recently reverted, saying "the source didn't support the statement". Can you please tell me why? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you dont mind us using the infobox storm in order to summarize the event - it seems to be the best option as I can not think of any other parameters that would be useful. Anyway even though it is OR, I feel it is better to fill the end date of the El Nino in, but to what is a good question and i would be curious to have your thoughts on it.Jason Rees (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox storm is already in the article, while what im thinking for the end date is either May - July 2016 or April to June 2016. However, this is assuming that the CPC/IRI wave byebye to El Nino in their June Updates.Jason Rees (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where your coming from, however, I suspect that both the JMA and NOAA/IRI will declare it gone either this month or next which would lead us very nicely to say that it dissipated between May and July 2016 without any WP:Weight issues. On a side note within its state of the climate for 2014, NOAA says that 2014 was reclassified by them as a marginal El Nino, which provides us with even more justification to call it 2014-16 El Nino imo.Jason Rees (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I reverted your edit from weeks ago regarding that you stated "Winston was not a TC by RSMC" in the Australian basin. If you may not know, a source was provided in the Other systems section about Winston and is classified a TL by the BoM. TLs are included in articles. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meow was the one who added it in as a tropical low, based on this warning from the BoM. I personally do not like it and i suspect that it was probably just a remnant tropical low at landfall.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is from a forum and as i said I dont like it much and I feel that it is better just to call it a Remnant Low in the Aus Basin, per Steve Youngs track for it and the BoM summary for march.Jason Rees (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for replying to your message late. @Jason Rees: At first, I thought it was you who added Winston. JR, if you say so, that it can't be trusted as it was from a forum, then why state in Winston's article its dissipation on 3 March? ABC paulista, the (3) sources were already provided in the Other systems section, in the line about Cyclone Winston. However in those sites, it says Ex-Tc, someone told me here that Ex-Tcs are still active or something, but not extratropical (?). Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Wheelchair Tennis champions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon Reid. 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) 10:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hurricane John (1994)

added links pointing to TXT and XLS

List of Pacific hurricanes

added links pointing to TXT and XLS

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are perfectly acceptable in infoboxes. The trouble is, with most music genre articles, how well a particular image serves to summarize the subject is debated.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to JMA which operates RSMC Tokyo for the Northwest Pacific Ocean, CI8.0 of the Dvorak technique equals to 122 knots. That is why Typhoon Haiyan is given 125 knots and Typhoon Meranti is given 120 knots; both of them are analysed CI8.0. However, CI8.0 equals to 150 knots in the Southern Hemisphere, so it is not proper to compare the two hemispheres. The Hong Kong Observatory, however, is the only Northern Hemisphere agency that uses the similar conversion method from in the Southern Hemisphere. It indicated Haiyan a 155-knot typhoon. 🐱💬 03:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying I have reverted your edit in the 1991 Pacific typhoon season. All systems I have included there are recognized by the JMA. Thanks. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding images of specific bands to info boxes of genre articles. This creates an undue weight issue. I hate to undo all your work, but at the same time, before making lots of changes, sometimes you've got to think "Is there a reason why this relatively easily done thing isn't done anywhere else?" Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the djent page, extreme metal was a stylistic origin since the beginning of the page itself, meaning it was put there for a reason. Just because no source was added when the page was made doesn’t mean it should be taken out. Davatki (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The supercopa , super cup are all counter in new season. So that counts to 4 trophies, alright. Vibhavpawar99 (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the season consists of other trophies besides La Liga. Vibhavpawar99 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ABC paulista. Can you let me know when you think this was discussed and agreed? I can't see any discussion on the article's talk page where consensus was reached. Thanks. (Please reply here, so the discussion is in one place.) --hippo43 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, consensus does not need to be achieve trough discussions. Per WP:CON, every edit or sattement that is not disputed is consensus in some kind, and this criteria has been around for some years. About the talk page, while there was not a full discussion about it, in some instances this criteria has been cited there and no one disputed this reasoning there. ABC paulista (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary you stated it had been discussed before. Actually it hasn't explicitly been discussed or agreed, and editors have disagreed with it. --hippo43 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CON, if something is not disagreed that it is automatically considered agreed, and since it has been cited without explict opposion, than it was a case of implicit consensus. Also, seeing these editor's changes it's hard to tell if they were disagreeing with the criteria at all or just trying to add a exception to the rule. All in all, no one seems to be willing to discuss that matter and its reasonings, so there was no disagreement to the criteria at all.

Also, my talk page isn't the place for such discussions, this should have been brought to that list's talk page. ABC paulista (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do the sources treat it? ~SML • TP 17:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the other ecess records that I was too absentminded to notice. Sorry if I sounded like a dick earlier. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: No worries, and sorry if I sounded too harsh/agressive on this one. I feel like I could've been less direct. ABC paulista (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Doom metal into Death-doom. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you try to use reliable ones. I’ve seen the additions you’ve been making, and a lot of the sources are webzines. ~SML • TP 01:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete so many subgenres when Blackmetalbaz edited? Citing this, and other stuff. You were apparently fine with the paragraphs, but now you change your opinion on that. Care to explain? Ping me when you respond. ~SML • TP 23:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I work in mobile view so I can’t see templates. But wouldn’t be better to create a template on black metal? ~SML • TP 16:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sixty Minute Limit: Is it really necessary? There's not much subtopics in Black metal that have their own article. IMO, even the Death metal's one isn't needed. ABC paulista (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The why keep the death metal template? ~SML • TP 16:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sixty Minute Limit: Honestly, because it's harmless. Someone created, no one cared much on either exapanding it or deleting it. But to be honest, I prefer deleting the Death metal one rather than creating a Black metal one. ABC paulista (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started a templates for discussion on the template. ~SML • TP 16:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me improve and expand the page? I can’t do it alone. So if you could, I would greatly appreciate it. ~SML • TP 22:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t leave summaries saying “completing an incomplete addition” or “doing things right”. Just because I’m forgetful doesn’t mean do things incomplete or incorrect. ~SML • TP 10:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me in finding sources for that? Looking for sources on post-black metal was hard enough.. ~SML • TP 19:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doom metal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AXS (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) 09:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at technical death metal, without citing a reliable source that actually includes the content that you are so claiming it contains. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Second Skin (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The JTWC has never been an official WMO forecasting agency, in fact, the JMA has been the official RSMC since 1989. Before then there was no official warning centre to the best of my knowledge.Jason Rees (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: True, in 2000 they started assigning names. ABC paulista (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: You are putting way too much on things being prim, proper and official, when we have to remember that there are other warning centers out there, who are entitled to put out official forecasts on tropical cyclones without consulting with the RSMC in charge of a system. In the specific case of the NIO, we have to remember that TCWC Jakarta and China have no option but to warn for parts of the basin. Does the fact that the IMD are the RSMC for the basin make their forecasts superseed Jakarta/China's? I doubt it. In fact, the JMA includes this general disclaimer on its website "Please note that information issued by the RSMC Tokyo - Typhoon Center represents neither official analysis/forecasts nor warnings for the areas concerned." We also have had the BoM monitoring this weeks tropical depression in TCWC Jakarta's AoR and taking over the forecast responsibility for Uesi, before it hit 160E and the Australian region.Jason Rees (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rees, well, someone has to. IMO, the things being prim, proper and official is the best way to properly address Wikipedia's guidelines and avoid problems that plague the whole encyclopedia, like WP:OR, WP:URS and WP:NPOV. See, I'm not saying that all info that comes from non-WMO-endorsed agencies should be completely disregarded, but they should be included with proper context noted and giving precedence to WMO-endorsed agencie's ones. Most of these other warning centers put out forecasts for local interests, since they have a better understanding than the RSMC of what the people of those places might need, but they are most local agencies, while RSMCs and TCWCs are more for continental/global interests, and IMO this fact also gives them an edge on relevance for Wikipedia. About Jakarta and CMA, I've never seen them replacing IMD on issuing advisories on NIO, but a RSMC/TCWC can hand over their responsibilities to another agency when they feel the need to, like FMS did to Uesi. And on Australian Region, all three TCWCs (BoM, Jakarta and Port Moresby) are WMO-endorsed and equally responsible for issuing advisories. Even in some cases, a RSMC can issue advisories on another basin, like JMA does sometimes in CPAC, but we never deem them official, never include them on that basin's season count and usually include them on a separated section of the article.ABC paulista (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with being so prim, proper and official is that it gets taken too far and leads to conflicts over what data to use, especially when it comes to the classification of tropical cyclones. For example, the UKMO and Meteo France are both endorsed by the WMO as RSMC's (Exeter and Toulouse/Reunion) and would, in theory, be able to conflict what RSMC Miami/Washington say about a TC especially if it was transitioning into an extratropical system (In fact I believe that the UKMO/Met Eirrean (I presume that ME is WMO endorsed since they also name storms) did a few years ago by calling a system that was impacting them extratropical). I have also never seen the CMA or TCWC Jakarta replace the IMD for TC warnings, but if a TC was in the Straits of Malacca at say 2.5N 100E, then I would expect to see TCWC Jakarta in warning status. (Same goes for the CMA and a TC impacting China).Jason Rees (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rees, actually, being prim, proper and official has the objective to solve possibles conflicts while avoiding to fail Wikipedia's gudelines, giving precedence to better endorsed info, with a proper criteria, while acknowledging the existance of other sources. Also, to avoid such conflicts, the WMO's Tropical Cyclone Program (TCP), divided the Tropical Cyclone-prone areas in seven, assigning a RSMC/TCWC for each Area of Responsability (AoR), so none of them overlap. In this scenario, both Exeter and Toulouse aren't part of the TCP, so they hold neither any AoR, nor any official status on the matter, and AFAIK there's no "Extratropical Cyclone Program" on WMO, so the Best Tracks are still the best dataset for extratropical cyclones that transitioned from tropical ones. La Reunion is a RSMC that's part of the TCP, but their designated region is the SWIO, so they hold no official status over another AoR. Once Meteo-France expressed their disagreement over NHC's assessement of tropical cyclone status for Tropical Storm Grace (2009), but despite that the storm still is a official tropical cyclone because, in the end, NHC holds the final say about it when it comes to the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific regions, and Grace is still present in their Best Track dataset. About the name-giving status, it doesn't guarantee a RSMC-status for an agency. Other agencies like FU-Berlin and PAGASA also name storms, but the don't hold official status, being more used for local interests. About CMA and Jakarta, I would also expect to see them in warning status... for local interests. But I wouldn't expect IMD to hand them any regional authority over NIO, since they hold no official status for that basin whatsoever. ABC paulista (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also as you may have seen, I have recently been doing a bit of work on tropical cyclone intensities I the SWIO, where we have to ask the question do I use the BoM data or Reunion's data on certain systems. In doing so I have to remember that the basin moved from 80 to 90E in around 1986 and that these days both issue offical forecasts for the SWIO.Jason Rees (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rees, I'd advise you to seek who holds the official best tracks for that time now, since BTs supercedes operational data, but also acknowledging that at the time another agency issued advisories to it, similar on how JTWC is treated on WPAC typhoon's articles. About the official forecasts, actually, that's not right. according to WMO, the SWIO basin sole responsible agency is Meteo-France's La Reunion. BoM is responsible for the australian region, which takes a bit of the South Indian Ocean, but La Reunion's and BoM AoR never overlap with one another. ABC paulista (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking the 83-84 is La Nina per the SST's from the CPC (It's marked in blue after all) - In fact, id probably go as far as to say that the ENSO State was probably La Nina straight off the bat of the super El Nino of 82-83 until 1986. However, how much of this is OR - I dont know which is why I have resisted reverting your edit.Jason Rees (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the discussion on Yomiuri's Treble.

I have a question about your below comment.

Yomiuri qualified for the 1987 Asian Club Championship through the 1986 Emperor's Cup.

Club	Japan Soccer League	Asian Club Championship
Furukawa Electric	1985–86 season Champions Qualified for the 1986(–87) Asian Club Championship	1986 seaosn Winner, formerly known as 1986–87 season
Yomiuri FC	1986–87 season Champions Qualified for the 1987(–88) Asian Club Championship	1987 season Winner, formerly known as 1987–88 season

I think Yomiuri qualified for the 1987 Asian Club Championship through Japan Soccer League 1986–87 season Champion At that time, Emperor's Cup didn't have qualification - Asian Club Championship.

Therefore, Japan Soccer League 1986–87 season and Asian Club Championship 1987 seaosn are not same season.

Yomiuri, In order to Achieve a treble

• 1987 Asian Club Championship Winner
• 1987–88 Japan Soccer League Champion
• 1987 Emperor's Cup

What do you think of my opinion? Footwiks (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Footwiks, I think that this discussion is a moot point since there's a reliable source stating that it does constitute as a Treble, and can only be disputed if another reliable source challenges it. About your reasoning, AFAIK the Japanese League only started qualificating it's clubs to the Asian Championship on 1988-89 and, if I'm not wrong, the previous two Asian Championships started before the ending of the previows two Japanese Leagues, so they couldn't be used as qualifications. And even if you were right here, it wouldn't mean much beacause two competitions happening on the same season, with one serving as a qualification for the other, is not unprecedented. It happened before, mostly in Latin America. ABC paulista (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing you remove 2021 from the La Nina article per WP:Crystal which begs the question, when would you be comfortable with stating that a La Nina existed in 2021? All of the forecasts that I have seen state that it will exist on January 1, 2021.Jason Rees (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rees Forecast=prediction, and as stated on WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cannot state that something already happened, or it's bound to happen, based on predictions. Predictions can be used as sources for statements that tell that "something can happen", or "something is forecasted to happen", but no further than that. So IMO it would only make sense to include 2021 when its first trimonth on ONI shows a La Niña, or some major agency (JMA, BoM, NOAA, etc) declare that the phenomenon is happening that year. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Intercontinental Cup, Women's Premier League and Irish League. 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) 06:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make it very clear with you about the 2002 Pacific hurricane season and Maysak. Maysak entered the Central Pacific basin on October 30 and became an extratropical cyclone the next day, but they did not warn by the Central Pacific Hurricane Center at that time. (until 2019 since CPHC moved to NHC). And you can tell what the hell this is the map that is located in the central left part; not to be confused with the Ele and Huko triangles, but a point of a tropical storm that everything indicated that it was Maysak that entered the basin without the CPHC noticing:

Did you see that? Tell me later --МОДОКАУ 23:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modokai First of all, this image was generated by an Wikimedia user, which make it unusabe as a source per WP:TERTIARY, also in these tracks the users usually use IBTrACS as a source to generate them, but the source makes no disticnction of RSMC/officially WMO-endorsed best tracks and unoffical ones, so they further fail WP:RS. The main thing is that the CPHC is the official RSMC for the Central Pacific basin's (between 140W and the Date Line), so it's the only one who can say which systems did officially exist within their AoR. It doesn't matter what JMA, NHC, JTWC and others say about the CPAC, it's the CPHC who has the final say on this matter and if a system isn't included on its best track, it's not official. And for unofficial storms, like this one, 1992's Ward and Dan, 1999's Tanya and others, an "Other Systems" subsection or another mentions is more than enough for them. Only official storms count on the statistics.

Your edit war on the template is not with me for a change. If you want to observe WP:BRD, you should. Someone added it and discussed and you reverted twice without discussing. That's a problem. I was reverting the anon, not you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz That's not true, it seems that you completely misundertood the situation, so let me explain: The whole situation started when 3family6 added both Christian metal and Unblack metal on the template, and then I reverted it. Then, instead of leaving the template on its status quo and start a discussion on the subject, as mandated by WP:BRD, he proceeded to re-add Unblack metal on the page and an anon made further changes. You reverted the anon, but, intentionally or not, also reverted 3family6, which he took as an accident and, again, added Unblack metal, which I reverted back and then on-and-on until, finally, he started the discussion. Note that he only added the discussion after the last round of reverts, neither in the start of the dispute, nor that I ignored it multiple times (I answered right away). But still, WP:BRD states that the page must be kept on the latest configuration before the bold edit (in this case, it was the inclusion of Unblack metal) was made, and that's what I'm trying to do. ABC paulista (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is true. You are in an edit war. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021-02-05T16:17:55 2021-02-05T21:53:09 2021-02-06T01:52:16 2021-02-06T02:18:54 Four reverts in just over ten hours. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. I too am at three now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz If you weren't so unwilling to follow WP:BRD guidelines of keeping away the disputed content, that wouldn't be happening. I'm just trying to keep things prim and proper, but you're not cooperating. Please, just stop re-adding Unblack metal, the source (bold edit) of the dispute, and everything will be fine. ABC paulista (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address the bold, revert, discuss cycle.

• 2021-02-04T23:52:37‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎ 1,640 bytes +20‎ I think Walter reverted me by accident
• 2021-02-05T16:17:55‎ ABC paulista talk contribs‎ 1,620 bytes −20‎ Undid revision 1004897418 by 3family6 (talk) Not cited in main article
• 2021-02-05T18:45:52‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎ 1,640 bytes +20‎ My mistake, it's listed in derivative forms on the metal subgenres list
• 2021-02-05T21:53:09‎ ABC paulista talk contribs‎ 1,620 bytes −20‎ Undid revision 1005048553 by 3family6 (talk) Not valid either
• 2021-02-06T01:49:39‎ Walter Görlitz talk contribs‎ 1,640 bytes +20‎ Reverted 1 edit by ABC paulista (talk): How so? Talk?
• 2021-02-06T01:52:16‎ ABC paulista talk contribs‎ 1,620 bytes −20‎ Undid revision 1005116155 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Per WP:BRD. Just check the ongoing discussion on this talk page
• 2021-02-06T01:52:40‎ Walter Görlitz talk contribs‎ 1,640 bytes +20‎ Reverted 1 edit by ABC paulista (talk): I did not remove it to start with and the talk has stared. See WP:BRD
• 2021-02-06T02:18:54‎ ABC paulista talk contribs‎ 1,620 bytes −20‎ Undid revision 1005116749 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Per talk page. WP:BRD states that the page must be kept on the latest configuration before the controversial edit (the inclusion of Unblack metal) was made, and be unchanged until the dispute is over. Please follow the gidelines.
• 2021-02-06T03:30:32‎ Walter Görlitz talk contribs‎ 1,640 bytes +20‎ Reverted 1 edit by ABC paulista (talk): Per WP:BRD and WP:3RR

Reverting stops while discussion is ongoing. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the whole issue started before that:

• 02h08min de 4 de fevereiro de 2021‎ 3family6 discussão contribs‎ 1 668 bytes +48‎ adding Christian metal desfazeragradecer Etiqueta: Revertido
• 02h09min de 4 de fevereiro de 2021‎ 3family6 discussão contribs‎ m 1 669 bytes +1‎ desfazeragradecer Etiqueta: Revertido
• 02h09min de 4 de fevereiro de 2021‎ 3family6 discussão contribs‎ m 1 663 bytes −6‎ desfazeragradecer Etiqueta: Revertido
• 02h14min de 4 de fevereiro de 2021‎ ABC paulista discussão contribs‎ 1 620 bytes −43‎ Not cited on the proper article desfazer Etiquetas: Desfazer Revertido
• 03h13min de 4 de fevereiro de 2021‎ 3family6 discussão contribs‎ 1 640 bytes +20‎ meant to only include unblack metal - which is black metal and Christian metal desfazeragradecer Etiqueta: Revertido
• 03h43min de 4 de fevereiro de 2021‎ 2601:c7:c201:c640:ec61:6840:b463:3081 discussão‎ 1 640 bytes 0‎ desfazer Etiqueta: Revertido
• 08h30min de 4 de fevereiro de 2021‎ Walter Görlitz discussão contribs‎ 1 620 bytes −20‎ Restored revision 1004633709 by ABC paulista (talk): Please stop organizing templates like this desfazeragradecer Etiquetas: Desfazer Twinkle Revertido

Walter Görlitz, that was way before the point you cited. ABC paulista (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a complete change in formatting and accidentally reverted the addition. Restoring it is not a problem, and BRD states discuss and stop edit warring. You ignored that and are now at 5 reverts in less than 20 hours. Adeus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, yes, restoring is a problem when 3family6 restored, for a third time, an info that was removed intentionally shortly before, when the guidelines as WP:BRD state that it must be kept out until the dispute is over. Good night. ABC paulista (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And then went to discuss. Please stop pointing at the actions of others and recognize your actions. If you had not gone to five reverts and instead stopped to discuss and reach consensus, you would not be at 3RN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, I'm not excusing myself, I'm just stating what happened. I did discuss to try and reach consensus, but you were the one unwilling to comply with WP:BRD, and kept restoring the disputed content. ABC paulista (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you are not excusing yourself. You discussed and continued to edit war to get your preferred version. I trust I do not need to show you that I too discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, it wasn't to get my supposed "preferred version", but to follow the WP:BRD guidelines that you were ignoring for some reason. And yes, you did discuss, but only after you re-included Unblack metal twice while the discussion was ongoing. And I did warn you about the ongoing discussion, between your re-reverts. ABC paulista (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ABC_paulista reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

Accept reason:

Lourdes, it's done. ABC paulista (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ABC paulista! I erased Yomiuri in the list of treble winners, because their periods have a disagreement.

Competition	From	To	Yomiuri's result
1986–87 Japan Soccer League	25 October 1986	17 May 1987	Champions
1987 Asian Club Championship	June 1987	Champions were decided in January 1988	Champions
1987 Emperor's Cup	19 December 1987	1 January 1988	Champions
1987–88 Japan Soccer League	17 October 1987	22 May 1988	5th place

If you see the Italian wikipedia, you can easily understand. Thank you! --Pinineeon (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinineeon Please, don't bring it to my talk page. It's already been discussed in another place. ABC paulista (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already wrote it in the main page too. And the article "1987 in Japanese football" also included 1987–88 League.--Pinineeon (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinineeon Wikipedia saying anything is meaningless when it comes to sourcing. See WP:TERTIARY and WP:RS for more. ABC paulista (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the revision of the 4day weather image at Fujiwhara effect. I did look up Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images to understand your cryptic reference “it broke the page”, but both “broke” and “break” led me to nothing obvious. However, I will defer to your understanding and interpretation of the MOS, but ask for your explanation so I can do it better next time. - Peter Ellis - Talk 10:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter_Ellis, your image invaded other sections not related to what it was representing, and it pushed other images outside their own related sections, which is undesired. Also, your image depicts and occurence that didn't happened yet, which constitute as WP:CRYSTALBALL. ABC paulista (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Paulista I had picked up this news from Wikipedia Lusophone version, but I didn’t realize that it wasn’t archived. Sorry for the inconvenience. I will try to look for another source, so that the page does not look ugly. André L P Souza (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

André L P Souza It's okay, but you don't need to ping me here, since I'm always notified when someone writes something on my talkpage. ABC paulista (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Slam (tennis), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Wagner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry but I had to ask, are you trying to make a point on the talk page of the Grand Slam article because of the argument you had with Hippo? Because honestly I feel like you do. The Three-Quarter Slam is about winning 3/4 slams so I linked the to the lists of singles of players who won 3 titles in one season. How is that even a controversial edit? And if we can't mention singles players other that Rafa in the "Surface Slam" section then it has no place in the article and it should be removed. I agree with you on the retractable layout, I'll fix it later. Cheers. --ForzaUV (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForzaUV, yes,I'm applying the same logic that Hippo43 applied to remove those tables. According to WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN, if a source doesn't directly state that "player X accomplished achievement Y", than they are not eligible to be mentioned on such list or table, being considered an instance of WP:OR. The same reasoning is valid to statistics like "N number of players achieved Y". And if there isn't a source that directly state that each of those players listed on the "lists of singles of players who won 3 titles in one season" did achieve a Three-Quarter Slam, then relating them to this section stating that they achieved such can be also considered as an instance of WP:OR. The Surface Slam section also mentions Navratilova, Graf and Serena, so it's not just about who achieved it, but if each of their achievement is recognized by a source, passing WP:RS and WP:V. ABC paulista (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did try and revert the bad sections at Grand Slam (tennis) but it wouldn't let me because of all the intervening edits. I'm certainly not going to go in and edit the mistakes.... there were too many. You'll have to fix them from scratch in your sandbox and then put it all back in. You can't leave it in that state for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click) Just because you disagree with some changes, or didn't like the results of such, that doesn't meam that they were "mistakes" or "bad", and they hardly affect the readability of the article. It's actually easy to change those templates to the more traditional format and can be done in one go, don't try to overstate or overplay the difficulty of such changes. It's not necessary to use the sandbox for such, and the fact that you were unwilling to manually redo the templates is not an excuse for your reversions. You removed a lot of data that have nothing to do with them, and that's plain wrong. ABC paulista (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. You are putting the cart before the horse. If someone reverts changes you recently made it is up to you to convince others they are better. You never just put it back in. That is against wikipedia rules. Put it in a sandbox where we can all look and see what changes are good and what changes are bad. Then we can put it back in corrected without any back and forth. That's the way it should work. If it's so easy, then remove it before re-inserting. Then we can discuss the merits of what I consider obtrusive changes that you want to include. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click) I'm unable to put it on a sandbox becasue my old computer gets slow and laggy when I open an edit page, and it gets worse the larger the edited article/section is. Something of the size of the Career Slam section alreary makes it very hard for me to work, so something of the size of that whole page is not feasible for me, my computer won't hold on (and that's why I made the previous edits in parts, section per section). But even if that wasn't the case, the sandbox page wouldn't help, because the change you asked is a mere technicality, we both know what it would look like. But since I agreed to make the change you asked, there's nothing for me to convince you, there's nothing to discuss to discuss, you gave nothing to be discussed. You just removed everything based on one technicality, without properly justifying the other changes, that's boderline disruptive. ABC paulista (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I checked out the Accessibility tutorial and colhead seems to be about tables' headers, the era distinction we have on the page is not a header so it's not an issue. That leave us with the placement of the tables and the exception of listing the names of all Channel Slam winners. I'd be willing to accept the removal of the other two-titles tables except for the Channel list if everything else in the section stays exactly the same. Is that a good compromise for you? --—ForzaUV 14:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForzaUV, that might not be formatted as a column header, but in practice it is still functioning as a header for the way it visually separates the the Pre-OE instances from the OE ones, and as such it's still a MOS:COLHEAD violation. ABC paulista (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a visual issue, headers are different than content cells and what we have there is a content cell. ForzaUV (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForzaUV, it's not an content cell because its contents aren't subordinate to the headers, its sole purpose is to divide some instance from others based on a certain criteria not addressed by other headers, and that's not permitted per MOS:COLHEAD. It should either have its own column, or separate tables for Pre-OE instances and OE ones. ABC paulista (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced tbh, headers are identified with "!" while normal cells with "|". Same idea is used for countless tennis articles. ForzaUV (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForzaUV, it's not the formatting that defines the cell's purpose, but the other way around. The fact that these Open Era dividers aren't formatted as proper headers when functioning as one could be considered as mistakes on themselves. For the example you brought, that's a clear case of WP:OSE and WP:OTHERCONTENT. These are specific for player's articles, they were discussed and well accepted within the project (thus complying with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Appearance and MOS:DEVIATIONS), thus they constitute as proper accepted exceptions. Your format never passed for such scrutiny. ABC paulista (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mentioned you on the other page but man you really enjoy linking all those Wikipedia essays and policies lol. I'll see what's in them in another time but nonetheless I think I have a clear idea how to fix such a trivial issue. Cheers. ForzaUV (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForzaUV, I like because "seeing is believing". It's the better way to illustrate what I'm talking about, so people can verify by themselves. It leaves less room for confusion, making the discussion more concise and fluid. And back-up my arguments, of course. ABC paulista (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit and I guess I have to explain why since you couldn't figure out why I made those edits in the first place. The info is relevant because the section is linked to the Three-Quarter Slam on the other page, and if you read the prose of TQS, you'd see there are a couple of notable instances which I thought need to be highlighted. Also, while it's true those three tournaments haven't always been the first three but for the instances we have in the table it is true. The channel slam and title double statistics table need to be closer to each other since they're related and belong to the same section. Best. ForzaUV (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForzaUV, while I agree with you that the channel slam and the 2-slam tables should to be closer to each other than the 3 slam one, there should be still a notable and discernible gap between them to avoid visual blending, so I think that a 2 or 3-space gap is the optimal option in this case. But I disagree that the "First three slam" should be highlighted. Like you said, this info is already highlighted on the main article, another highlighting isn't necessary. And even if the context is somewhat appliable here, the info is still untrue because it might lead newbies into believing that it has been always this way which is untrue. In my view, that info has the potential to be more harmful than beneficial. Also, I think that the 3-slam table would benefit from being sortable, to give the reader the possibility to organize it chronologically. ABC paulista (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The info about the first three is mentioned in the other article but not everyone get to the list page through the Grand Slam article so there should be some reference for what I think is an interesting info. Take me for example, I didn't know Hoad was going for a Grand Slam in the 1950s until a few months ago when I saw the list of AO/FO/WB, I noticed it and went to check the order of the tournaments at that time and they were indeed the first three. I don't expect casual or unfamiliar fans to notice that without a reference and there is really nothing harmful about that info, that's an exaggeration from you. These are the first three now and they've been in that order for a 100 years, only in maybe 10 years the order was different. Also, for the three instances we have the order is correct so it's no big deal. I'm not sure why you feel there is a visual blending with 1-space gap but I changed it to 1.5, see if it looks good to you or you can change it to 1.8 / 2, the tables are clear to me with a 1.5 gap. I made the 3 slam table sortable. ForzaUV (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForzaUV, I disagree. I'm not exaggerating, but you are underplaying the possble untrue ideas that this info might give the reader. I'm not totally opposed to displaying that kind of info, although I still believe that isn't that notable, but I'm opposed on how it has been displayed on the row header, and now with the sortable columns the table's layout stretches way too much because of it. But I have an idea on how to solve it. I'll implement it later, then you'll be able to review it. ABC paulista (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages 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. HurricaneEdgar 14:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Cyclones Rona–Frank a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Chlod (say hi!) 17:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move Rona and Frank again as your move before was undiscussed and controversial. You should seek consensus before ousting a page from its longstanding title. Noah^Talk 23:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, no I shouldn't. I just went WP:BOLD and changed it, nothing wrong with that per WP:BRD. Also, WP:TITLECHANGES deals with either unstable or controversial naming, and this case encompassed neither. So, nothing wrong with that either. ABC paulista (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently involved in a discussion where these type of pages were brought up. It was clearly labeled as "Undiscussed controverial page moves". Honestly, you shouldn't have moved this considering the whole set/naming scheme is still under discussion. Noah^Talk 00:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah This discussion started after the moves were made, and its title is erroneous since this matter was discussed before, even on the WPTC. ABC paulista (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history shows you commented on that discussion and then moved the page at a later time. The first discussion you linked has no consensus established and the second doesn't mention Rona/Frank + wasn't closed with a consensus (It was about two other specific cases). I would just wait to see how the current discussions pan out. There either needs to be consensus established for the whole set or a case must be made for each individual set of storms. I just expect everyone on all sides to keep all pages at their original titles until consensus is achieved and the discussion(s) are closed as such. Noah^Talk 02:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah I'm not talking about Rona/Frank case exclusively, but this whole moving "spree", which started before the discussion was opened. And yes, both discussions ended, technically without consensus, but they did show a general favourability for such moves, and no, the second discussion, held on WPTC, wasn't about particular cases but to try to form a new consensus, a standadization of this practice, but it seems that people there weren't too enthusiastic about it, and the discussion de-volved into some case-by-case and didn't lead to much about the main subject. Honestly, I have suspicions that this new discussion will end with even less consensus and clarification than the others before. Just a feeling. ABC paulista (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe solicit outside thoughts? Get a message posted to the talk page of every project member? Things like that could help to get a consensus if participation seems to be lacking. Noah^Talk 02:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, That's an idea, but I don't think that it would lead to much. In the other discussions many users participated, but both went nowhere in terms of consensus. I don't think that "participation" is the problem, but more of a lack of interest on the subject as a whole, and for that I fear that there's not much what could be done. ABC paulista (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, Raquel was operationally assigned the designation 24U and 01U, which can be proved by you just looking through the technical bulletins presented on the talk page. As a result of this and the fact that Raquel existed during the 2015-16 season there is no reason not to include in the seasonal effects chart or the timeline images. Extra proof can be found in this edit summary at the time from @Meow: who confirms that Raquel was assigned both designators. Jason Rees (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees:, that's incorrect. Meow actually removed Raquel that was added in the previous edit because, as they said so, Raquel was never considered to be 01U, always being 24U (Raquel is 24U instead of 01U from the latest BoM bulletin, i.e. 24U ≠ 01U). And none of them seem to explicitally state that it's considered part of the next season, meaning that it isn't different from other multi-season systems like Zeta and Alice, and in both cases, for example, they aren't metioned on either respective next season's timelines and summaries, and both don't mention the next season on their infoboxes. Also, even if that was true, all technical bulletins are preliminary data, not operational, and they become outdated after operational reanalyzed data is released, thus losing their value as sources, and you acknowledged that on the 2015–16 AUS season talk page. At the end of the day, neither BoM, nor FMS, nor any other reliable agency concerning tropical cyclones seem to consider it part of the 2015-16 season on either basin, so unless you can actually prove that it's considered part of the 2015-16 season, with sources that can be actually verified, it is WP:OR and should be reverted if no source can be provided. ABC paulista (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is not original research to include Raquel in the 2015-16 seasons, when we are here to cover all systems that existed in the basin during the tropical cyclone year and not just the season. This means to include it in the seasonal effects and the timeline image even if you don't like it. 2) It was operationally assigned two designators by the BoM and yes the technical bulletins are both operational and preliminary data, however, they do not lose as much value as sources as you might think when the data is reanalysed. 3) I personally feel that both Zeta and Alice should be mentioned in the seasonal effects charts and timeline images of their respective seasons, since the timelines show the tropical activity of the year and not just the formal season. 4) Meow's edit summary is enough to prove that the BoM did assign two designators, even though the 01U was later dropped and is enough to justify putting the system in all 4 seasons. 5) The logs in the talkpage also back this idea up and are verifiable or if you drop me an email I can forward you them from my private archive.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: 1)TC Season's page is to list and summarize a season and the systems that were officially part of it, and Raquel doesn't seem to be considered part of the 2015-16 season. I don't see anything wrong on mentioning them for context reasons, but compiling their data alongside the official ones may skew the seasonal data, reducing reliability and verifiability. 2) Technical Bulletins are as preliminary as "Forecast Advisories" in other basins, and when the preliminary data is superceded by the operational and Best Track data, they lose reliability per WP:OLDSOURCES. 3) Timelines and summaries only deal with the "formal season" and off-season storms that are acknowledged to be part of it, that's why the article and sections use the seasonal terminology, not annual. 4) Looking back at the discussions and edits at the time, it seems that the BoM came back-and-forth with the 24U and 01U designations because they weren't sure on whethever they should consider it part of the 2014-15 season or the 2015-16 season, and in the end they settled with considering it part of the 2014-15 season on their report, and their best tack data dropped the 01U designation in favour of the 24U one. Every undecided factor that came at that time doesn't count anymore face the reanalyzed data. Also, you reverted me on the "South Pacific" article, where the "U" designation is not used. FMS used the "F" designation, thus your whole "01U" argument doesn't apply there. 5) The links provided on the talk page seem to be broken (DB Connection failed), but they don't seem to allude to the idea that Raquel was considered part of the season. ABC paulista (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) We do not pick and choose which systems we monitor and would add in systems from unofficial sources since they are considered a part of the season. 2) I seriously doubt that it would skew the data, reduce reliability or verifiability to include Raquel, Zeta or Alice in the timeline image or seasonal effects charts for all years they are a part of. I am also not aware of a consensus to keep timeline images and seasonal effects to systems that are a part of the season formally or off-season storms that are acknowledged to be part of the season. 3) Technical Bulletins/discussions/advisories may well be operational and preliminary data, but their reliability does not change as much as you seem to think with the publication of reports and BT. 4) There is nothing I can do about the DB Connection failed bar that hope webcite comes back online and offer to send you over the bulletins via email as they prove that they considered it both 24U and 01U operationally. 5) I strongly feel that even if you feel that the whole argument doesn't apply to the SPAC, that you are misapplying Wikipedia policies by removing Raquel from the seasonal effects and timeline images because its OR to include it when its not.Jason Rees (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, we follow what the agencies consider, and the fact that Raquel isn't considered part of the 2015-16 season stands still. Just like Zeta isn't part of the 2006 season, stating that a system from a previous season was part of this one just because it was monitored on this is WP:SYNTH. 2.1) It would increase the "season size", increase the amount of "TC days" on it, increase the "ACE", add the amount of deaths and property damage caused on the season, etc. So yeah, it has the potential to skew the data. 2.2) There might not have a consensus on the matter, but the majority of cases seem to follow this methodology, so I'm just standardizing the practice, and there's nothing on Raquel's case that suggest that it should be treated differently on the matter. 3) WP:OLDSOURCES disagree with you. It's common practice within the WPTC to replace preliminary data in favour of the operational ones. 4) It doesn't matter what they considered then, only what they consider now. Preliminary data loses its value face the operational ones, and like I showed above they dropped the 01U designation in their Best Track, mantaining only the 24U one. 5) In South Pacific's case it's WP:OR because the FMS never assigned Raquel as a 2015-16 system, and in Aussie's case is a WP:RS violation, like I stated on 4). ABC paulista (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) I do not agree that it is a violation of either WP:RS or WP:OR to include Raquel in the seasonal effects chart or the timeline image, when we are here to include all systems that existed in the basin during the tropical cyclone year and not just the season even if they crossed the year. 2.1) Yeah it might have the impact of increase the "season size", increase the amount of "TC days" on it, increase the "ACE", add the amount of deaths and property damage caused on the season, etc but then all of those stats should be sourced back to the relevant agencies. I would also note that the stats for the ACE/TC days are not included in the SE Charts/TC Days since they are just random stats. 2.2) I strongly feel that you shouldn't standardise practises without seeking a consensus or doing your homework first, especially when should not be as consistent as you would like because most of the world does not follow the same practices as NHC. Hell even NHC do not follow NHC practises from what i hear through various channels. 3) Yes we swap out old sources for new ones but it does not mean that we completely drop them like you seem to wanna do and their reliability doesn't drop as much as you think regardless of what WP:Old Sources says 4) I still feel that the fact that they designated it as 01U for a majority their bulletins means that we should keep it in the seasonal effects and the timeline images of both seasons. Jason Rees (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: 1) We are here to include all systems that existed in the season according to the agencies, and Raquel isn't. Remember that we have to follow what the (valid) sources state, otherwise is WP:OR. 2.1) They are, and usually these stats are attributed to the season that these systems pertain to. Attributing it on the next season just because it was monitored then is WP:SYNTH. 2.2) This matter in particular doesn't lead to many divergent cases, so it shouldn't be hard to implement a standard on it. Also, like I said, I'm just following what's already applied on the majority of similar cases, you're the only one who seems to oppose this common practice. If anything, you should be the one to seek consensus to change a practice that's been implemented since long. 3) I'm not saying that we should completely disregard the preliminary data, but that on cases which preliminary and operational data disagree with each other, operational ones take the precedence and preliminary ones becomes obsolete, and in this case, the 01U designation its implied status as a 2015-16 system is obsolete. Also, by stating that regardless of what WP:Old Sources says, are you advocating for us to disregard one of the most important guidelines to support a WP:POV? Remember that WP:OLDSOURCES is part of the WP:RS guideline. 4) The 01U designation is not used anymore by BoM to refer to Raquel, therefore any possible implications that could come with it is not supported by them. Also, how the 01U designation could have any effect on a possible status as a 2015-16 SPAC system, since this designation has no bearing inside FMS's AoR? ABC paulista (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the Extreme metal template, but you undid all of them. Why? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained on the edit summary, your edits violated WP:NAME and MOS:TITLE. And I could also include that it went against the formatting guuidelines of WP:TEMPLATE. ABC paulista (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

It is incorrect to mix CONCACAF Championship titles with those of the CONCACAF Gold Cup, because this generates a series of contradictions. In the main article of the Gold Cup it is said that Mexico has 8 titles, as you can see. In external sources like like RSSSF or worldfootball.net competitions are also separated, so I believe it is correct to cite both competitions in their corresponding time periods. As for the Panamerican Championship, the CPF is already defunct, it was an attempt by a confederation that preceded CONCACAF, I don't see any problems in citing it. There have also been CCCF and NAFC competitions prior to CONCACAF estabilishment.

I don't intend to get into unnecessary edit conflicts, I'd just like to make my point cleary. Svartner (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Svartner, IMO you're wrong on both accounts, because it's not uncommon to separately count titles on both all-time and within a timeframe (German Championship/Bundesliga, Brazilian Championship/Taça Brazil/Robertão, Tennis's aand Golf's Grand Slams, etc), and many souces cite an all-time counting, even RSSSF does so. And even if the CONCACAF Gold Cup's main article doesn't cite the Championship's titles, Wikipedia's articles cannot be used as sources, and like I said before, there's nothing wrong with using both counting methods. About the CPF, CCCF and NAFC, none of them were the main continental confederations affiliated to FIFA, so they aren't eligible for this list. ABC paulista (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stoner rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desert rock.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there @ABC paulista:. I have been recently editing the Mixed slam article and came across a tricky situation and am not sure what to do. The thing is: