User talk:Deghop

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to my Talk Page! Just a few simple rules on this page! 1. Please remember to always do this when you leave a message: [User Name|Reply or Message\\Message}} Thank You.

2. When You Create A new Section Always put it below this one. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2016crosshurricaneseason

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, 2016crosshurricaneseason, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. KylieTastic (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Hurricane Matthew, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --219.79.127.72 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hurricane Matthew. --219.79.127.72 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2017 Cross Hurricane Season

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, 2017 Cross Hurricane Season, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes

Hey there. I see you're interested in editing hurricane articles. Would you have interest in helping with the Hurricane Otto (2016) article? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Otto was a very powerful Hurricane. Force Thirteen Says i was a Category 3! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Eight (2016) Article Deletion

This issue was just discussed, so I redirected the page you created. Additionally, you used improper capitalization, although that is not the primary issue. If you have any questions, leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deghop: please stop re-creating the article, the storm had no notable impacts and it has already been established as a redirect in the AFD above. Please do not re-create it again or staff will likely have to perform further actions. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop recreating this page. You will be blocked if you continue to edit war against consensus. Dustin (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deghop Okay Okay. Now I wish that "The Storm" was a Category 5.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I highly advise against enlisting others to recreate that article because you think there should be one, as it appears you are trying to do. There was a deletion discussion that settled on Merge, and that will not change barring another discussion changing the existing consensus, which is unlikely to occur. Dustin (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Storm was tiny, although it had winds of 40 mph! That is tropical Storm. so Hermine is Ian Karl is Lisa and Matthew is Nicole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 14:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at 2016 Atlantic hurricane season.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Stylez995 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Stylez995 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Tropical Depression Eight (2016).

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ansh 666 20:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia

I suggest that you take a look at Help:Wiki markup and Wikipedia:Signatures; by improving your knowledge in both these areas, any possible discussions you participate in will be more streamlined / without other editors having to correct your formatting. I don't mean this in a condescending way; you're new! I just want you to better understand some of the basics heading into the future. Dustin (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "[User Name|Reply or Message\\Message}}" you added to your #Welcome! section, perhaps that is part of the formatting on another website, but nobody here uses such formatting. Curly brackets are for templates, and signatures go at the end of comments (add ~~~~). Replies are marked by adding responses after the comment being responded to and indenting by one compared to that comment (this is done using colons). Dustin (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Eight ((2016)) Article Recreation Support

Please Help Recreate This Article. Click the link above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclone

Bay Of Biscay Subtropical Storm 2016 Section Creation

See what I said two days ago. Dustin (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Subtropical Storm One was not official, but I still think it needs a section in 2016 Atlantic hurricane season — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial storms

You have been told several times at this point to stop adding unofficial storms to the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season page. If the system was not recognized by the NHC, please do not add it to the page. Thanks. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 04:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deghop I put it in the "Other Storms Section” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TropicalAnalystwx13: Personally, I dont care that it wasn't monitored by the NHC, in other basins we include systems where they haven't been declared to be anything by the RSMC responsible so why not in the Atlantic? The Bay of Biscay System was monitored by the official marine warning centre (Meteo France) for the region and declared to be a subtropical storm. As a result, I do not see the problem in including a few sourced lines on it in an other systems section. After all we are not the NHC and we should not be afraid of adding in systems, that are either on the cusp of being declared a tropical cyclone or have been declared to be a something by a NMHSS like Meteo France which has an RSMC that deals with subtropical storms most seasons.Jason Rees (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a one liner stuck in either an other systems section if it's not an NHC storm but is included in an RS (if there's something else to add) or the seasonal summary section if there are no "other systems". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Gaston Image Switch

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3

Which image is Better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would avoid modifying what somebody else wrote on a talk page. However, the previous version of the above comment displayed massive images inappropriate for a talk page and which caused the following section to be smashed to the side. I tried to change it to still maintain the same clear intent. Dustin (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl

I don't know where you're getting your information, but Karl peaked as a tropical storm, not a hurricane. See the Tropical Cyclone Report from January 4. Dustin (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to chime in here and say that he probably is getting the info that Karl was a hurricane from Force 13, which is not a reliable source. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl's TCR did say it never peaked as a hurricane, but flights into the storm are every 12 hours so they could have missed the period when it was a C1. Plus we are not the NHC and we could make Karl a hurricane because we are NOT the NHC. Deghop (talk · contribs)

I too was disappointed that Karl didn't reach hurricane status, but we do not have the authority to declare that Karl was a hurricane just because we disagree with the NHC. Their word is official and it is final. If they say that Karl was not a hurricane, then we have to accept the official word that it was not a hurricane. I'm sure you mean well, but please, do not change Karl back to hurricane status again. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 13:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deghop: Says who? The NHC knows to check the periods in between reconnaissance flights for possible increased organization (Otto this year for example). And in any case, our opinion on a storm's intensity does not count, only the NHC's does. In general, please stop changing information from what the official RSMC says - we are not allowed to synthesize things not published by them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deghop: I noticed that you just reverted me on the 2016 AHS page, so I am going to say it again: stop changing Karl to hurricane status. Karl's TCR put it at tropical storm status; this is the official word from the RSMC for the Atlantic basin. Until and unless the NHC publishes a reanalysis down the line that upgrades Karl to a hurricane, it is incorrect to say that Karl was a hurricane. Please stop it. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 02:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at 2016 Atlantic hurricane season. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the appropriate user warning was used above. Genres don't seem relevant. I assume that MarioProtIV was only intending to warn you about the addition of unsourced material. Dustin (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Master of Time: I could not find the relevant user warning so I chose whatever I thought was closest.

@Deghop: You have been consistently disrupting 2016 Atlantic hurricane season, mainly by constantly claiming Alex was a C2, which according its TCR it was not, and claiming that Karl was a hurricane which it wasn't, and Force Thirteen is NOT a reliable source. They are not affiliated with the National Hurricane Center, so please stop saying Karl was a hurricane because F13 says it was, it WASN'T. Lastly, you have been consistently changing Gaston's infobox image with no consent of bringing it up on the talk page, which, in my opinion, the one we have right now is perfectly fine. Further actions and consequences will be taken if this type of behavior continues. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 05:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 North American winter

Please do not add unreferenced material to articles. While it's nice to see that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, unsourced information compromises Wikipedia's reliability. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. That aside, it has also become pretty well-accepted that winter storm names given by The Weather Channel should normally be left unmentioned. . Dustin (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Deghop (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2017 I think that the section in 2017 North American winter titled Late January Winter Storm should stay if I got rid of the name Leo.[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at 2016–17_South-West_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season. Editing while logged out does not fool us either, by the way. This is not Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki, and treating Wikipedia as such will land you another block. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Deghop/sandbox

User:Deghop/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deghop/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Deghop/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC) IT IS MY SANDBOX!! YOU CAN NOT DELETE IT!!![reply]

Tropical cyclone articles

Hi Deghop, I have been watching and reading through some of your edits and its clear to me that you have the potential to be a greateditor over the next few years. However, in order to do that you will need to start listening to other peoples and stop changing things which you think are wrong based on Force13. For example this evening, I observed that you switched Bransby to a subtropical storm from a depression, despite it never being called one by Meteo France.Jason Rees (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stephanie Subsection"

THANK YOU FOR THE NEW SUBSECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nomination of Cyclone Stephanie (2016) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cyclone Stephanie (2016) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclone Stephanie (2016) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at 2017 Pacific typhoon season. As mentioned several times before, we use information from the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center to update tropical cyclone articles. This is not Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki, and I will not hesitate to report you to WP:ANI or WP:AIV the next time you fail to comply with these reminders. ~ KN2731 {talk} 02:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that during this block, you read everything others have posted on this page. Blocking is something we want to avoid as much as possible, but you need to cooperate and listen, as we also want to avoid repeating ourselves. Tropical cyclones are an exciting topic, and it would be a pity to ask someone as enthusiastic as you to stop editing, but I have to also say that you have to comply with the rules we have here to continue editing. I am afraid that if you do not, the next block will likely be indefinite (no expiration date, must be manually lifted).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Deghop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17515 was submitted on Feb 12, 2017 02:55:13. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But why did you revert the edit? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Universe Sandbox shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Deghop reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Universe Sandbox. You are not discussing your edits. You are edit warring against at least two editors there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2016–17 Australian region cyclone season, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --219.79.180.225 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at 2016–17 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 12:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deghop, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Jasper Deng (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Deghop1617 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Deghop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18097 was submitted on Apr 25, 2017 00:37:55. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if im wrong @Vanjagenije: but @Deghop: is now unblocked on his other account @Deghop1617:. However, it seems like he wishes to use this account more than @Deghop1617: - so would we be able to reverse the indefinite block under the Usurp rules?

Tropical depression eight (2016) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tropical depression eight (2016). Since you had some involvement with the Tropical depression eight (2016) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]