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.
Do we really need a single reporter's opinion on this conflict? It hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) been mentioned at all in secondary sources, so including it would give undue weight. Additionally, Novara Media didn't put out the message, one of its reporters did. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!18:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Sj}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Crooks Fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hey, So its been a while since I checked in or heard from you properly, so I thought I would check in and see how things are going. Work has been pretty intense over the last couple of months, but I managed to get away from it all for a few days and went to the UKMO in Exeter when Agnes impacted the UK. As a result, I managed to access a lot of information about TC Naming as well as various South Pacific cyclones, which I am in the process of adding when time allows.Jason Rees (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey! Welcome back. I've honestly been fairly good. Some editors and myself have started working on User:WeatherWriter/List of deadly tornadoes, which is a long painful process for probably the next year. Pain. Besides that, I haven't done too much besides work on the Israel-Hamas war stuff, where I accidentally WP:NOTAFORUM'ed Jimbo Wales while NOTAFORUM watching the long war talk page (prior to the 30/500 protection being added to the talk page). Whoops. It was fixed and I got thanked for it, but obviously, it was reverted because it was Jimbo Wales. Also, I look forward to seeing what you found about the naming process! Again, welcome back! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)01:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back and I'm glad that you seem to be getting on ok. Interesting that you ended up reverting Jimbo as it kinda shows that his influence on wiki is waning. Anyway, one of the major things I found was that there was a review into how hurricane namss were retired in between 1995 and 1996s hurricane committee and that Haiti did send a rep to the 1995 hurricane conference. As for the deadly tornadoes, I would suggest that you set a minimum amount of deaths to be included, but that will come as you build the list up. Jason Rees (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I have long since held the opinion that the Arabic wiki is a cesspool with rules favoring certain politics and religion rather than neutrality. They blocked me there indefinitely because my username contains Noah, which is my actual first name. Noah, AATalk15:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh trust me, I don’t feel bad at all. The blocking administrator rejected the idea that I wasn’t a single-purpose account. I connected with them on meta-Wikimedia and they point blank rejected me saying that I wasn’t single-purpose. It is obviously super biased, and given in the blocking he took away my email access + talk page access it actually is 100% impossible to appeal. I’m just putting it on my user page so everyone else sees it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah it for sure isn’t worth it. I edit English and Spanish wikis as I know both those languages. Arabic was just an attempt to fix an NPOV issue, which apparently “doesn’t need fixing”. Either way, I ain’t going to try to appeal it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)17:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish Wait, so if you add information to an article, someone reverts you, you cannot actually revert? Wouldn’t that technically be a violation of 0RR and not 1RR? Looking at the article history, I added information at 05:24, 30 October 2023. At 11:02, 30 October 2023, I was reverted. I then used my 1 revert to revert back, with a full edit-summary explanation at 16:49, 30 October 2023. I made no other edits to the article within the last 48 hours. Unless I am mistaken, I did not violate 1RR as that was my first revert within the last 24 hours and technically my first revert on the article in the last 4 days. Would you mind clarifying the difference between 0RR and 1RR in this circumstance? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
You added it here, and were reverted. Your first revert today was reverting that, then you reverted a second time. That is a clear 1RR violation.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Gaza City until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Parham wiki, in my opinion, “October 7” isn’t important enough in the title. Actually, there was a similar discussion related to “7 October 2023”, which use to be a redirect to the attack. In the discussion, it was determined that while “7 October” is mentions by a lot of media, it isn’t the primary date associated with just the attacks. Bad earthquakes occurred during October 7 as well. Also, in the previous RM which occurred for the attacks, I was strongly opposed to renaming it in general from “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”. Renaming it to say October 7th, to me, isn’t worth it, given that if the attacks truly were associated strongly enough with October 7, the “7 October 2023” redirect wouldn’t have been switched. I hope that explains why I will remain opposed to it. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
October 7, 2023 is a date, they were talking about a date that includes other events, not the Hamas attacks themselves. Surely, someone who searches for October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel is not going to read the article about the earthquake in Afghanistan.
"2023 attacks" is uncommon and is not used in any source
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Re'im until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Terms "Current extent" / "Ordered evacuation" are not correct, as map is always updated day after its source. Exact date or few days pause needed. Even term "Palestinian control" when hamas loses resources rapidly and only does hideout resistance, is very questiinable. About evacuation, israel wants only military presence? Sources needed as it seems more like civilian choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.94.171 (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
How did you come up with the stats (number of users and number of comments) in this comment[1]? Is there a tool that you use? VRtalk02:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey Vice regent. Under the discussion title "Requested move 12 October 2023", it shows Latest comment: 28 days ago | 178 comments | 71 people in discussion. That is how I saw the different stats for the discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Kherson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Jazeera.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I personally feel a 72 hour block is too harsh. In the edit warring report which led to this BOOMERANG block, I acknowledged the risk of a boomerang block as I did edit war and I was the user in the content dispute to begin the talk page discussion. My acknowledgment of a potential boomerang block was acknowledged by the blocking administrator with the statement, “as WW admits”. This was my first block in over 2 years. As also acknowledged by the blocking administrator, a copyright violation by the other user in the edit warring was part of the reason I was edit warring. I personally feel a 72 hour block is too harsh and would like to appeal the block down to a 48 hour block and/or time served. Given I acknowledged the risk of a boomerang block as well as was edit warring related with a copyright violation, I submit this appeal for, what I believe was, too harsh of a punishment. Thank you taking the time to read this appeal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I speak for most people that want to remove the year collages when I say that I'm getting a little frustrated at your persistence to keep the collage for 2022 in the page. I don't understand why people don't realize that the images break 4 different Wikipedia rules by being put on the pages. It is time to remove them, people decided on this a long time ago; the people who want to remove them outnumber the people who don't by 2 to 1. You said "where is the overwhelming consensus?" while bringing back the 2022 collage, well, it's right here[2]. I'm sorry, but the collages should not be added back into any Wikipedia page again, no matter how dull they make the article look. Please do not add the 2022 collage back. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
DementiaGaming, the problem is the image was removed amid the RfC and then was challenged. The RfC has not concluded in a WP:SNOW or formal closure. Until that point, the removal was more or less a bold removal, which was challenged. It should not have been removed again until the RfC formally concludes. That's basic common sense per WP:BRD. Please self-revert and wait until the collage RfC formally concludes with a consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)01:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Then please WP:SNOW close the RfC, since you and 33ABGirl say there is an "overwhelming consensus", which is exactly what a WP:SNOW closure means. What I have heard is an "overwhelming consensus" has existed for 5 days and the discussion is still ongoing and hasn't been closed, meaning two things. Either no one has thought to connent "overwhelming consensus" to "SNOW closure" or maybe there isn't enough of a consensus for a SNOW closure. Either way, I am done discussing this issue with you at this time. Maybe in the future, we can discuss this more. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Wait, you're slightly missing the point. No matter what the consensus is, these collages will be removed. It doesn't matter how they are changed, they will always violate 4 different rules on this website due to consensus breaching, POV problems, etc. DementiaGaming (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
These both look like Andrew5: 108.58.9.194 and 71.125.62.17. They both request page protection for 4 articles in this diff for IP block evasion. They edit the same articles and have the same general WHOIS information as many other socks. Care to open another sock case? The admin who protected the pages didn’t seem to actually investigate. United States Man (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there is enough WP:DUCK evidence for an SPI yet. The main evidence is generally weather/sports edits on the same day, which neither IP has done. I bookmarked both of them down, so if I see anything similar to a DUCK evidence for them, they will go to SPI and that RFPP evidence would be included as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hello WeatherWriter and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
@Dovidroth: Thank you for alerting me to it prior to instant reporting. I appreciate you assuming good faith. That said, I would ask you to also self-revert, given the exact source you removed does in fact say Hamas victory and more than myself on the talk page also agree. You clearly know it is disputed, however, it was there a lot longer before your removal, so please, self-revert and participate in the talk page discussion before removal. Noting I will be reverting it after 24 hours if you do not self-revert as it is more or less disruptive to remove it in the middle of the talk page discussion on how to state it. Removal was 1 option. Other editors were willing to keep it and others (like myself) prefer it to stay but say "pyrrhic victory". Either way, please self-revert as your removal was disruptive. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but per WP:BRD, your edit was disruptive and should have been discussed before removal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)07:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
That is not how BRD works. There's one R; it's not BRRD, not BRRRD, and certainly not BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD. Therefore, your revert is the improper one. Also, verifiability is necessary, but insufficient, for inclusion; even sourced material must have consensus for inclusion. Finally, it very much is disruptive to threaten to game the system and revert again after 24 hours. You have no prerogative or privilege to do so. As emphasized below, stick to 0RR strictly from now on.--Jasper Deng(talk)08:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Cool, so WP:AGF is out the window. I legit did not realize it was a 1RR violation which is why I reverted instantly without question. I shall keep this in mind going forward and will instant report anyone who violates 1RR. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)07:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
WeatherWriter, blindly charging someone who calls out your inappropriate conduct with a failure to AGF is a failure to assume the assumption of good faith, bearing in mind that bad faith would've led immediately to a WP:ANI report. Your case is different from someone who inadvertently violates it due to being unaware of the restriction. In this case, you not only have explicitly agreed to a 0RR restriction, which I should remind you that you are still in violation of even with the self-revert, but you have also had a 1RR infraction very recently, and not only that, it also concerned your choice to ignore WP:ONUS. Thus the need to be serious. Trying to police 1RR just because you have been rightfully called out for it yourself, particularly when beyond justified, is WP:POINTY. Honor your 0RR restriction going forward, and you won't even have to concern yourself with 1RR again. @Jason Rees: As you are more patient and are their mentor, I invite you to comment.--Jasper Deng(talk)07:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll re-assess in the morning. All the 0RR/1RR and WP:ONUS material I do fully understand as I made the mistake of forgetting my previous 0RR self-imposed restriction as well as forgetting the 1RR violation and how WP:ONUS works. That said, at least right now (sleep-deprived me), I don't see how I did not assume good faith, given they removed contested material without any discussion. But, I shall re-look at the entire situation tomorrow and will see how I did not asusme good faith in my request for them to self-revert. Either way, good night. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)07:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not saying you failed to AGF. I'm responding to your "so WP:AGF is out the window", which is completely unwarranted.--Jasper Deng(talk)08:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
It is on YOU to watch your edits and make sure you aren't in violation of arbcom restrictions. You were warned and even got away with a second violation prior to this one. If I were an admin, I also would have blocked you for this. Arbcom enforcement for contentious topics is strong and swift. It's mandated to be an automatic block at this point. I urge you to stay away from this topic before you end up getting yourself blocked. If there is a next time, it will need to just go to WP:AE. Noah, AATalk18:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right. In reality, the war stuff is dying down anyway. I got a couple of GANs to attend to and the deadly tornado’s project. I should really just quit on editing the war before I end up getting blocked. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)18:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I’ve had a re-look at the situation. I was wrong in my comment that “AGF is out the window”. It feels bad honestly that I am at the point of an honest mistake that was quickly rectified meaning I should be immediately blocked. Feels bad, but it is reality and I need to accept that. I will attempt to honor 0RR. That said, I have a genuine question for Jasper Deng (or Jason Rees since you pinged them). This question is based on multiple situations in the last few months (and one of the reasons I moved off the 0RR restriction for a 1RR). If something gets reverted and I open a talk page discussion, at what point does re-reverting break WP:BRD if the other user does not or wishes to not comment? For example, several months ago, there was content that I added that was reverted on an article. I followed 0RR and opened a discussion. Days went by without a single comment from the reverter. At what point does it become more or less “abandoned” and I am safe to re-revert the content? This is a problem that occurred several times when I tried to follow 0RR, and to not necessarily violate it, but improve the article, I would like to know a generalized answer. Would it be best to open a third-opinion discussion at that point? Cheers and thanks in advance! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)18:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I was hoping Jason would comment, but I guess I'll comment for now. In general it would be true that lack of objections could be implied as no longer opposing the inclusion of the content, but in your case, given your checkered history in this sort of situation, you really ought not to ever make that assumption. Consult your mentor (Jason) if you propose to reinstate such an edit for this reason, but in those cases, a reasonable editor would have to conclude unambiguously that the other editor is disinterested and that others are not likely to also dispute your edit; it is always preferable to build a consensus and so you will also have to show that you took all reasonable steps (article talk page, user talk page message explicitly saying that you will assume they no longer object, at least one week of time) to do so.--Jasper Deng(talk)09:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Might I suggest that you modify your archiving settings? You've got it set to archive in 24 hours, and I notice that a lot of the time messages are being archived without your having had time to respond to them. This gives the (possibly false) impression that you're ignoring them. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇18:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
In reality, I read every talk page message since I check Wikipedia at least once a day (even on break days), because I am waiting for my two active GANs as well as two copy/edit requests for future GANs. I generally don't respond to ones I didn't really think I needed to, because I have multiple talk-page watchers. This isn't a sarcastic comment, but you sort of proved my case on that I do have talk-page watchers, with your comment here plus the reply to the discussion above. I could change the archive and if I was truly not going to check Wikipedia every day, I would set it to how ever long I would be gone. But, since I basically check it every morning/evening at the very least, the 24-hour archive seems to work for me. If you guys think I should change the settings, let me know. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Given the level of concern raised by others here, I highly urge that you take Jpgordon's suggestion. It's not enough to merely read your talk page messages; you owe everyone's concerns a response.--Jasper Deng(talk)06:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, WeatherWriter! I see you recently moved Draft:Tornado outbreak of December 9, 2023 to the draft space. Given that you frequently write about weather-related topics and are a new page patroller, I was wondering if you moved the page as part of your patrol or as an editor. If it's the former, the page should have remained in the mainspace as it had already been moved out of the draftspace once before. If it's the latter, well, I have no objections. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey Significa liberdade! In this case, it was as an editor. Typically, outbreak articles aren't started/in mainspace until several ratings come out. This may be similar to January 24-25, where it is 1 or 2 strong/intense tornadoes with a lot of minor tornadoes. If that is the case, the Henderson tornado or Clarksville tornado may get their own article, similar to the Deer-Park tornado. In any case, for an article to be in mainspace, especially related with an ongoing event (WP:BREAKING), it needs to be in decent shape. The draft currently doesn't have citations and really until ratings come out, there won't be too much information besides the basic tornado struck, X injuries, X deaths, which isn't enough for a new article. Waiting until ratings & damage surveys to come out before a mainspace article is best, to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines/WP:DELAY guidelines and to assess whether an outbreak article is even needed, or if a single tornado article is needed. Hopefully that helps. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Floods of 2023, 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Clarksville tornado until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
After my intervention at Meta and involving a steward to act in their capacity as an admin on the AR wiki, your talkpage access and email have been restored there. You have the option to appeal in the future if you so wish. Please understand that you were in the wrong here. It was not appropriate for you to have made changes without being familiar with the operations of the Arabic wiki. The Arabic wiki reflects neutrality within Arabic language sources and English ones do not really matter there. Many Arabic nations do not recognize Israel as a nation and thus the article was neutral from the Arabic language point of view. If you decide to eventually appeal the block, I recommend you propose the condition that you will not edit anything related to Israel or the war there. Noah, AATalk14:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I shall keep it in mind. However, there seems to actually be a dispute on whether or not it wasWP:BADNAC. I don’t plan on closing any more like that, however, given the dispute from other outside AfD editors endorsing the closure and saying I wasn’t wrong also gives some level that it wasn’t a bad closure. I’ll wait for the discussion/dispute to end to see whether or not it truly was a bad closure or not. I appreciate the head’s up alert though. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
It would have been better if you had waited longer. "Would have been better" is not a reason to overturn a close, but it would have been better. —Alalch E.08:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Yep. Fully understood. I should have waited longer. I honestly closed earlier after the nominator in generally acknowledged they wanted a merge not delete. That said, I 100% should have waited longer than less than a day to close. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)08:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Your involvement in admin processes
This was not needed. It doesn't accomplish much. Let admins handle blocked users. How did you come about that situation? Given that your close of the AfD above was also problematic, it does not appear that you are ready to participate in administrative processes. Please stick to content and only get involved in administrative processes involving your edits. Jasper Deng(talk)23:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Respectfully, I found it by watching your talk page since I have your talk page on my watchlist and it came up. What exactly did I do wrong. Non-involved users are, as far as I am aware, allowed to comment in "administrator processes"...or at least all the TPS' I had back in 2021 did. So, since you say I am not ready to participate, please give me guidance on what exactly was wrong with that TPS comment so I know not to make the same mistakes again? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)23:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, some blocks are indeed unjustified, so it is wrong to assert straight out that the blocked user must admit that it is. Secondly, the user was trolling and vandalizing so a topic ban is not the appropriate remedy; the block is. "You vandalized X, so now you have a topic ban from X if you want to be unblocked" is not at all how this works. "Obviously your appeal minutes after being blocked will not be accepted" is not a statement you're qualified to make: you're not an admin and cannot assess whether that is true. These might be innocuous mistakes now but if you did this on a less clear-cut situation, it would've been very bad. Just stop involving yourself in the administrative side of the project and you'll avoid further trouble like the above.--Jasper Deng(talk)00:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Tornado articles
A question. Why do you think all these tornadoes need articles? Do you not realize it is better for most tornadoes to be included in parent articles so that people read all the information in one place? Also, you seem to argue with anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. Why is that? I see you constantly in disputes with others in numerous topic areas. I've let you suck me in too many times myself. It seems to me like the rampant article creation is nothing more than mere hat collecting and is actually part of a bigger pattern of disruptive behavior. United States Man (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I don’t argue with everyone who disagrees with me. That said, there are several tornadoes I believe deserve an article. Do editors, like yourself, disagree sometimes? Yes. I also see you in dispute all the time, generally with me. Both of us have a bad habit of breaking 3RR every single time we disagree, like consistently. In the past (i forget when exactly), you commented that what I do breaks the standard/norms. Honestly, maybe changes are for the better. I conceded on several debates we had, but others I fully and strongly believe the exact opposite of you. For the most part, I am not in disagreement with many other editors except you (in terms of weather-articles) and anyone who I do have a disagreement with, edit-warring doesn’t result generally from it. Honestly, speaking from a personal opinion here, your habit of more or less protecting the norms is more disruptive/not healthy, since you seem to be opposed to practically every single change I have ever proposed, including ones that eventually got accepted via community consensus. As an administrator once said, both of us really just need to ignore each other because our view points for weather-related Wikipedia articles are exact polar opposites, to the point where edit-warring has occurred multiple times between us and we never agree. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
You're definitely right about that. I agree with very little. I do like your statement that people generally agree with you, when I see you disputing with numerous editors the same way you do with me. You came onto Wikipedia with the "know-it-all" attitude, which has been very off-putting to several over the past few years. It is my opinion that the entire Wikiproject is in much worse shape than it was five years ago. All the new people have ran the older ones off, and I'm unfortunately the last one left... United States Man (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
One question you should ask yourself if "why have a bunch of my articles been deleted?" I have created over 70 articles and none have been deleted. You have had numerous articles deleted because you are too much of a niche editor. Another issue you must control is your constant insertion of yourself into situations in which you aren't involved. That doesn't do you any favors. I know Jasper Deng has tried to teach you things, to no avail. United States Man (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I can agree on the issue of me jumping into discussions without knowledge. I did that too frequently and actually, Jasper Deng did get through to me in the discussion earlier. That said, the point you made on why so many articles I made got deleted, almost all of those were from last spring or earlier. Since this past summer, I have worked on several articles, got a GA, have two current GANs, and soon to be a third GAN. I’ve been working to write better articles and such. Sometimes, I just want the benefit of the doubt from others that yes, he can write an article. Discussion about ways to improve before just instantly deletion is what I believe should happen, which rarely does.
Whats going on? Every time I have checked in on you over the last few weeks, I have seen that you have been in trouble, but haven't had the chance to investigate properly until now as work went crazy. The most common things I have seen over the last few weeks seem to be you not knowing where the boundaries lie, trying to impose your will on the articles and ignoring people's advice until its too late.Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I have been in trouble a lot lately.
Got blocked (along with USM) for edit warring. That situation solved itself after a third-opinion editor request and both myself and USM successfully appealed our edit-warring blocks.
Days after that, a single 1RR violation got blown WAY out of proportion, which is why I put on my userpage now that I am fully honoring 0RR and will create discussions unapologetically to solve disputes. Honestly, that 1RR violation being blown out of proportion was for the better as it gives me the chance to truly show that I am willing to discuss issues without debates now.
I prematurely closed an AfD, which would have been fine, except I was highly involved. Several editors/administrators seemed ok more or less with the result of the closure, but me being involved was a major issue.
And top it all off, without being involved in the debate, I started a discussion on Talk:2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado, and had my actions called out, despite me not actually editing in the dispute at all (i.e. I haven't edited that article since July 2023). This, however, I ain't sorry for since I am fully following my 0RR guidelines and my actions seem to have gotten called out more because I started the discussion rather than just reverting in the first place, which is sort of funny.
Honestly, it is a little annoying because despite trying to stay out of trouble, I keep getting in trouble. I think it was all for the better though, because it showed (1) I need to ask for third-opinions more often to help solve debates and (2) I need to start discussions and discussing rather than reverting. Getting called out for opening discussions is ok as I do absolutely nothing wrong, besides work to solve a solution. So, I'm going to keep working on my GAN articles, try to stay out of trouble, and unapologetically start discussions rather than reverting to honor my 0RR self-imposed restrictions. I might make people (like I already did yesterday) upset that I am going to do that, but it will 100% solve issues. Also, thanks for checking in, do you have any advice for me on how to stay the heck out of trouble? I tried to originally with creating 2023 Clarksville tornado, which I thought had GAN potential. But that even got me into trouble. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
From what I have seen over the last few weeks, I think you need to learn where your boundaries are and what to intervene in and what not to. For example, why did you think it would be a good idea to close the AFD on the 2023 Clarksville tornado when you are biased because you are one of the primary editors of the article? I also feel that I need to try and broker an agreement between you and @United States Man: over when a tornado should get split out into an individual article. I would also suggest that you pay close attention to the time of year, as what you maybe able to get away with in May is not what you would be able to get away in December.Jason Rees (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
It fully isn't USM. It is more that we (WikiProject Weather) don't have any clear guidelines. Like None. I've tried several times in the past to get community consensus on what to do vs not to do for articles as well as community consensus to figure out how to fix some of the larger articles and their formats. The mis-communication still exists today and was shown with the 2023 Clarksville tornado debate. After the article was made, there was a discussion on Talk:Tornadoes of 2023 (this section) where myself and TornadoInformation12 (later ChessEric) discussed the existance of both the outbreak article and the tornado article. ChessEric even brought up points on how we don't have clear guidelines on when to make an outbreak article, when to make a tornado article, and when to make both.
I know you haven't been active lately, but there is a huge proposal on how to format tornado articles on the WikiProject Weather talk page. The whole issue more or less stems from not having clear guidelines. I actually think that is more-or-less responsible for all the overall debates I have with USM. I propose some change that is disagreed with and it either goes stale or doesn't get mentioned to the whole community or gets created/decided on, but doesn't get mentioned to the whole community. For instance, in Talk:Tornadoes of 2023, DJ Cane brought up how there isn't a WP:MOS for weather stuff. That's the whole issue I think 90% of the disagreements stem from. Not having some community-decided centralized MOS place. Weather-editing is done mostly by topic-based people (hurricanes, tornadoes, flood, and winter). There is some cross-over, but mostly hurricane editors edit about hurricanes, tornado/severe weather editors edit about severe weather, ect... When cross-overs happen, debates get ugly since there are "understood" guidelines that aren't ever wrote out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)23:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
P.S. The sad thing is, earlier this year, I started a discussion on WP:Weather, trying to start a centralized page for discussions/guidelines, but this was actually shot down by United States Man. Hurricane Noah, in that same discussion, wasn't opposed to having a centralized place to write stuff down on what to do vs not to do. Yet, we still don't have a page for that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)23:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk·contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Long summaries on the Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021 article
Look out! It's Mr. Detective! He wants names!!!! XD In all seriousness though, Cyclonebiskit is working on shortening the summaries, so don't overwork yourself, although I'm glad Andrew5 is doing something else rather than coming after me. ChessEric20:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I have found no consensus for infobox inclusion of various parties. You may wish to start a separate discussion on inclusion of United States in the infobox, for reasons I have mentioned in the closure and am willing to elaborate further with you. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Changing usernames
I've seen editors change their usernames and I desire to change mine too, but I don't know how to do so. Can you tell me how? Note that I wanted to change my username even before all the Andrew5 accusations. ChessEric00:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2022–23 North American winter. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rusty4321talkcontribs17:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Weather of 2024. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and Too soon.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
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. When 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.
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. When 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.
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. When 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.
Saw the notice in your tk page pop up. What does it mean by adopt this editor?
But I think what I actually came here for would be more relevant to discuss on the page it is about.
Are you on Mastadon? Or anything connected to it?
Irtapil (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey Irtapil. So I am not really connected to social media. Too much IRL stuff to do to care about it. Also, WP:ADOPT explains what adpoting this editor means. Short story, I've been very close to being blocked in the past due to being hot-headed. So, I've always been looking for "adoption". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I probably can't help with adoption, I'm less experienced with wiki than you, most of my attempts I've kinda given up. It feels like I spend more time arguing than editing. One time I spent months in a page, and tbh I don't think I was very good at it then, but it was still crushing when somebody suddenly saw it (it was not a very active page) and did a maybe rollback.
I think I've currently got the knack of wiki politics, but it might be about to explode in my face, I'm somewhat scared to check my talk page today.
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)19:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Red-tailed hawk, just a head’s up, I for sure had previously received a notification for this CT, as I was TBanned from this CT 2 years ago. Also, I made a single edit on that article (presuming this is for Standoff at Eagle Pass) two days ago. Not going to say anything bad about the mass notification you did related to that article (seeing you notified a dozen editors in a few mins). But, since I for sure had been previously notified for the CT, you may have done the mass-notifications too fast. CT notifications should only be given to each editor once. Just something I wanted to let you know about. Thanks for the (albeit late) notification about that. I have no desire to edit that article or that topic. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)19:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, you have not received a CT notification for this area yet; you had received a DS notification a few years back. For this reason, I placed the {{Alert/DS}} template here, rather than the {{Alert/first}} template that I have been giving to the newer editors in the area. In each case, I'm checking the filter log of the user talk page before posting, so as to avoid slapping a second post-CTOP notice for AmPol on a users' talk page. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)19:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh wow. Learn something new every day. Thanks for replying. I actually never knew you could be Tbanned without a CT notification. Knowledge for the future though! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)19:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I was looking at an editor who began renaming hurricane articles and I saw that User:StormsFan also did so. They were blocked for vandalism but do they look to you like an Andrew5 sockpuppet? They had some similarities in their edits on Meta to User:CrossBayFan who was blocked as a sock. What do you think? LizRead!Talk!20:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. I will reblock them as a suspected sockpuppet. It just matters if they ever file an unblock request. LizRead!Talk!06:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Ždiar, 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.
Im sorry for acting like a dick. I've been really stressed out during the last month or two with family health issues, work, and university. Noah, AATalk13:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey man, I feel that as well. I’m sorry for snapping like I did as well. Wikibreaks are very good to take. Editing here should never feel like work and should be enjoyable. Your real life situations should always come first and foremost. Take a break and enjoy friends and family and, if you are a gamer you will get the reference: Touching grass might seem painful and might seem impossible to do, but touching some grass can relieve a whole lot of stress. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)19:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2020 Nashville tornado, 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.
Hello. Just a heads up that I have removed the video thumbnails you have uploaded as the cover artworks for the Hazbin Hotel songs. You are probably not aware, but it's basically an unwritten rule at this point that anything but an actual cover will be deleted if used in that parameter for songs or albums. When video thumbnails have been used in the past, they have not survived deletion discussions at WP:FFD basically ever. As I said in my summaries, they don't appear to have individual cover artworks as they were put out on/at the same time as the soundtracks they are from, so these would be considered decorative visual accompaniment/an excuse to have an image in the infobox. Thanks. Ss11213:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I think actually discussions should take place rather than speedy-deletion. The thumbnail images, I believes, actually are the covers for the song and are used in the media as such as well. I went ahead and restored the images since they were still on Wikipedia. This may be a rare case where the thumbnail would be allowed for the covered, as this is not from a typical artist and from a TV show. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't think either are fine as neither are cover artworks, nor do they function as such. They're thumbnails for videos. This is not a "rare case"—we have had plenty of the same situation before. In future, you should respect WP:BRD, as you added the cover artworks (not at the exact time you created the article, in a later revision, so there was a prior revision that did not contain the images), and I removed them, which means they should be put to a discussion before being re-included, but fine: I've nominated your files for deletion. Ss11212:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental impact of the Red Sea crisis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
We typically only strike the comments made by editors who have been found guilty of block evasion. In this case, these two editors were found to be sockpuppets of each other and were blocked but there is no other sockmaster who was evading a previous block so I have "unstuck" the comments. Granted, the comments are rude and impolite but I don't think they warrant to be struck. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!04:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Thumbnail for Stayed Gone.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Thumbnail for Stayed Gone.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When 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.
There were shit loads of tornadoes yesterday in Ohio (ie my backyard). SPC's prediction was pretty inaccurate in the end. What should have been a moderate risk ended up being a slight risk with 2% TOR until the worst of the event was over. I was in the basement with the house shaking and lights flickering due to the thunderstorms. Noah, AATalk16:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Originally, it was because no free map existed. So far, the incursion has been going on for over a week and yet no map exists on the Commons, despite being requested several days ago. I’m fine with it being deleted, however, I’m thinking your optimistic in saying a free one will be available on the Commons “within days”, given it has been several days and still no free map on the Commons. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)12:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
In any case, I don’t believe that would be a sufficient rationale.
I’m also planning on posting to RSN sometime soon about ISW as I believe they’re an “additional considerations apply” source. I’m not really talking about their maps, but those are anyway demonstrably not as high-quality as, say, DeepStateUA (which is notorious for delaying certain updates on legitimate OPSEC grounds).
In short, there are a couple reasons why WP generates its own maps.
On the evening of December 10, 2021, a tornado struck Western Kentucky, killing 57 people, and injuring more than 500. Mayfield, Kentucky was one of the hardest hit, with 22 deaths. The town was also mostly leveled and most of the infrastructure was destroyed. Today marks 4 years since the disaster.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When 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.
Orphaned non-free image File:ISW March 2024 Kursk Incursion Map.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:ISW March 2024 Kursk Incursion Map.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2024 Polish airspace violation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Hello, I notice that you have not yet amended the article to address any of the issues raised in my review. The article will be failed according to the deadline set (11 April) if the issues have not been addressed by then. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Amitchell125: Oh shoot, I forgot completely about this. Honestly, I do not have the time to work on it this week, so the GAN will be failed. Next week though, I have time and I will make the corrections then and will re-nominate the article. I know I do not have to ping you, but when I renominate the article for GA, would you like a ping to re-review it, or would you like someone else to do the 2nd GA review? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if the article is failed, ping me as soon as you re-nominate it and I will do a second review. Please make sure all the issues are addressed in the current nomination. I usually add YDone (or something similar) once each issue is sorted. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Replaceable non-free use File:Photo of Ryan Hall, Y'all.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Photo of Ryan Hall, Y'all.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk)16:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is getting out of hand. This article is WAY too short to be here and unless you have some way to expand it, the article should be deleted or redirected back to the main tornado outbreak article. Not every strong to violent tornado needs an individual article; please remember that.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 Sunfield tornado until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
@Masterhatch: Ah so 174.216.209.32 was you. PROD was removed (1) because I objected to the deletion as it already passes WP:BIO and just needs some additional work (several of her publications are cited across Wikipedia), so those can be linked and added. Also PROD was removed due to it being placed by 174.216.209.32 and not your main account. As sad as it sounds, but every single anonymous user is carefully checked on WP:Weather due to a very long-term abuser (WP:LTA/A5) who has ban-evaded easily 100+ times on weather-related articles by IP hopping. Three IPs were caught yesterday and the edit on 174.216.209.32 Just happen to be right after he switched IPs (and got blocked) to nominate another article I had made for deletion. I honestly was thinking 174.216.209.32 was a SOCK, but the stuff from point (1) was my formal reason for removing it. This should be more a stub that can be an article and just needs work rather than a BIO-stub that needs deletion. Hopefully that explains my reasoning well enough for removing the PROD. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)14:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I never edit anonymously. Let me repeat that, I NEVER edit anonymously. I think you owe me an apology and I strongly suggest you think twice before accusing anyone of Sockpuppetry. You can start by reverting your editing of my signature. Not cool, man, not cool. Masterhatch (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@Masterhatch: I did not accuse you of sock-puppetry. I also did not realize I changed your signature and I am sorry about that and it has now been fixed. That was a wrong copy/paste where I was attempting to copy your username to do a reply ping, but copied the IP rather than you. That was a simple typo mistake. I also do not think the accusation that I accused you of sock-puppetry was warranted. I never stated you were a SOCK. I simply stated that all IPs that edit weather-related articles are watched to ensure they are not a SOCK. Since you confirmed that IP user was not you, then my suspicion still remains high that 174.216.209.32 was, in fact, a SOCK of Andrew5.
I see the situation now. 174.216.209.32, a separate user added a PROD, which I challenged. You then came here to ask me why I removed that PROD. Well, now that this situation has been cleared up, you have my explanation for the PROD removal above. Keep in mind there is a high chance the original PROD added by 174.216.209.32 was a disruptive edit added by a SOCK-puppet. You are welcome to AFD the article if you wish, but my reasoning for the PROD removal, I feel was valid even without the chance of the PROD being added by a SOCK puppet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
You said: "Ah so 174.216.209.32 was you." That's accusing me of editting anonymously, aka Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. You weren't asking if I was that IP, you were claiming I was. Regardless, I had asked why you deleted that PROD on an article you created (not normally the way it works). When I looked at the article, I saw a sub-stub with no apparent notability and that's why I asked you. I won't put it up for afd as I don't really care either way; I was more concerned that you removed the tag from a questionable article that you created. I suggest you expand that article and make it clear why it is notable pretty quick because if I was going through the list of afds, and I saw that, I'd vote delete. Masterhatch (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@Masterhatch: Just for you to be aware, logging out to edit anonymously is NOT a violation of WP:SOCK. That is actually stated on WP:LOGOUT. Let’s assume for a moment the IP-user was you in this situation (yes I know it isn’t). Per WP:LOGOUT, if that had been you, you were not attempting to deceive other editors and you were not using it illegitimately. In fact, that edit, had that been you, would have been 100% perfect to have made under policy. Now let’s say you commented in a discussion (like a request for comment) while logged in. If you log-out and make a second “!vote” comment in that discussion, that would break Wikipedia’s policy. But logging out to edit anonymously is the same as having a second account, which is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. So just so you are aware, there was no accusations of you being a sock-puppet at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
