User talk:Icarus58

Archives:

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of storms named Ampil (August 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

lacks any sources or references for storms apart from Tropical Storm Ampil.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of storms named Ampil and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Icarus58! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello, I'm Hotwiki. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hotwiki (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conson 2021 move

Your argument gave off the impression that "there was a TS last 2016 so TS Conson should be kept the '(2021)' in it". True, it's confusing. True, Conson is named twice on tropical storms. But the one in 2021 did damage, while the 2016 is super duper minor—it barely affected any lands at all. It's a WP:PRIMARYRED issue.

So any thoughts on moving it? Bugnawfang (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readding the year in the short descriptions after the discussion

Previously, I started a discussion about you restoring the year in the short description for tropical cyclones that already have the disambiguator in the title. I said it was redundant since it repeats information that is already in the title and the short description would still make sense if it's omitted. You claimed it would be easier to find (it wouldn't since, again, the title has the disambiguator; I will also add that the search engine is not affected ), it is common sense (only when the title does not have the year in it; no one refers to the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season as "Atlantic hurricane season in 2024" because it is a reworded duplicate of the title), and claimed that it is a violation of WP:NPOV (it is most definitely not; you cannot use a policy and/or guideline against an edit when the policy/guideline does not say so. Such an act is disruptive and can warrant a block). I then addressed your claims, thought I should have gone more into detail. You then deleted the discussion, using bad grammar as a reason. In my opinion, I do not believe that is a valid rationale for closing a discussion, especially since that is not the thing that is being addressed. Since then, I believed that was the end of that and you'd refrain from repeating the edits that started the discussion until you began re-adding the year into the short description (1 2 3). I came here to reopen the discussion since you did not change your mind and to warn you of your disruptive behaviour. Please read all of this before responding. _ZZ^Z 'S 00:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm understand all your assumptions and suggestions regarding to remove the disambiguator in the short description formats since they've already superfluous. Most editors have suitable to put the year with those tropical cyclone articles (except for the primary articles). FYI, you will ask for HurricaneEdgar and other supporter editors in WikiProject: Tropical Cyclones discord page if you'll still a lot of concerns regarding to the readding years in short descriptions on this main articles for guidelines and policies. I'm not disruptive from my behavior on it's edits; but, is accordance from HurricaneEdgar's description, which I subsequently done for your response. With that, I'm sincerely apologized and hope you'll understand for my reasons. That's all, thank you for your advice. Icarus58 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I previously started a discussion on the appropriate project's talk page, expecting a decent amount of editors to respond. However, only one user responded, and they agreed with me. It is likely that the others either didn't see it or didn't care.

Also, using a policy as a reason to revert an edit when the policy has nothing to do with the edit being reverted IS disruptive, as you did with this edit. Also, will you provide a link to HurricaneEdgar's description since I could not find it? _ZZ^Z 'S 17:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to answer my question or will you continue to stall? _ZZ^Z 'S 23:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you will ask some contributors and staffs of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord page to find the better information regarding to my option as HurricaneEdgar's description as he made it for the differences of those tropical cyclone articles (such as typhoons and hurricanes). If you have still concerns, please feel free to ask those questions on my talk page. Any subsequent comments will officially closed. Thanks! Icarus58 (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting twice in RfD.

Please do not continue to do this. You !voted twice in this already-closed discussion, and did the same thing here, where I requested that you strike one of your !votes or turn it into a comment. Otherwise it is confusing for the closer. Please do so, and avoid accidentally duplicating your !votes in future. Thank-you. Cremastra (u — c) 19:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry I wouldn't do it again for the next votes. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 21:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cremastra (u — c) 01:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Icarus58 and Cremastra: As far as I can tell, this is the only time that you took part in one discussion under two different names (assuming the IP belongs to you, Icarus58?),[1] but numerous edits were made by both of them. I'm sure that this would have largely been done accidentally, but please be careful to always log in before you edit, and keep WP:SOCK in mind. If you want to keep editing without logging into your main account (I understand there are situations where one might not want to log in for security reasons), maybe create an alternative account, and use Template:User alternative account banner to disclose it? Renerpho (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP doesn't belong to you then I apologize. The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#3.1415926535… just gave off that impression. Renerpho (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confident the IP is separate. They've been around for a long time, and their writing patterns are different. Cremastra (u — c) 12:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good. Renerpho (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

It's obvious that you want your signature to all appear in one line without being broken, but having your signature on a brand new line with a new indent symbol (":" or "*") causes issues with accessibility, specifically with screen readers. And, I see why you have been putting your signature on a new line: The space between the words "The" and "Astrologer" can cause your signature to get split up. However, there's a way around this: replacing the space with a non-breaking space ( ). To show you what I mean, here's the code of your current signature:

[[User:Icarus58|✴️Icarus]][[User talk:Icarus58|The Astrologer✴️]] 

...And here's how it appears after inserting the non-breaking space between "The" and "Astrologer":

[[User:Icarus58|✴️Icarus]][[User talk:Icarus58|The Astrologer✴️]] 

...which appears identical as before, but will move the entire signature to the next line if the word "Astrologer" traditionally pushes the text past the end of the line: ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️

Hope that helps! Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]