User:IPhonehurricane95/Mentor

Changing existing pages

This is what you dealt with on your first edit, so I figured we would start here. Your first edit dealt with the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. I'm wondering if we could recreate that first edit.

• Test 1 - write down below what you see out of the ordinary when you click in the edit window for Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.

The ordinaries: strength boxes included, examples included, scale included. The differencies: redirect thingie on the top because extra dash needed Jeffrey Gu (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. What do you see in the edit window? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a warning box that says, "Attention editors, to avoid confusing readers, when adding storm examples to a Saffir–Simpson category, link only to storms that both a) peaked at that category, and b) made landfall at that intensity. If you are not sure whether the example you want to add meets both criteria, feel free to ask on the talk page for guidance." Jeffrey Gu (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. You need to look out when people leave directions in articles. You added Ophelia as an example of a Category 4, but it hit Newfoundland as a tropical storm. Therefore, it wasn't a good example of such a storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Making new pages

Based on your user contributions, you got into writing articles rather quickly. Before we go any further, I want to point out that the tropical cyclone WikiProject already has a request page. Those are articles that people actually want to see created. As you well know, you've created several articles that people did not think should have an article.

Your first attempted article was Hurricane Ignacio (1979), which, for what it's worth, is a very random first article, but not entirely a bad choice. It was a Category 4 hurricane and it also affected land. However, it was merged, largely for the reason that the storm did not cause any damage. You should check out WP:NOT and WP:NOTABLE, two very important Wiki policies with regards to making articles.

• Test 2 - from those two aforementioned policies, write down how Ignacio failed the criteria.

Ignacio failed the criteria because it, although affected land, it got reverted because it caused no known damage or deaths. Jeffrey Gu (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

But specifically, per those two policies, do you know why Ignacio got redirected? Per WP:NOTABILITY, " if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." In the Ignacio article (as well as a few others you made in the past few weeks), all of the info was from the same general source. Although it says it was from the Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center, that agency got folded into the National Hurricane Center, so the content there is the same as what's in the best track. There needs to be a wide variety of sources, such as various news agencies, government documents, and other online sources. Ignacio didn't have any of them, and it's likely that none of those exist. By a large degree, most storms in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific that would have a wide variety of sources already have articles. For that reason, Ignacio was doomed from the start. However, look at Typhoon Ida (1958). I noticed it was a rather important tropical cyclone, so I worked on fixing it up. You could do the same for the articles you've already created. You just simply have to look around and find as many sources as you can. It will take time, and you will find some dead ends, but if you keep at it, you'll produce a good article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Edit summaries are not meant to start a discussion. They are meant to, as obvious as it sounds, summarize what your edit was. this was your first edit when you included a summary: "I think there should be more images, or the article may be boring". That isn't so much of a summary of your edit, more so just your opinion. If you want to change an article that doesn't merely involve changing text, you should propose it on the talk page (see below).

• Test 3 - how could you write that edit summary differently for Maria?

I wrote down that summary differently for Maria because I just feel like want there should be more images for that article. Jeffrey Gu (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

But I don't think there's a need for the "or the article may be boring". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I also want to point out a few other edit summaries that were a little troublesome.

• [1] - first, you can't indicate your source of choice via the edit summary. Any time you make an addition to an article, you have to provide some sort of source in the actual article. If you see something on TWC, that does not count as a source. In general, the best sources are those that are online and anyone can easily view.

• [2] - you should avoid cursing in an edit summary.

• [3] - it is generally disruptive to write an entire edit summary in all capital letters. You should try and avoid that.

• [4] - you should refrain from trying to control others, as you did here. If you feel passionate, write it out on the talk page.

Talk page etiquette

Your first talk page edit - [5] - was actually good. You stated your opinion against a merge, which is perfectly cromulent. You're generally good on the talk pages, but watch out for something like this - [6] - the previous editor may take offense, and you shouldn't gloat too much about your own work.

Watch out for potentially confusing and unnecessary talk page edits such as this - [7]. You can't prevent an article from getting merged. Every time you make an article, you have to make sure that you agree to what's written below "Save Page":
If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.