User talk:Zzzs

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion complementary and alternative medicine post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the Balkans or Eastern Europe climate change COVID-19, broadly construed Falun Gong governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan post-1978 Iranian politics the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour the results of any national or sub-national election Sri Lanka the Troubles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hey there Zzzs, now that Dennis is finally getting some traction at FAC, looks like the 2005 AHS topic is one step closer. I wondered if you still had any interest in helping on that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to work on the retired or Category 5 hurricanes, but I'm still confused about how to get the articles to FA status. The biggest problem I have is the main sources to use for its effects and meteorological stuff, especially for older storms and certain basins. There are other questions I have, but I'll ask them later. _ZZ^Z'S 01:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually impossible to get the Cat 5 hurricane to FA status! But that's because it would be a featured list. As for sources, if it's before 1970, then the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project is probably the best bet, save for maybe the Monthly Weather Review, for meteorology stuff. If it's just intensity or how many hours a storm was at a certain intensity, you can use the Template:Atlantic hurricane best track. As for damage, that's a totally different story, and depends on the area. For the United States, there is pretty good record-keeping going back to around 1870, when daily weather data started being kept. In Mexico, your best might be newspapers if it's an older storm. When I wrote List of Mexico hurricanes, I had to go through some old searches to find some Mexico-specific information. For Cuba, it might also be in Spanish, so have searches like "huracan [name] daños". As for other basins, again, depends on the area. Australia and New Zealand has a lot of good records that go back a while, not so much for Madagascar or Mozambique. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the tropical cyclones in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season that peaked as a Category 5 hurricane. Also, I was testing my FA skills because I really, really want to get Jupiter to a featured article because it being the only good article in the list of planets bugs me a lot. I'm a bit nervous about whether I'll mess up on something, but can you watch my edits and point out anything that was done wrong or needs fixing? _ZZ^Z'S 06:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, well I am working on Hurricane Emily (2005) right now, which is the easiest of the four '05 Cat 5's (since it wasn't retired). Do you have any interest helping on that one? What's needed is thorough impacts for each area affected by the storm, as well as its impacts and aftermath. But if you're more interested in Jupiter, I can give help you there. Keep in mind that it being a planet article, it's going to be very different than a hurricane article. For starters, Jupiter has been on FAC several times, meaning there will probably be comments there, and it is currently a good article, so you might want to check with the user who got the article to GA status for what's needed for FA (Praemonitus). As for watching your edits, I'm not sure what articles you're editing, but if you tell me what you're working on, I can give feedback. What article is your focus these days? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to get the main topics/branches of various scientific fields to FA status because I want Wikipedia to be a good place for learning. For meteorology, there are a lot of articles I want to improve, but the most important (the articles that, in my duration of being on this site, must be and stay featured) are the articles in this category. I'm practicing my skills on Jupiter since I believe it is pretty close to FA status as well as close that annoying quality gap in the Solar System topic. I could try to help with Hurricane Emily (2005) if I have the courage and time, but if you want to, you could give me some suggestions (I'd prefer specific requests so the chances of mistakes or misinterpretations are lower) about its quality or anything that could help the article attain featured status here. Also, which websites are you using to get the sources (not the ones you get from the NHC's TCR and NDNC or something like that)? _ZZ^Z'S 04:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but it's going to be very difficult working on a top importance article if you've never even written a low importance article. You're going to have to figure out how to write references, or expanding sections. Let's take Jupiter since that seems to be your focus. What have you been doing as far as your edits, and what do you see as the biggest thing that needs to be improved before another FAC? Here are some other comments.

• One thing that stands out to me is the units. I see "gigameter" being linked in the first paragraph, but it's not used at all after that. The infobox uses millions of kilometres.
• Make sure to also include imperial units for the table for "Flyby missions", for "340-kilogram", "75 million km", "10 km", "12 cm", and any other metric units that don't have conversions.
• Make sure the referencing is top-notch. I see there's not a source at the end of "Name and symbol".
• There are also small parts that you want to make sure are accurate and up to date. For example - "The first of these, 588 Achilles, was discovered by Max Wolf in 1906; since then more than two thousand have been discovered." According to the article for the Jupiter trojans, there are millions, of which 7,000 have been catalogued. Way more than 2,000.
• "In his 2nd century work the Almagest, the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus constructed a geocentric planetary model based on deferents and epicycles to explain Jupiter's motion relative to Earth, giving its orbital period around Earth as 4332.38 days, or 11.86 years." - while this is good stuff, there's nothing in the article saying how the orbital period of "4,332.59 days" was figured out, which is the figure in the infobox.

In short, there is a fair amount of work to do. I wonder what you've done so far and what your plans are? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also lol, looks like the anonymous IP address we've been dealing with across various pages, plus the guy who has been insistent on working on Hurricane Irene (and being a bit hostile on the talk pages tbh), was just blocked because he's a longtime sockpuppet. I had a weird feeling when the user had a surprising knowledge of policy. Shame on me for assuming the best in people. Also, one of the IP users who vandalized your user talk page also got blocked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just noticed. So the accounts that pushed my buttons and almost made me do terrible things were operated by the same user, a sock puppeteer, all along? That's why I'm not a fan of globally banned users. Anyway, I'm still working on some of the advice you gave me for Jupiter; I've only implemented about half of those. I have been trying to follow the comments on the article's failed featured article candidate nomination before running it through another peer review and finally nominating it for another (and hopefully last) FAC. Yeah, top-importance articles are pretty painful to work with given the amount of information about some articles (like Light, Volcano, Tornado, Atom, you get the rest), but I want to know how to tackle them so I don't have to rely on other editors to do the work when I could be doing it instead. I started this page so I could write notes about the article improvement process for science-related topics and read the page while following the directions to improve an article instead of memorising all of it in my head. _ZZ^Z'S 02:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zzzs, just wanted to reach out and check in, see how your progress is going with Jupiter, or any other articles. I see your edits now and then, so I wondered if you've tackled any of these projects you mentioned, and if you needed guidance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's going alright. I checked the references for reliability and removed those that are not high quality. I'm still working on most of the suggestions since I mostly forgot about it. There seems to be another user named 750h+ who is also working on the article, so that could reduce the workload for me. I'm also working on redesigning my user page. I am still preparing a guide to help me with getting an article for GA/FA. _ZZ^Z'S 18:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before writing an essay on writing a GA, you should probably write a good article first! And like I said, it's probably best to try it with something that isn't top-importance, so it's a little easier. That's why I like working on less interesting storms at times, like Hurricane Juliette (2001), since it should obviously have an article, but it doesn't need as much work as a retired storm article. It's also good when you have someone to collaborate with, but part of article writing is getting used to doing things yourself - doing the research and writing. And then maybe at the end having others helping you out by cleaning up prose and providing peer reviewing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zzzs. I noticed that you have marked several talk-page and article edits as minor edits, which I believe are not acceptable minor edits. Edits like these [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] were all made within the last 48 hours and were marked as minor edits. Don't worry. I was recently made aware of myself wrongfully marking minor edits. Even in that discussion, the person who brought it to my attention also had wrongful minor edits. Anyway, that discussion made me become a little more aware of them, so our recent editing disagreement brought it to my attention. I just wanted you to be aware of that and to be a little more cautious with marking edits as minor edits, especially on talk pages.

For a note, any edit marked as a minor edit is one that has zero chance of ever being brought up by another editor. So for example, this reversion on Orbital spaceflight is not "obvious" vandalism. Obvious vandalism is something like changing the first like of Tornado to say X political party causes them. However, in that edit, (which was over 1,300 bytes), it is not very obvious vandalism. WP:MINOR actually states, "Any change affecting an article's meaning is not minor, even if it concerns a single word." The other user who changed the content did not mark it as a minor edit, but your reversion, which also included no word-based edit summary, was marked as minor and clearly changed the article.

Like I said, you do not need to worry about this message/reminder at all. Since I recently became more aware of what to mark as minor, I happen to notice it, where I would have ignored it beforehand. So, I recommend quickly reviewing WP:MINOR and then continue editing to improve Wikipedia! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#1: Removing a duplicate reply by that was accidentally made when both actions (the reply and the removal) were performed by a user is a minor edit and would reasonably be met with no opposition

#2-5 and #7: The topics were either violating WP:NOTFORUM or were complete gibberish and would also reasonably be met with no opposition

#8: The image was already used in a different date, so one storm can only have one image representing them for one date, not multiple; I do not see how that could not be met with opposition

The rest of the edits, well, could reasonably be met with opposition. I'll try to be more careful when marking an edit as minor so stuff like this doesn't happen again. Thanks. _ZZ^Z'S 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Zzzs. I mean this in the nicest of ways, and I supported your proposal, but I don't think you should have closed the merge discussion for Hernan. WP:BADNAC warns editors against closing discussions in which they were involved, especially if the close matches the editor's own opinion. Granted, there was only one editor in opposition to merging Hernan's article and several in support, but I still think we should have waited for an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate question, how is fixing a grammatical error, (based on a precedent set by another article) not an improvement? Not criticizing, just looking for answers. Thank you! 69.167.204.2 (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word you're changing has the same meaning, but different spelling. Unless you have a compelling reason (no, it's not a grammatical error), then the spelling should not be changed. _ZZ^Z'S 03:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but what would it be classified as then? The semantics of the change reason are not reason enough to change it back, I think. At any rate, having an article on "man-hours" with no mention of "'person-hours,'" and yet using the latter over the former is disconcerting, at the very least. One or the other should probably be changed. 69.167.204.2 (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair enough", but I'll keep asking another editor the same question on their talk page. Please desist. Seasider53 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because @Zzzs actually gave me a response and didn't just blank the talk page, three times. Also, WP:HOUND much? 69.167.204.2 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zzzs. Thank you for your work on Effects of Hurricane Hugo in the Caribbean. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the added material? RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was not closed in favour of the image. _ZZ^Z'S 18:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion wasn't a rfc. A significant majority of editors favor the inclusion of multiple pictures. Many body part articles include multiple images and penises are widely varying. It's also written from the viewpoint that one body type (cisgender, heterosexual uncircumcised men) is normative while the others are not. I don't see why the article should be "a single, uncircumcised penis" only or any reason why we should maintain an exceptionalist policy of exclusion here. I'm planning on restoring the deleted additions. As a last resort, a RFC could be held by an administrator, but the large majority support at least two images. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how consensus discussions work. The discussion was still open at the time you added the pictures. Until the discussion is closed, your edit should not be performed. _ZZ^Z'S 18:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:RETAIN. You have one opinion about Oxford. I do not share it. Please stop. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it to be complete nonsense that MOS:RETAIN is a guideline and I cross my fingers that the rubbish is altered or removed in the future, but alas, I am required to follow it, even if its existence 'improves' the encyclopaedia. Virtually, if not every case of this always results in American English being used, which I believe is biased towards the inferior English variant. I do not believe Oxford spelling should be used for all articles, but if you really insist that I should stop improving the encyclopedia, then I will stop, but in the future, could you adjust your tone to be a little less aggressive? Thanks. _ZZ^Z'S 03:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about the tone. I just thought we already had this discussion.

I do not make any suggestion that you stop improving the encyclopedia. What I am saying is that rules were established for British/American/Oxford. I believe this is because the differences are trivial and a matter of subjective opinion: without rules we will face endless debates, edit wars, and churn. The rules avoid arbitrary changes in either direction. I could not, for example, change all British/Oxford to American even if I wanted to. The rules allow changes through consensus. You can give that a try but I think you will find editors split. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. As I previously said, I believe that the majority of these cases default to American English and would be biased against non-American users. I personally believe that the variant commonly used for the topic closely related to the subject (e.g. Oxford spelling for science, technology, and engineering topics and IUPAC spelling for chemistry topics) should be used instead of defaulting to whatever variant is used in the article, but unfortunately, the guideline would have to supersede it. I don't believe that such a change in spelling is trivial and is a justification of pretty much using American English. I'll think about proposing this guideline sometime in the future, but for now, I'll follow the guideline. _ZZ^Z'S 15:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzzs: Is there a reason why my changes were reverted? How were they incompatible with the article? For future reference I would appreciate specificity. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in as well, yea Zzzs I'm curious. I thought the "Great Hurricanes" was a good way to include storms outside of HURDAT. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a list using an obscure scale. Tha is a fault on my end and I will restore your edit. _ZZ^Z'S 02:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurricane Elena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hurricane warning.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zzzs. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Zzzs/Tropical cyclones in 1990, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. BaranBOT (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

... to WP:QAI. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving article quality in December! - Today is a woman poet's centenary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting hardcore porn on Wikipedia. NeuroSpecter (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NeuroSpecter, Do NOT remove graphic encyclopedic images solely because they are graphic. Wikipedia is not censored and will not remove images based on that reason. What you are doing is disruptive and I advise you to stop. Now. _ZZ^Z'S 13:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sucks! I don’t want any kids to come across those nasty pics. There’s nothing in place to warning them. At least porn sites have an 18+ warning. We shouldn’t be allowing hardcore porn pics on this website. They should at least be replace with illustrations. Do we even know that the people consented to being showed on Wikipedia? I don’t think it is right. NeuroSpecter (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a kid searching an obvious 18+ topic would expect SFW images? Use your brain. Anyway, Wikipedia is still not censored and is not the place for you to remove all graphic images 'for the sake of the children'. Wikipedia does not and should not determine changes to the site based on moral views. If you want to, you can hide all images for yourself, but stop what you are doing now. Your actions are blockable, so if you want to keep your editing rights, cease your current behaviour immediately. _ZZ^Z'S 14:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn’t be expecting what’s currently on there, that’s for sure! Even shocked me and I’m an adult. Alright I’ll suggest changes in the talks pages going forward. Most sex-related pages have artistic illustrations and not the real images. NeuroSpecter (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}}: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ~~~~

E_F⁵ 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind commenting? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]