User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:WeatherWriter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for protecting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_university_and_college_schools_of_music from vandalism. EditingWeather (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the star. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Thanks for your efforts in reviving WikiProject Current events. Legend. – Hillelfrei talk 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello RedWarn tester! I hate to reitterate, but thank you so much for being willing to test RedWarn, I really appreciate it.

In the past few updates, I have added AIV (admin) reporting, a preferences panel, themes, customisation options and made many, many bug fixes and added many features based on your suggestions and feedback.

Unfortunately, recently feedback has run dry.

Even if you do not use RedWarn at the moment, or you do (tysm), I would greatly appreciate feedback of any kind. While I go round Twinkle users, sounding like that broadband salesperson in the mall that nobody ever wants to speak to, I'd like some updated feedback from recent and current users.

Any sort of feedback below would be greately appreciated!

• Your first impressions when you tried RedWarn?
• How have you used RedWarn as time has gone on?
• Would you value customisation features, such as macros or shortcuts, such as adding your own quick revert reasons so the tool can fit your exact editing practices?
• Any suggestions for how I could promote the tool to a wider audience?
• Would you appreciate a more developed and thorough user guide?
• Any theme suggestions?
• Anything you'd like changing?
• Something you've always wanted to see in an anti-vandal tool? (I might add it!)
• RedWarn app?
• A way to introduce Recent Changes patrol to new users to make using RedWarn or other tools less daunting?
• Any bugs, gripes, or things that just really annoy you about RedWarn?

Click the button below to begin a new section on the talk page

Leave Feedback

My goal is to create the most user friendly moderation tool, and that's why I need your feedback to help make this truely the most favorable anti-vandal tool. While we will never elliminate vandalism on this site, we can get closer to fighting it quickly and easily.

Many thanks for your continued support. Ed6767 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you do not wish to get these feedback reminders, let me know on my talk page.

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for inviting me to WikiProject Current Events! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for your great, great work to revive WikiProject Current Events. SMB99thx my edits 11:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:Elijahandskip/Archive 1 for an archive of talk page discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

So here's what I do: I create a draft in my user space. I start collecting sources and writing the article. Only after I've proven to myself that a subject is notable do I move it to article space. You can see at User:Valereee#To_Do how many articles I've started that have waited for YEARS while I try to find sources to prove them notable. YEARS. And there are probably fifty such drafts awaiting that. Start the drafts. Don't move them to article space until you're pretty darn sure you've got notability. —valereee (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it. That is actually really good advice. I will take that to heart. Thank you so much! Elijahandskip (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Weather's Non-tropical storms task force (WPNTS), a task force dedicated to improving all articles associated with extratropical cyclones on Wikipedia. WPNTS hosts a number of Wikipedia's highly-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming winter season (for whichever hemisphere happens to be in its climatological winter). Simply click here and add your name to the list to accept!

HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 00:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you HurricaneCovid. I accepted the invite. Thank you for it! Elijahandskip (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for joining! We need all the participants we can get on this project.

HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Elijahandskip/Archive 2. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm and determination to keep contributing to Wikipedia. It can be tough to keep going when you make mistakes and they're pointed out to you. I can imagine it must be hard feeling that your actions are closely scrutinised by others, although it's worth remembering that people are doing this because you tend to contribute in high-impact areas of the wiki. People want to see you succeed as an editor just as much as they want to uphold Wikipedia's policies. My advice would be to always approach things cautiously – I stop and re-read the policies and guidelines whenever I'm involved in something complex; there's no rush, and it's always useful to listen to what others think about something. Sometimes I have to accept that I'm simply out of my depth in an area and need more time and experience before I can fully participate in it – I wouldn't be qualified to jump into an arbitrator's role at WP:ARBCOM tomorrow! Most importantly, keep up your enthusiasm. That's it really, I just wanted to remind you that you being here is appreciated. Jr8825 • Talk 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you for that! Will be using that advice from here on out. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You have great enthusiasm in making proposals and jumping into editing complicated Wikipedia articles on major global events. When you set up the Colonial Pipeline cyberattack article you advanced the discussion on this issue by precious hours at a time when many people wanted information. I appreciate your participation in enforcing notability guidelines and exploring community organization. Thanks and happy editing - Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you uploaded an image to Commons and added it to an article here. At Commons, you claim the image is "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." When I look at the source you give for the image, here, there is as far as I can see no indication of a CC or similar status: the website has a general indication that everything on their site is copyrighted[1] (unless otherwise indicated), and that the copyright of images and so on remains with the original copyright holder (in this case the photographer, Robert Williams). The original text release about this photograph[2] also shows the status as copyrighted.

Can you please indicate where you found the CC-SA-4.0 license for this picture? Fram (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not locate the CC-SA-4.0 license. Thank you for reverting the edit while I research the image more to find the copyright license for it. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. You should never have uploaded it with a license for which you have zero evidence, and once this was brought to your attention, you shouldn't have left it on Commons while editing other articles (for which, once again, you need to remember that NOTNEWS is policy while THREE is an essay). Copyright violations is a serious issue, and posting a brand-new, important (in its niche) photo as if it isn't copyrighted really isn't acceptable. Fram (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Helium rain experiments, 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. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Andrewgprout (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Taliban foreign currency ban has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to the article and publishing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah no problem. I have been wanting to get back into the weather WikiProjects and community like I was back in March. Working on some of these "need to do" weather list articles is something I can do and hopefully work my way back into creating some weather articles. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yea, it’s definitely needed, just so much to talk about in a year! The lists are important. I was toying with List of New Jersey tornadoes, not to finish it, but to add some sorely missing information. There’s so much to cover across all types of weather articles, it’s all eventually gotta get written on. If you ever feel tired of a page, there’s countless (ok a few thousand) others in the project you can work on :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Well first of all, I have to "fix my mistake" on Weather of 2021... Unfortunately, during my 6+ hours of creating the timeline and looking through Wiki lists and news sources, I forgot to cite the timeline. So my task over the next month will be to locate sources for the entire timeline. It isn't as easy as just going to the articles. The article sources have to be check to have the correct damage amounts, deaths, and locations ect...Elijahandskip (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Per your email I have made the following amendment to your ban allowing you to add a factual statement about a governor declaring a state of emergency please let me know if this does not meet your needs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That works perfectly. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I thank you sincerely for the invitation, I accept and will take part in the project. MattSucci (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. FYI, I deleted this redirect so you may now move your draft article. De728631 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Elijahandskip (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Helium rain experiments".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Elijahandskip, it is already out of draft and have its own page Storm Barra! 159753 (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep. An editor didn't care to check for a draft version before creating an article. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please note that redirects from the mainspace to draft are not allowed. I have tagged the page for speedy deletion. Fram (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Tri-State tornado (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per TWODABS; literally no reliable sources have described the recent tornados as a "tri-state outbreak"; also not even factually accurate [3].

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict Perhaps, but tri-state tornado is not a defining characteristic of the outbreak. Searches for "Tri state tornado" are going to refer to the 1925 one. On the other hand, quad state tornado is definitely a defining feature, [4]. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

True, but quad-state technically is incorrect right now. NWS hasn't confirmed it was quad yet, but tri has been confirmed. Let's wait a few hours and see if they confirm or deny quad to determine if we need to speedy delete the disambiguation page or keep it. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

United States Man (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cancellation of Dr. Seuss, 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. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you HurricaneEdgar and Merry Christmas!!! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas CAPTAIN RAJU. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for picking up my mistaken dmy edit of what is clearly a mdy article. Is that what you're referring to? I'll run the edit again with mdy. Let me know if there's still anything wrong. Tony (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That plus a few other minor things. Either way, it looks good now. Thank you so much for running the bot on the article! Elijahandskip (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elijahandskip! I have something to ask. Regarding the Early January winter storm that just impacted the US recently, is it connected to the bomb cyclone that is halfway Iceland and Greenland? I am currently starting a sandbox about this. Thanks! Cyclonicationly (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cyclonicationly: Based on the radar satellite loops, I can tell you it is the same storm. I don't know how we will title it since it was a winter storm that then became a bomb cyclone, but the sandbox is a good idea. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey there Elijahandskip! So I like the idea of a C/B class drive. I think part of that, which might be nice, is also an article creation drive. There are articles that will be needed at some point, and there are some significant gaps in coverage on Wikipedia. I'm talking tropical cyclone effects lists in every part of the world (that is affected by TC's), yearly weather articles going back to 1800, and other types of climate articles. Recently I've been updating the TC anniversaries, which reflected the state of the WPTC in 2006. Thankfully, we now have pretty good coverage of tropical cyclones worldwide going back to the 1990s, but the Atlantic has good coverage back to the 1850s. I noticed some gaps in information as recent as the 1980s, so the info is likely out there. A C/B class drive to fill those gaps in knowledge would be great.

Part of the problem for Wikipedia is generating that interest in writing. It's easy to work on popular topics, fixing a typo or bout of vandalism on, say, Hurricane Katrina, or the 1974 Super Outbreak. Those same giant topics are almost overwhelming to improve, but occasionally they do, such as when 12george1 got Hurricane Andrew to FA status. My big worry with Wikipedia is that we might be missing some really important articles, because they might be outside of the United States. For example, the 1997 Somalia flood killed more than 2,000 people, but that barely has a mention on Wikipedia (just 1997 in Somalia and a mention of rainfall in 1997–98 El Niño event). By just going the way we've always gone, that flood might not get written about in any detail.

So I'm all about any effort to improve Wikipedia. I just realize that there is still a lot to do! Whatever can generate some editing/writing interest would be great :D ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elijahandskip! I noticed that you created a new page on the 2022 Ukraine cyberattack. Could it have just been a section on the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis page? There doesn't seem to be enough information to warrant a whole new Wikipedia entry. Flyme2bluemoon (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It is alleged that Russia is behind the attacks, but until Russia would be confirmed as the perpetrator, adding it to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis page would be incorrect. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. So if it were to be confirmed, would it be reasonable to merge the articles? Flyme2bluemoon (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. If it is confirmed, then probably a merge discussion would be the next course of action. Now, that discussion could say it should be a separate article, or it could merge it, but at that point, the community would have the say. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that as and when the US government gets involved your AP2 tban will kick in and you would be best letting other editors take it forward. I had a quick look at the article and its fine so far. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you for the heads up and reminder. Back to my weather articles. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

		The Weather Barnstar
		Thanks for coordinating (and making me aware of) the WikiProject Weather 2022 C/B Class Drive. This is great motivation for me to add to weather-related content in my region. DJ Cane (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much DJ Cane! Elijahandskip (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Really impressed with how you have bounced back from the topic ban. Well done. Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the barnstar Spartaz! I can tell you that your patience with me a few months ago is one of the only reasons I have overcome that topic ban. Thank you so much for that. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m glad its working out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You took an interest in that draft a while back, so since the original submitter was blocked I wanted to let you know that I've recently declined it at AfC. Feel free to improve it and resubmit if you think there are sources that can show that it's notable! Rusalkii (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! Elijahandskip (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your work in keeping Weather of 2022 to date! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the barnstar! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well-deserved! I've (slowly) been working on the rest of the Weather by year articles. In retrospect, it seems like a pretty big article that we should've been doing years ago. Better late than never (and better late than pregnant!) Take care. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello - thank you for the message a few days ago. If you wish to support me, it would be nice if you check this page over the next day or so and revert editor 76 if he/she keeps reverting two significant pieces of info that I added for Southern Ontario. I don't know if anyone else who was adding stuff to that section will do so. I guess one of them deleted a couple things I added (Oakville snowfall) and I guess that was giving too many cities' snowfalls. Editor 184 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.205.69 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi again - well, editor 76 reverted my additions even infi I added on NY State. Some of their text for Ontario is totally wrong and inaccurate. My text makes is totally accurate. Maybe you will chose to revert them. Thanks, Editor 184 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.205.69 (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Just want to say that you may wish to fix a couple errors in the January 14-17 storm article. References 20 and 21 are the same, and there is a > between references 28 and 29. Also Note A should be moved after the coma. I don't know what to say. For the most part I only came to the webpage and made changes 3 or 4 days apart, but on Feb 4th I did revisions right after editor 76 reverted mine. I just don't just understand why he/she blindly wants to overstate the impact of the storm ("transit systems unable to function" and "many school boards throughout province closed") plus in Ottawa it was Highway 417 that was closed for a long time, not Highway 416 that she/he kept reinserting blindly. Plus, all kinds of random small details are mentioned for other areas (3 injured in Florida in lead?). I was going to add a moderate amount of detail for some other cities and areas, such as the below for Cleveland and something for Quebec, but it seems like a crime to try to contribute. Right now the article says "Phily got snow" - what in blazes is that?

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/01/rtas-unprecedented-shutdown-during-last-weeks-snowstorm-raises-concerns-about-reliability-neglect.html 184.146.205.69 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Winter Storm Delphine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Winter Storm Delphine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Um... A different IP user has redirected the article. Is it okay to do so, or is the IP wrong? Severestorm28 00:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I undid the revert. The IP user had a good idea with the WP:CRYSTAL reason, however, prep work, in this case, NWS's watches, overrule WP:CRYSTAL since impacts are expected. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, is it possible to create an article if it has already started? Severestorm28 01:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe so. If you believe the event is notable enough for an article, go ahead and create one for it. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your rather extensive reverting with the whole 76-184 situation on January 14-17, 2022 North American winter storm. Was rather a mess. Cheers, -- • Apollo468•  00:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

	Nader Award
	thank you for your work Æfæđéæň (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because you are on some drive to create articles doesn't mean that undeserving events should get articles that are simply a rehash of information that is published elsewhere. United States Man (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the WP:BOLD merge is being challenged, so the next step is to start a merge proposal and let the community decide. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The outbreak is not article worthy. If it was so, an article would've been created at the time. I have been doing this for over a decade, so I'm familiar with the policy. United States Man (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

By that logic, any article detailing any historical event that wasn't made when the event occurred would be non-notable. Chlod (say hi!) 00:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The tornado outbreak hasn't become any more notable in the past two years than it was when it happened (probably has become less notable with time). You're not exactly comparing apples with apples. United States Man (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I was addressing your thought that such an article "would've been created at the time" (as we write plenty of articles about events that have happened in the past). As for notability: that's for an AfD to decide, not a bold and controversial merge deletion that you edit-war over. Chlod (say hi!) 03:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What I was saying is that the editors that maintain the tornado articles would've established in real-time whether a certain event warranted an article. Since it obviously wasn't deemed notable enough then, it definitely wouldn't be notable now. Any article would be a complete rehash of information that is available on other long-established articles. It would not contain anything that would add to WP:SEVERE or to Wikipedia. Keeping these small, ill-though-out articles is really not improving the project, which is what Elijahandskip is trying to do. It may look like having more articles is better, but the quality of the C-class will be lowered with more of these short articles over events of marginal notability. United States Man (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I ask you to see reason in the future. I am not maliciously trying to delete articles. If I merge or redirect articles of this nature, it is merely an attempt to try to keep the quality of the articles high and not fall into an array of poorly maintained stubs and copy/paste articles. United States Man (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@United States Man: I understand, and I ask you to do the same as well. Merging/redirects of that nature could be good, but please don't continuously revert without starting proper discussions (Merge proposals or AfD's) if an editor, not just myself, would question the WP:BOLD merge/redirect. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Also want to remind you that WP:FIXIT goes to the same place WP:BOLD. Maybe, instead of going ham on the article notability merges and redirects, you should think about a way to improve the articles to get their quality higher. You say you want to "to keep the quality of the articles high and not fall into an array of poorly maintained stubs and copy/paste articles", well maybe fixing them is the best thing to do instead of just acting like, "You know what, I think this is a stub, so how can I get rid of it from mainspace." I know the Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2022 C/B Class Drive doesn't mean anything to you, but it is an attempt to encourage editors to improve said stub class articles into at least C-class articles. We are encouraging editors to write and improve those articles, so a bold merge/redirect/blanking is actually causing more harm than good, at least from the POV of a drive member. Both articles your boldly merged/redirected earlier were articles involved in the Drive. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There's literally no information of notability that can be added to improve those articles. Hence why they didn't have articles to begin with. Very few single tornadoes should have articles, and only the more significant outbreaks should have articles. I improve articles all the time, but it is apparent that hastily created articles such as these are one events that aren't capable of gathering enough information to support a stand-alone article. Why do you want so many articles for this thing you are running? All I see it doing is leading to the creation of more articles that need improving instead of actually improving the ones we have now. United States Man (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your statement "Hence why they didn't have articles to begin with" is the wrong mindset. As Chlod tried to explain earlier, Wikipedia has no time limits. By your logic and reasoning, any article not created when it happened is not notable and could never be notable. I was originally thinking about withdrawing the noticeboard, but you just showed exactly why I shouldn't. You have the wrong mindset and I think an administrator needs to explain that to you, since now two editors have apparently not explained it well enough. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes a small regional tornado outbreak more notable two years after the event? Literally no news coverage has existed since the event happened, so why would it suddenly be notable enough for an article? Marginal tornado events lose notability with time. That isn't the same with every topic, and I think you all are trying to say that I am applying this logic to every kind of historical event, which isn't true. You are telling me I have the wrong mindset by trying to maintain some level of notability and quality in these articles? I think trying to desperately create new articles to fill some sort of quota while sacrificing article quality is definitely the wrong mindset. United States Man (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

First, I think both parties need to take a step back and cool down a bit and remember to assume good faith. Second, I do see United States Man's point on this. We have a number of good editors working on tornado articles. None of them saw fit to start articles for these outbreaks, which could be seen as an implicit judgement that they weren't notable. Nonetheless, that does not necessarily mean an editor cannot WP:BOLDly create an article. Of course, it will only lead to more edit wars, I think it would be pertinent to discuss first. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Weather by years box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You were bold. I reverted, giving you the courtesy of an explanation for my edit. You reverted me, rather than discussing or even giving the same courtesy. I've opened a conversation on the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the revert without explanation. That was a mistake on my part. In this circumstance, you were not just reverting a bold edit from me, but bold edits from multiple editors, so I did not believe WP:BRD played an impact for my mistake of reverting without an explanation (as really your revert was a "bold" edit as well). Nevertheless, the talk page discussion is the next step, so I thank you for that. Cheers. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The article Zhytomyr Airport attack has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Irrelevant and not much coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Noted, thanks for your solid work so far! This has been a shitshow of a situation, and having to wrangle some inexperienced editors in has not been very fun lol. Being able to rely on you has definitely been a relief. Curbon7 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, I understand the pain of the new battle articles every day. I have redirected multiple drafts that people created to battles that already had articles and such. I don't fully know what specific battles are notable, so I have been adding them to the templates and such, more to let other editors, like yourself, see them. If content gets added fairly quickly, I know it is a notable battle, but a quick redirect from you will let me know it isn't a notable battle. So I wanted to thank you for doing all those redirects! Elijahandskip (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Curbon7, just ignore my reasoning above. Thank you for your hard work at these battle articles!

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Horlivka offensive § Title. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm skeptical on the notability of Battle of Starobilsk. Very little fighting has occurred in the town, and it doesn't seem to be particularly consequential or notable. I think it would be better suited as succinct paragraph in Eastern Ukraine offensive, but I want to check with you about it first, of course. Curbon7 (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Curbon7: I agree. We should merge it into the Eastern Ukraine offensive article. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have received it and will give your request some thought. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I have lifted your topic ban. This does not give you free reign to create questionable partisan articles. If you can't find soyrces across the political spectrum then that should be your clue. If you are just posting fox news talking points then that isn't going to end well. I'd suggest instead you focus on the articles you are currently working on and keep up the good productive work you are doing now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you so much! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I saw Elijahandskip editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Biden iCloud leak and the article itself and its talk page, and came here to warn them about topic ban violations. But when trying to check whether they are still topic banned, I came across this post by you. Does this mean that the US Politics post 1992 topic ban is lifted? And if so, is it normal that a community imposed (and turned to indefinite at a second ANI discussion) topic ban is lifted without a new community discussion but as the decision of a single admin, based on off-wiki communication? Or has there been a community discussion I missed? Fram (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Fram, this probably explains. Spartaz hasn't edited much recently and not at all for five weeks, FWIW. valereee (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Very peculiar, like I said, a community-imposed topic ban being lifted by a single admin after email communication: that's not how these things should be done, it not only overrules the community but is also very opaque. Fram (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Just checked the banning policy, and it looks like this topic ban was lifted outside policy. I would urge Elijahandskip to proceed gor the moment as if the topic ban is still in place, and ask for it to be lifted through accepted means (best at wp:ani). However, as an admin told them that the topic ban was lifted, any and all edits made since then should not be considered topic ban violations and should not lead to sanctions. It would be highly unfair to blame Elijahandskip for an incorrect remomal of the ban and the consequences of it. Fram (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Fram, the TBan removal was done within Wikipedia policy, as the ban stated ([6])If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.. I have been told by numerous people to not interact with you, so consider this our last interaction. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Fram, maybe I'm misreading the multiple pages and discussions etc., so apologies if that's true. That diff (and diffs it leads to) look to me like there was a six-month tban imposed by the community in March 2021. Then there were multiple violations, which @Rosguill and Spartaz dealt with, with additional blocks imposed, including an indef by Spartaz, which they then amended a couple of times, including this lifting? I'm not sure Spartaz has lifted a community-imposed ban because the community-imposed ban was not an indef and (at least originally) would have expired in September until @Cullen328 extended it another six months at that time. So the community-placed ban would have expired this past March, just leaving Spartaz's tban? valereee (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, both. While it is a weird way to deal with a ban, it was what Spartaz told them, so the ban is indeed lifted. Fram (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

E&J, what I would extremely strongly recommend is that even with the tban lifted, you edit with extreme caution on anything involving AP2. The next tban is liable to be a community indef, and that would take a community discussion to lift, and even a single violation, even one that could be argued to be inadvertent or barely over the line, would likely mean being advised to wait YEARS to appeal. The community is not going to give you any slack here. You should consider yourself to be walking on eggshells w/re AP2. valereee (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Fram I don’t think an admin can extend a community sanction so any action taken beyond the scope of that is an Individual admin action which may or may not be covered by some kind of ae or ds over pin. I extended the ban and blocked as an action under my own steam and consider that I am allowed to amend my own actions. You may or may not have noted that I have spent considerable time monitoring Elijahandskip’s editing. You can agree or disagree but that is how I got to the point of lifting my own sanction. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you have any thoughts regarding the discussions here? Noah^Talk 18:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Snake Island massacre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#Snake Island massacre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	It takes a lot of guts and virtue to nominate one's own article for deletion. Major kudos, friend. Curbon7 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Arakui (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Curbon7 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for correcting my error, I haven't ever moved a page that was under active discussion before. When you say "Would have been ok but original mover did not note the move in the AfD", does this mean I can move it back to Battle of Horlivka (2022) right now as long as I go to the AfD and note the move there, or should I wait for it to close first before doing anything? Many thanks. Buttons0603 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buttons0603: Yeah, you can move it back if you want as long as you make a note in the AfD of doing so. For this specific article, I would probably not move it back, since the AfD is all merge/delete !votes, so is won't be around much longer, but for future reference, you can move any page that has an ongoing AfD, as long as you note that it was moved in the AfD discussion. The last bullet point for WP:AFDEQ explains that it isn't prohibited, just can be confusing for editors and have problems with closing scripts, so as long as you note that it was moved, everything is perfect! Hope that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I will give WP:AFDEQ a look! But you're right; there isn't much point to move this one, I'll leave it where it is. Cheers! Buttons0603 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 13, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 08:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The article Attack on Belgorod has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS. One shell, four wounded. If this turns out to be the start of something bigger, then it might become worthy of an article; but not yet.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Fram (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this reversion, technically, it falls under WP:BANREVERT as the editor behind that is de facto banned. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is already linked in the Invasion section of the 2022 Russian Invasion article; if there are specific engagement which you would like added then these can be put on the Talk page there for attention of multiple editors. The article is not meant to be an enumerated account of each and every encounter and each battle, though you can add anyone which you feel to be of heightened importance which is currently missing, on the Talk page there. The section template tag for current status of the article is being restored since it is the primary section of the article which is receiving central attention. I have added the siege of Mariupol edits today which seems to be the immanent news in the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

hi! I have posted the notice below at various talk pages here. since you are a member of this group, I wanted to let you know. feel free to let me know any comments or questions at all that you may have. thanks!

==Notice of group resource==

You are invited to join Contemporary History Task Force, at WikiProject History!!

I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.

We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.

to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! --~~~~

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Will look into it. Although I would recommend to think about maybe changing the title to "Russian control of Kherson" due to NPOV. Just a suggestion. EkoGraf (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the title is NPOV, since 90% of the entries on List of military occupations are “(country) occupation of (location)”. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Is there any particular benefit to transcluding excerpts from pages like Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast to Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War, rather than the other way round? If not, then (at least speaking for myself) I would prefer that the tables be transcluded from Control of cities to other pages, since this would mean that there is only one page to check when reviewing changes to the Control of cities page (both for the sake of verification, and for updating maps such as Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map). I imagine the <noinclude> tag (or, even better, setting only=table) might be useful for removing the {{main}} templates etc., if that's the reason for transcluding to the Control of cities page. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me at all. I was going based off how the tornado articles do it, with the outbreak articles having the charts and the long lists like List of United States tornadoes in April 2022, being transcluded. Either way would work, so if you feel it is better the other way around, don't hesitate to change and fix it. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've done so with Kherson Oblast now. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@AlphaMikeOmega: Could you also fix the transcluding for Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, I messed it up. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Done! The change was the only=table parameter, described at Template:Excerpt. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I've also noticed that I had to put <noinclude> tags around the {{efn}}s in the tables to avoid an error. The error will disappear from the pages being transcluded to either when the pages are updated, or when their cache is otherwise purged (e.g. by appending ?action=purge to the URL). —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello there - I was User 184 and you helped me out in late January when I was trying to add more detail to the January 14-17 Winter Storm article. I eventually did create an account and wrote most of the January 2022 Blizzard article and then the article Great Snowstorm of 1944, which was approved as a new article by the regular channels. Now, as a regular user I have a new article to create (all drafted) and wish to do it without that approval process for first time article writers. I have looked all over and am stumped as to where to do it without that approval step. Can you please point me in the right direction? Eastern Cougar (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Eastern Cougar: Just stumbled across this. You are unable to move your sandbox draft to mainspace because, while you have an account, it is not yet autoconfirmed. You can still go through the submission process or get to autoconfirmed status, which should come soon. Hope this clears things up a bit. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2021 Oklahoma grass fire, 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. FireflyBot (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey! I am sincerely grateful for the creation of pages about the occupation of the Ukrainian Oblasts. I want to ask if you are planning to create pages about the Russian occupation of the Luhansk Oblast and the Oblasts that have already been liberated (Kyiv, Chernihiv, Zhytomyr) like with Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast? Thank you for your work! Uliana245 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I plan too, but some of them will take extra coordination because there are a lot of breakout articles related to the Kyiv and Chernihiv oblasts and we don't want to duplicate too much information. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

hi. are you still coordianting the WikiProject for Current Events? I can use your help, or at least your input, on a few things. let me know. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Sm8900, I am still trying to coordinate it. Currently working on some restructuring for the WikiProject, but still a lot of work out and experiment with. What’s up? Elijahandskip (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

good to hear that! ok, well just state briefly, I have begun to set up some new resources for covering current history. I have set up a new category tree for Category:Decade overviews. Additonally, I have modified some sections of two entries for contemporary history, to add some general sections that will be structured chronologically. you can view these articles at 2020s in political history, and 2020s in United States political history. I hope to build upon these, as time goes on. thanks!

I don't have any specific questions for you, but I would like to start keeping you posted regularly on my efforts, and simply tossing some ideas around, and hearing your thoughts, feedback, comments, concerns ideas, etc. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elijahandskip. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip

Thank you for creating Russian occupation of Kharkiv Oblast.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip

Thank you for creating Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edit to 2022 Assam floods , but please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag. Thanks. PamD 07:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah my bad. I will make sure not to add it if there is already another type of stub tag added to the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip

Thank you for creating 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the United States.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sure this is not vandalism or a hoax. I saw this on the Steam community tab for Garry's Mod, I saw news sources, and even an IFunny meme. KingGhostIV (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you were very quick. I was going to save the references, but you had already put the article up for deletion. Please undo. References coming. NOW. The article is, as I have written, under construction. Kjersti Lie (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kjersti Lie. First off, thank you for editing on Wikipedia. At your request, I went ahead and removed the proposed deletion tag on the article, though, with Wikipedia policy, I moved the article into the draftspace since articles about living people must have a citation if they are to be in the mainspace. It can be moved back to the mainspace once some reliable sources have been cited on the article. I hope you continue to improve the article! (For reference: Draft:Fredrik Jutfelt is where it was moved.) Elijahandskip (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please move the Fredrik Jutfelt back where it belongs, as a «proper» article! I wrongly added «Wikipedia» as part of the title ... :D Kjersti Lie (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

What did I do wrong (apart from adding Wikipedia to the title of the article)? Now the whole artile is deleted?! :( Kjersti Lie (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kjersti Lie: There is a minor procedural thing holding the move up (since Fredrik Jutfelt existed as a redirect to the draft version, so I have to get an admin to quickly delete the mainspace redirect for the move (That has to be done to preserve the article’s contribution history). I will note, I do not believe Fredrik Jutfelt currently passes Wikipedia’s notability for people. One of the sources was written by Fredrik and the other two sources are by the University they are connected too, which does not give a true, outside reliable source to help prove & show notability. While there is a procedural wait to move the article, I would highly recommend finding a source about Fredrik Jutfelt that has no connection to them (like a local news article or anything not by Fredrik or the University). Elijahandskip (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation! I just hope the article will be moved shortly, I am no longer used to «edit source» and make mistakes all the time. As soon as the article is moved to its proper (I hope) place, and I can use VE again, I will add more reliable sources. I have already added some. Kjersti Lie (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey. I just thought I'd let you that I'm currently modifying the tornado emergencies chart so that each emergency is it's own section and that it describes which communities and counties are specifically under the tornado emergency. If you want/can, please help me out. It's under this link. Just let me know if you are so we don't have edit conflicts. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip

Thank you for creating Ryan Hall, Y'all.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. I marked it as reviewed. Happy editing.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:3 strongest tornadoes of 2021 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. United States Man (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm puzzled as to why you undid my edit for this article. I eliminated date formatting errors, duplication of references, and repetition of phrasing.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ira Leviton. The format of the article was messed up, so I was doing a revert to fix the article's format. Probably a pipe was accidentally deleted somewhere, which just turned a large section of the text into a broken citation. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip

Thank you for creating List of European tornadoes in 2022.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip

Thank you for creating 2022 Zhytomyr attacks.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip

Thank you for creating Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear Elijahandskip, I've started a discussion here. Seeing as you are the coordinator, I ask you to please take a look and add your thoughts. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:10 costliest US tornadoes in 2022 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I realize you had a 6mo TBan from US Politics which (I think) expired in Sept 2021 [7].... But I don't see where you have had an alert or been at AE so this template is to notify you of the ARB ruling listed in the template so now you know.

And in this thread talk version oldid=1100208240 good call striking out the NPA violoations. I can accept that your self-imposed US politics Tban is done in good faith, but beware today's edits may look more like an effort at damage control and WP:GASLIGHTING if you return to the topic any time soon. At least, in my opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This was not meant to be anything in the sort of damage control, more or less to keep myself in check. I got off the tban and blocks and never wish to return to that state, so I am now self-imposing a US politcal topic ban to ensure I do not cross that line. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand, I once got wound up over something and did a selfimposed project-ban (aka wikibreak) for 12 months. It happens. FYI so far as I am aware there is no good way to program a topic-based block, so you'll have to remember. That can be a challenge. One way to help pre plan for minimizing drama if you forget is to add a big flashy attention getting note to your page, explaining your intention and asking anyone who sees you apparently slipping to revert whatever you did or said and give you a check in wake up call. That way, if you do forget, hopefully you just get a hand up from the mud rather than a shove down further into it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice. I will look into how to do that. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, why did you mark this article to be deleted? Qraf061 (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Qraf061. There is really two reasons why I tagged the article. One reason is how no secondary reliable sources are present in the references. Every Wikipeida article needs to be backed up by some secondary sources (like news articles), which allow it to pass Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. The second reason sort of stems from the first one, as it is currently written more like a promotional article rather than an encyclopedia article. The main way to correct that is to get some reliable secondary sources to help back up the article. My deletion tag does not mean the topic is not worthy for Wikipedia. Colleges often have Wikipedia articles, just reliable sources back up the article’s information. If you want to improve the article before mainspace, I recommend doing in draftspace, which it appears you are familiar with. I hope that helps and thank you for editing on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip I'm sorry I can't speak English well, the article is an important issue, people from many countries study in the college, I have added 1-reference, the article is not finished yet. Qraf061 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is an encyclopedic article because it is considered encyclopedic in Azwiki. Qraf061 (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Qraf061, en-wiki is completely separate from azwiki, and has its own rules Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip

Thank you for creating 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods.

User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please continue to develop the article

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elijahandskip. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

it seems this article is against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines this article is really similar to 2022 Southeast floods It is currently in discussion if it sould be deleted.Cabin134 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip it seems that most editors don´t agree with you don't worry though we moved most of the text to July 2022 United States floods if you think anything is wrong go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Eastern Kentucky floodsCabin134 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cabin134, saying "most editors don't agree with you" is incorrect, that's simply your opinion. Do not merge or change articles to redirect while there is an active AfD discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Elijahandskip, I have seen you have been Vandlized before you may have heard about the July 2022 United States floods, 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods Sitaution Moussri was also effected in the 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods that is why I keep Redirecting the article 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods to July 2022 United States floods Just stop please. Cabin134 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the link you are talking about for “vandalized before” isn’t even for vandalism. LOL. Secondly, can you let anyone know in any message if you understand the policy about not redirecting a page before the 7-day-long AfD discussion concludes? Elijahandskip (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Helo Elijahandskip, so apperntly some pepole dissagre with me like @Elijahandskip, and@United States Man this is a very serious edit war it stared when @Cabin134:The other article 2022 Southeast floods happened at the same time and has a similar flood location. 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods may be deleted if you do not explain why it is different floods. @Elijahandskip:No sources directly linking this storm system to the storm that caused the Missouri (St. Louis) floods two days ago (July 26). If you can provide a source that directly links both floods to the same storm, then my !vote will switch to a support, but without any source doing so, any deletion/merge would not be a good idea per WP:OR. Another thing to point out, the nominator moved the 2022 Missouri floods to the current title of 2022 Southeast floods without discussions as a way to start this AfD to combine the articles. (1), I cannot find a direct source linking the two floods to the exact same storm system and (2), the rename first then AfD seems slightly off, especially since the nomination said “happened at the same time”, which is false since the Missouri floods began on the 26th and these began not he 28th. Why? is it diffrent. Cabin134 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

yes i have a source😊, I saw it yeastrday and I knew something must have been fishy about the article 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods. [8] also it was also effected in the Same flood:[9]. Cabin134 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Finally, you respond with a source. You do know I asked like 5 times for you to provide a source and you kept merging the articles without answering my questions asking for a source. The entire problem today stemmed all because of that, so to help avoid issues like that in the future, PLEASE just respond with a source with someone asks for one, because all day it appeared you were doing original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

alright i will. Cabin134 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Qraf.ulduz.gif	Qraf Ulduzu
	Thank you for your edits on Wikipedia and good luck! Qraf061 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Carter00000 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you agreed to merge these articles previously, the merge has been completed. You must know that keeping these separate and in this terrible shape looks much worse on Wikipedia than creating one coherent article, which I'm trying to do. I think your energy could be better spent on improving the article, and not reverting everyone. United States Man (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

United States Man, I did say that, but later I stated that a merge proposal would be better. Either way, I am now going to ask you to follow all the proper processes in the merge with a page history merge and relinking all the important places that need to be relinked. I also pinged you at the ITN Nomination because now that is more of a mess. As you have said in the past, this is not my job to fix your messes, so enjoy fixing it. I will work on improving the article and you get to do the background stuff. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

After reading the ITN page, it seems there is already some support for a merger anyway and not nearly unanimous support for having an ITN nomination on a duplicated stub. United States Man (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, I am the creator of the Tropical Storm York (1999) article and I have noticed the addition of a citation-related template by you. Consequently I have several questions that I would like to ask:

1. Which parts of the article lacks citations?

2. What kind of source counts as "reliable sources"? Is the current citations reliable enough?

3. What can be done to improve the article to fix the existing flaws and perhaps improve the quality of the article?

I rarely edit on wikipedia so I would certainly require help and any would be appreciated. Thanks! Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Seafoxlrt616! First off, thank you for creating the article and contributing to Wikipedia. So the only reason I added that extra citations tag to the article is that only one of the four sources is a reliable secondary news article. In general, the notability of tropical cyclones is based on the amount of news coverage a storm gets. Primary sources, which for weather articles are normally from a government meteorological organizations (JTWC, NOAA, etc..), are always needed as citations for articles, but a few news articles from reliable sources help to show the "why this tropical cyclone should have a separate article rather than a small section in the seasonal article". The quality of the article looks great to me, so really the best thing to do would be adding some extra news articles as citations throughout the article, and it will be a good article. I hope that helps and if you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask! Elijahandskip (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Also what kind of criteria is present for a page to be promoted from Start-grade to C-grade? In addition is there sufficient amount of sources now? (I have left the same message on my talk page so you might receive double pings) Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct on Portal:Current Events and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Carter00000 (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

An arbitration case to which you were a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The declining arbitrators felt that the request was premature. For the Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Elijahandskip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Wikipedia:WikiProject of 2021".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, on the 2022 Dallas floods page, I believe there should be a new section "Background" because the Background will talk about the weather history in Texas in 2022, while the Meteorological History will only talk about the exact weather/atmospheric conditions that led to this specific event. Thanks, EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

EagerBeaverPJ, feel free to create a background section, but it should have probably more than 1 citation at least, otherwise another editor may say it does not need a section. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

here is a kitten for all your weather thingy and being in the ryan hall yt thingy - Lolkikmoddi

Lolkikmoddi (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Fram (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page or maybe https://weather.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page would be a good place for this sort of thing. Dream Focus 05:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay so since we're both creating the same task force things and that's causing a few edit conflicts, I suggest you keep creating the templates and structure and everything and meanwhile I'll flag articles belonging to the task force? Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It’s mostly done for the structure wise. Sort of just flag articles and start working on it. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lightning strike into Draft:Lightning strikes of 2021. 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. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, on List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019). — Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC) ]]

		The Civility Barnstar
		For being a "worthy opponent" at a heated discussion. I am not giving you this because your behaviour has been perfect, but because you have always strived to remain civil (everyone has a short lapse once in a while, it's important not to escalate). I might not have agreed with your arguments in the matter, but you could discuss them with more restraint than some editors on "my side". Thank you also for inviting me to the WP:RS discussion – I came there late, but again I didn't think you deserved the backlash you got. We should always assume good faith, and in your case it feels very appropriate. Do stick around, as we need a broad editor base, if we want to remain the best encyclopedia! Sometimes consensus might not be on your side, but that doesn't mean your opinion should not be voiced, or that your work isn't appreciated :) Cheers, –LordPeterII (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a reporter at the Wall Street Journal. I'm interested in talking with you about the London Bridge task force for a story I'm working on. Can you send me an email at [email protected] so we can arrange a time to talk? Many thanks. Reporter wsj (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Elijahandskip! I just want to say that the Tornado I posted on List of F4 and EF4 Tornadoes, I was making a lot of edits and found out the National Weather Service's article about the Tornado I used, was from the book Strong Tornadoes made by Grazulis, so can you change the source(s) to Grazulis please? SuperOMG5223 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

SuperOMG5223 Sure thing! I just switched it to Grazulis. Also, I saw you hit a disambiguations page in one of your edits, so if you want to add that Grazulis rated a tornado, you can type [[Thomas P. Grazulis|Grazulis]] and it will link to his Wikipedia article. Hope that helps and if you have any questions, feel free to message me anytime! Elijahandskip (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! SuperOMG5223 (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elijahandskip! so just now I competed a tornado f4 for List of F4 and Ef4 Tornadoes, in the code it says that the 1910s are there but, on the article, once the 1890s are done, it just goes straight to the 1940s so can you please fix that? SuperOMG5223 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Just fixed it SuperOMG5223! The same thing would happen for the 1900s/1920s/1930s. Basically, those sections are currently set as "editor notes", which is basically hidden so they only appear in the editing code, but not the public readable article. This was done because the sections currently do not have any tornadoes in the charts. Editor notes are done with <!-- (editor message) -->. Editors use them from time to time to either hide sections with no content or to leave other editors a note. In the List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes, if you look before and after the 1900s section, you will see the <!-- and -->. Just removing those little arrow-like things will make it show up in the main article. Hope that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! SuperOMG5223 (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

No Problem! If you come across anything else that seems to be broken, just let me know and I will take a look and see if I can fix it. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019). You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa, I just went back through and did the attributions. Article history now looks painful, but it is done. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I think I should lead the charge when you work on the lists for the time period I described above. These tornadoes, their paths, and their damage info are difficult to discern because the NCEI did a very poor a** job with inputting them. I don't want you to go through that nightmare so I'd rather take the lead in that. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing! I’ve even discovered some as recent as 2010 that have extremely bad citations and sourcing. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Also ChessEric, I had been doing basically why the tornado was rated what it was rated (aka the EF4 damage) for the notes section, which led to a few super huge note section in List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019). Do you have an idea of how to make some of those super long ones (*cough..Oklahoma May 24 2011*) shorter or do you think the few long sections are good? Elijahandskip (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think a few long sections are good. In terms of examples as to why I asked to lead the charge, I was specifically talking about one situation I remember where a tornado in a 1962 outbreak sequence article I wrote up where a tornado was rated F4 and the only record I found of it in the CDNS was three brief tornado touchdowns from a collection of funnel clouds. There was NO F4 damage from that tornado despite its violent rating. THAT'S why I think I should lead the charge a little bit. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That makes since. Yeah, you are welcome to take the lead for the 50-70s articles. If you want, you are welcome to start working on some of the drafts now. Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1950–1959) (replacing the decade date for the others). I've been working backwards in time, so I wouldn't even hit those for a while. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The other day I reported them to AIV before second guessing myself and removing the report about a minute later [10] Dawnseeker2000 21:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/NWSTucson/status/1562947255031607296 https://twitter.com/NWSVegas/status/1562792355983306758 https://twitter.com/nwstwincities/status/1566932597334085632?s=21&t=2oTsXu8eqC0nGt2BwXl4PA

https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=LSRMFL&e=202208042131

https://twitter.com/nwssanantonio/status/1557368739284373506?s=21&t=JJKhCx5jIesLlJalI2vIpw

If you could put these in thatd be great, thanks.

IndyPlaneSpot (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello IndyPlaneSpot. Let me go in order:

1. [11] Did not add this one as there is 0 information expect being confirmed. (Information can only be used in NWS tweets/statements, so NWS did not confirm anything except it occurred.)
2. [12] Added, but a lot of missing information still. :(
3. [13] Same as first link. NWS only confirmed it was an EF0, no other NWS confirmed info.
4. [14] No rating mentioned, (not even an EFU rating), meaning it really isn't a confirmed tornado/landspout.
5. [15] Well NWS even said it wasn't documented in their database yet, so it isn't NWS confirmed.

We have to wait on Wikipedia for a reliable source (NWS is the only reliable source for US tornadoes) to confirm the tornado and information about the tornado to add it. If NWS's tweet/statement doesn't contain the information about the tornado, we cannot add it. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! IndyPlaneSpot (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You're forgetting about the important part in that last NHC advisory.

NEXT ADVISORY

---

This is the last public advisory issued by the National Hurricane Center on this system. Future information on Ian can be found in Public Advisories issued by the Weather Prediction Center beginning at 11 AM EDT, under AWIPS header TCPAT4, WMO header WTNT34 KWNH, and on the web at http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov. Noah^Talk 11:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

A tornado outbreak article isn’t worth it due to the limited impacts, however, I could see a sub article for the Florida impacts, so I would recommend that. 72.80.246.5 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you try to look into something that can be done about this IP hopping by this user. I have been dealing with it at Talk:2010 New York City tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you think about the progress I have made at Tropical cyclone during the past year or so? this is the old version of the article in 2021. There's still tons to do, but I hope it is moving in the right direction. Noah^Talk 19:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello WeatherWriter,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hey, I just wanted to know if you saw my ping at Talk:2022 Russian and Ukrainian tornado outbreak. I'm wondering if pings aren't working right. (Also, it might be a good idea to set up archiving for your talk page). TornadoLGS (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Pings just not be working right because I never saw your ping. Also, I will for sure be looking into getting the automatic archival for my talk page. I have done some manual archives in the past, but I never did the automatic one. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elijah, just to let you know, city names were included in the radar image I edited in. Also, if I undo the edit because of what I just said, why is my radar image smaller than when yours is edited in? If I undo it, can you fix that issue? Thanks! Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Nicholas Krasznavolgyi! So I just relooked at what your image [16] was and there isn't any city names in the duel radar image? I think you might have uploaded one that was too zoomed in to have any locations. Also, the images are about the same size (Yours is 3 pixels smaller in width than the one I added). Based on what you just said, I think you might have uploaded the wrong image potentially or or uploaded a cropped version of what you were wanting to upload. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops I thought I uploaded the image with cities, my mistake. Also what I meant by "smaller" was that the radar image was in another box? It's hard to explain in text. I have another image with cities and roads this time which I'll try to upload and see if it works, sounds good? Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah go for it! I love the idea of the duel reflectivity/velocity. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the issues I was having, thank you. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elijah, I have a question unrelated to this category but I didn't want to create another category for this. I got permission to add a photo to the main Tornadoes of 2022 wikipedia page by Alec Scholten, I uploaded it to the wizard thing or whatever because it's not my photo. The file name is "11-04-2022 Clarksville, TX - Idabel, OK EF4 Tornado". I can't figure out how to edit it in. Thanks. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

First question would be did Alec Scholten give permission to have the picture on Wikipedia? If yes, then it will be easy. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear project member, This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (MOS:ACCESS). We had partially implemented a proposal earlier this year, however, it was objected to by a number of people and additional issues were presented that made it evident this wasn't the optimal solution. We tried to come up with other solutions to address the issues related to color contrast, however, none of them gained traction and no consensus was generated.

We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our project page for additional details. The proposal phase will close no later than December 31st at 23:59 UTC. Noah^Talk 02:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia will be improved whether Colin is kept or deleted. Might I make a suggestion editor to editor. I have found after long experience here that those who state their case once and well at deletion discussions and treat that as "fire and forget" tend to prevail. Please consider this thought, and accept or reject it with a good heart. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise! I think I remember being told that sort of thing months ago, but for this past discussion I 100% forgot it. Thank you for the reminder! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I hope it is something you find helpful. What I have found is that, however strong one's case, the more one makes it the more one is disregarded. We can thus dilute a very strong case by restating it. While I appreciated your overture to me because it made me think, someone else will close the discussion, and all they will care about is the first expression of policy rationale by each participant (0.85 probability) because they are only human. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey,

I am the main writer of the article for Tropical Storm York (1999) and we have chatted a bit before. Might you check if it matches the requirements to remove the more citations for verification template, as well as a potential change of grade of the article to C-grade?

Thanks, Seafoxlrt616 (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I found this record from NCEI. One of few cases of an official report directly indicating why an F5 rating was not assigned. Not enough to put it on the list, but it might be interesting if some source does consider it an F5. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting find! Yeah, that sadly wouldn’t be enough for the list, but if we stumble across some other source mentioning possible F5 damage/intensity, we might have enough to go on. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd hate to ask you this, but I have no idea what is going on with this page. It seemingly looks like all the history was deleted, as it was moved from this user. Sarrail (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)