User talk:Sir MemeGod

Archives (Index)

2024/March 2024/April

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hello, MemeGod27. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:AOCA Foundation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Sean Jones (Basketball player). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JTtheOG (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I might be confused but I feel like I have seen your account info on a potential sockpuppet before? They might have been bloating the tornado wiki pages on the March 31, 2023 outbreak page which caused a major hassle for people to fix. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! So I'm gonna assume you are talking about the guy that kept turning the Little Rock tornado into an EF5 and kept copy-pasting random tornado info into the Little Rock info section. (User 2601:481:8400:43C0:535:FCCB:691D:DF36). That wasn't me, and he wasn't even logged in when he did it. If you have any other info on it, feel free to reply, but yea, I'm not a vandal. Thanks :P ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! I can tell while you are passionate about this subject you are just a high schooler from Gahanna. I think you need more experience with the wikiformat and learn to exclude unnecessary details (think what is not significant e.g. this tornado has had 120mph winds). HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? You clearly enjoy violating WP:NPA, so I'll note that. Being a high schooler means nothing on Wikipedia. "WikiFormat" is also subjective to interpretation, and since you have literally 25 edits (again, nothing personal on that) I have no idea why you are lecturing me. And yes, edit count doesn't really matter. I get that. But I've told you I have nothing to do with that article, and you just keep on trucking, harassing me. Again, you've violated WP:NPA, which is a fundamental rule for behaviors on Wikipedia. Thanks :P MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seem rude and defensive, I like to respond to all messages in my inbox! I am purely exasperated after trying to fix your messes on the tornado page. You jumped the gun on the April 1st outbreak article draft, and you didn't heed community advice to avoid creating blurbs without entire community-wide consent. I do not want to harass or disturb others but it is necessary when they don't listen to anyone else on discussion pages.

Also, I would like to note that I have had much experience editing wiki before between the years 2015 and 2019, when I also was a high schooler! Now I have a college degree in meteorology and I think that makes me well versed in editing weather wikipedia! I suggest you also major in atmospheric science or meteorology as I did given your great enthusiasm for such sciences, and learn a bit more about this subject! Cheers! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized the original fancruft writer I was reffering to has already been blocked. I sincerely apologize for my mistake! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MemeGod27: From your request at WP:Teahouse § Where to get help with tables?, here's one of the tables from the article you mentioned, with some annotation added inside <!-- ... --> to help find its components. You can use "edit source" to paste in your draft and change the data.

March 13 event[edit]

Bazza 7 (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything works except the "EF" part, they keep overlapping MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MemeGod27: You can ping me if you have a question by placing "@Bazza 7" at the start of your message. It sends me a notification that someone has mentioned my name.

I have fixed the table. You had deleted the "text" rows (two lines starting <!-- TEXT AND REFERENCE(S) -->), but not adjusted the "EF" cells; I have added the "text" rows back with empty cells. If you don't want them, you can remove the two pairs of lines again, but you will need to change rowspan="2" to rowspan="1" on the "EF" lines to compensate.

You may, now you have a working table structure, want to use the Visual Editor to tweak the table's contents (using the "edit" link, rather than "edit source"). Feel free to ask for more help. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MemeGod27: You might also be interested in {{Tornado table header}}, {{Tornado table row}}, and {{Tornado table footer}}! Bazza 7 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks! I've always wondered how to properly do that, and I guess now I know! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page COSMOS field, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please in the articles that you create add the pages that you found the info you include in the article. NGC 3110 for example has references but these references don't mention the info they are supposed to verify. C messier (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of COSMOS field at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Storye book (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you create the new articles for galaxies, do you base the article on a specific "template" article? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have a specific template, I tend to follow a pattern. I do _____ is a ____ in the constellation _____. It is _____ light years from Earth (and then anything unique to the galaxy). MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from my time on Wikipedia, I've learned that things need to be uniform. Look at what I had said and it can in a way apply to all of my NGC articles. I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing, but yeah. Most NGC galaxies are unfortunately extremely similar so that's just how I write them. MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. It is just that most (all?) of new galaxy articles had the same errors with the Short description template. I was hoping to find a blank "master" article so I could fix it — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh. I use the {{shortdesc}} template, there may be an issue with that in specific. (I'm also not really good at writing short descriptions lol) MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Short description}} template should be at the start of the article and especially before the infobox. It also helps subsequent editors if the infobox is block formatted — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uw-npa2MemeGod ._. (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using self-published sources like astrobin and various forums because self-published sources are largely not acceptable as reliable sources. C messier (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you use content translated from another wikipedia you must give attribution to satisfy licensing requirements. See WP:TFOLWP. C messier (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NGC 6742, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While I do not know you personally, you keep accusing me of violating WP:NPA when I am referring to general trends I do not like to see. These are merely opinions of mine, which I admit can be strong. But they do not constitute anything that violates WP:NPA. I am getting sick of you falsely calling me out on public forums that aren't even related to your age, gender, identity, etc. Please just stop.

Thank you. Cheers! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop, it's just the fact that you call me "just a high schooler" and a "kid" but the second I call you out, you put the blame on me. WP:NPA states that:

• Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

You had stated in a previous message between us: "Nope! You are just a high schooler from Gahanna" which can be seen as derogatory. (This message can be found here, if you just wanted to check it out.)

Just don't bring someone's age into a reasoning for doing something. Also, we're good now, on common ground. Thanks :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it may be taken as derogatory, but I did not mean it that way. I meant that as a sign of your inexperience with editing, after the whole April 2nd debacle and the frustration with so many young editors like User:Lokicat3345 ruining this article. My sincere apologies.

Cheers! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. I'm just glad that we have everything sorted out and I apologize if I took it too harshly. Happy editing, and I hope to work with you often (on Wikipedia of course)  :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I do apologize again for any pains caused through this conflict. Perhaps you would like to join in me drafting the tornado outbreak today, the one in Nebraska ;)? Cheers! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, no problem! I've definitely learned my lesson in early-on article creating and realize that this will 100% need to go into draftspace. In the words of the great Hamiltonthemusic, "Cheers"! MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one more thing, I noticed that you had the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base article listed on your "worked on", I've actually been on or near the base multiple times (the museum is honestly the coolest thing ever). Just wanted to add that, I love the WPAFB. Cheers! MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in and lived in the WPAFB as a child (this was late-1990s) Later moved to Massachusetts, Michigan and Texas where I currently reside. Have not been to Ohio since I was six unfortunately, but I will update that article's section on the role and operations of the base. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else just made an article about the current outbreak, I am gonna try to intervene but may need some help. Thanks! MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I noticed this discussion and I hope you don't mind me intervening as well. :)

It's got widespread coverage, so that's a start. Additionally, ya have the newly-ratified Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Tornadoes of XXXX criteria. One of these tornadoes has caused at least one injury, as stated in point 1 of the criteria. Thus, it passes that criteria as well. Finally, you stated that "Also I have no idea why the article was redirected to avoid a PROD (which the reasoning was completely overlooked, had nothing to do with directing but about the event itself)". Redirecting a PROD-tagged article is perfectly acceptable; as it's an alternative to deletion. You are welcome, however, to start a articles for deletion discussion; but the article so far has satisfied my points above. Feel free to ask me for any further concerns or questions! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 00:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MemeGod27,

I have some advice to offer. Please do not PROD or nominate articles for AFD deletion discussions right after they have been created when editors are actively working on the article. It looks like you are trying to make some kind of point which is not a good reason for deletion. In fact, you recommended that this article not being deleted but moved to Draft space which is what actually happened. Plus, if there are editors working on an article, only an hour or so after it has been created, inevitably one will remove the premature PROD tag and then the article can not be PROD'd again. And if you nominate an article for an AFD deleletion discussion that lasts a week, invariably, over the course of a week, the article will undergo extreme changes and it won't be the same article after a week that it was when it was nominated.

So, if you get the urge to tag a newly created article for deletion and there are not obvious problems like copyright violations and BLP violations, please think twicee (or three or four times) before tagging it for deleteion. Please wait until an article isn't being actively edited and make another assessment a few days later. There is no urgency to delete these types of articles and both PRODs and AFDs take at least for a deletion decision so it is not a quick process. Let the article creators and other editors work on an article and they may end up addressing the problems you perceive exist in the article when you got the urge to tag it for deletion. This is just advice that will help you not waste time or aggravate your fellow editors. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there were several copyright issues with the main image as well as the fact there are additional ongoing tornadoes. I advised MemeGod27 to help shelve the poorly made article but there might have been an accidental nomination for deletion. Please know that was not our intention, as we just wanted to preserve the high quality that tornado outbreak articles are known for. Sorry for the confusion Liz. Cheers! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307 Online events: New: Press women | Alphabet run U, V & W | Central and Eastern Europe Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Wikimedia CEE Spring 2024 - contest with certificates of participation and prizes The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

On 29 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article G299.2-2.9, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that G299.2-2.9 (pictured) is one of the oldest known supernova remnants in the Milky Way? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/G299.2-2.9. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, G299.2-2.9), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one verified video of the Sulphur tornado, and it's this one. Shows a stout, ugly tornado only illuminated by power flashes and no city lights. https://twitter.com/CameronCW13/status/1784475703007690884?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1784475703007690884%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

This video is being passed around as Sulphur but has not been verified as such. It looks like Ardmore (explaining below) https://twitter.com/QueenDarbyy/status/1784474310171664716

Ardmore is a larger town and it illuminated the tornado. Sulphur is smaller and power was out at the time of the tornado, and therefore any video of a narrow cone tornado illuminated by city lights, is probably from Ardmore. The photo you shared is more consistent with Ardmore than the one verifiable clip of Sulphur. A lot of videos from Ardmore got spread on social media as Sulphur, and it's creating a mess. When it doubt, throw it out, and I doubt this one more than I can express. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TornadoInformation12 This is what the Ardmore tornado looked like. While I will say that more than one tornado hit Ardmore, both of them look only slightly similar to Sulphur. See also here. Also, there is no upward lighting in the Sulphur photo, consistent with what you said about power being out (I may be wrong about this). While I get your points, it definitely matches what has been said about the Sulphur tornado. Since us talking usually spirals out of control, I'll try to keep it civil this time. Thanks :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than one tornado did NOT hit Ardmore. See this isn't good, you're already confused about what happened last night. There were additional PDS warnings for Ardmore later but nothing was confirmed in the town. You are obviously are relying heavily on social media reports and photos, and that's sure fire way to get confused. There was one path through through the Plainfield Estates subdivision, and that is the only confirmed path in Ardmore at this time. That photo is ONE angle and it looks that way because it's illuminated with a power flash. Literally every other video from Ardmore looks like these below. These are ALL from Ardmore and it isn't up for debate:

https://twitter.com/onlynaders/status/1784421181929427404 https://twitter.com/JeffreyMHough1/status/1784555615013990792 https://twitter.com/StormHQwx/status/1784436631480529041 https://twitter.com/MundoEConflicto/status/1784417481869680713

Also look what I just found, a video that was being passed around as Sulphur later in the night, clearly labeled and consistent with Ardmore. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. We have no way of knowing, and I'm not letting something uncertain like this onto wikipedia:

https://twitter.com/onlynaders/status/1784431755727958322

Also the Sulphur tornado was large and rain-wrapped, and basically not visible as it moved into the darkened town. If it was, we'd have more than one video of it, and like I said the one video we do have looks nothing like what I shared above I'm not trying to start a back and forth, but I'm telling you right now that you are not going about this the right way, and you're going to get false info published. I know you're probably a kid so I won't blow up, but you need to take the advice of other more experienced editors in moments like this. I've been doing this long enough to no when things aren't adding up and there isn't enough evidence for inclusion. This is one of those times.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

1. I literally said that we need to keep it civil
2. Violations of WP:NPA do not show your experience in any way
3. I may be wrong, and I do understand that. I will have a talk with my friend to see if he is telling the truth or if this is a screengrab. Until then, feel free to do whatever the heck you want with the image. I do agree, with the evidence presented, that it should be removed from the main article. Thanks!  :) (Also to clear up confusion, there were multiple signs of a second tornado in Ardmore when I was watching it live, others voiced my same concern, and as of right now it has not been proven or disproven)

MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok one more thing and I'll wrap this up. You can't post things that your friends send you. You either have to take the tornado pic yourself, or it has to be from a government source (FEMA, NWS, NOAA, ect). There's a reason why we can't just post photos internet friends send us, and that's because it's a real life case of "source: trust me bro". There's a rule against it because we want to avoid situations where false info gets published for everyone to see. I once submitted a photo of a foundation partially pulled out of the ground by an EF5 in Smithville, MS back in 2011. It was crazy, incredible, and I know exactly where it was taken and can verify it was real. Problem is, it was taken by a friend of a friend, and it got taken down. I wanted published with every fiber of my being, but eventually had accept I couldn't because I didn't take it. Just the way it is, and over time I've come to understand why.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformatinon12[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I swear I'm not trying to nit-pick everything you do, but you just published a bunch of inaccurate info in the Sulphur writeup.

1.) While there was debarking in Sulphur, you didn't add a source for it (I will try to find one for you though, because this claim is true).

2.) The claim about branches embedded in concrete is also unsourced, and untrue, and it happened in a different town (Norman, OK) from a weak tornado. The sticks were embedded in stucco, not concrete (https://twitter.com/LiveStormChaser/status/1784425063690727822). Stucco is a styrofoam like substance that is sprayed with a hard layer of fiberglass to make it look like concrete. I can say that as someone who has extensive knowledge of building materials, and have seen this phenomenon in many other tornadoes over the past decade. In the video, you can see the exposed styrofoam on the corner when the camera moves to the other side.

3.) NWS Norman has only confirmed only one CONFIRMED tornado in Sulphur. There is nothing to indicate that there was a second one besides some false reports on social media the night of the event. You can not add or mention a tornado unless it is confirmed by the NWS, period. If they add a second path through Sulphur, then you can go ahead, but I'm telling you right now that they won't.

I know you're trying and still new at this, but you can't be publishing so much stuff that isn't true or properly verified. I'm also concerned that you're just looking at a bunch of photos and social media posts, and writing things based on that. Those are not considered to be reliable sources, and can be only be used as a last resort supplement to officials sources, which are the NWS and the Damage Assessment Toolkit. News media articles can also be used as a secondary source, but not a primary one. You'll get the hang of it, but don't be offended if a lot of your stuff gets changed. I will be fair and try to alter as little as possible, and keep and or find a source for anything that is true and verifiable. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're all good. I will admit that tensions in the tornado community were extremely high on the night of April 27th, and I may have been wrong about a second tornado in Sulphur, which is a claim that has been heavily tossed around. I am looking at the ArcGIS damage toolkit, which is where I got the "East Broadway Avenue" info from. Social media-wise, I don't really get my info from there, it's more videos and articles that have been passed around. I'll try to do better about sourced and verified info. Thanks! (Also I know what stucco is) MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks for understanding. Another important thing is you can't guess the point of highest-rated damage or the basis for the rating of a tornado. You have to wait until the DAT or the NWS officially announces it. Idk if it was you, but I found a claim that the EF4 rating in Marietta, OK was based on a Dollar Tree warehouse. It wasn't, and I have some "insider" info that hasn't been publicly released yet (been doing this a while so I have some connections) that the EF4 rating is going to be based on a destroyed Homeland grocery store that was extremely well-built, confirmed by engineer Tim Marshall. Now even though I know it to be 100% true because of mu sources, I can't publish it right now, because it hasn't been released to the public yet. So I gotta keep it vague per the rules. One the NWS adds the grocery store to the DAT or mentions it in a more detailed survey, we can add that piece of info.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for understanding my side as well. For the Sulphur one, I never mention "EF4" damage because I have quite literally no experience in and no idea what this absolute demon could be rated. I'll try to avoid premature ratings and unconfirmed speculations. Thanks! (Also a tornado outside of Sulphur was confirmed, apparently it hit north of Sulphur, but really didn't hit anything) MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok correction some stuff got lost in translation. It's based on a combination of the warehouse AND the grocery store (this stuff gets complicated). See even I sometimes get bad info when stuff is this recent. That's why I always try to be cautious and keep it vague until more info is released.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

What's this about? Before I cleaned it up just now, it was full of completely unsourced sensationalism. Joke pages are not taken upon kindly here. Please do not create any further such drafts; base any and all information on cited sources please. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mk. It's a draft, which is meant to be a prep space for an article. Feel free to delete it, but yeah. Also, it isn't a joke page or "unsourced sensiationalism" the strongest tornado statement was released by the NWS but later retracted, and somehow it was only rated an EF1. Feel free to delete. Thanks :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't WP:CITE anything and have no proof the NWS said that. If an actual tornado hadn't occurred this would've been speedily deleted as a WP:HOAX.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Again, remove it if you'd like, I am most likely not going to do anything with the article as it was rated extremely low as compared to its radar structure MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned that you don't do something like this again. Please take your responsibility to not create WP:HOAX-like content again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something extremely serious happened in my family about half an hour ago, I do not want to start any sort of argument right now, now just isn't the time for debates. MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 Sulphur tornado is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur 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.

United States Man (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep stalking my posts on other talk pages, but I will not stop engaging with other editors to deal with the issues you have created. If you want me to stop, then work on your editing and sourcing skills, take a step back to observe and learn, and do better work. Let me be very clear, I WILL talk about ongoing problems that need fixed with other users, and most of them just so happen to currently involve you. This is nothing new, there's no rule against it, and you are not owed protection from being the topic of conversations you don't like. Until you improve, you are going to have to deal with me conversing with other editors to clean up messes that are left behind. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Hello. I will do that, but you NEED to stop lecturing me every time I say literally anything. Your "talks" are seen as extremely derogatory and straight-up harassment by me. And per your rationale, I will edit what I want. Whaddya gonna do to stop it? I am currently getting a block set up between the two of us because I just can't talk to you anymore without keeping the conversation extremely toxic. You talk about encyclopedia content, well none of our conversations are productive. For an experienced editor, you really just can't put any blame for anything on you, can you? At least I, the rookie, and taking it up on myself to own up to my actions and get both of us interaction blocked for the sake of the wiki. Thanks for your help, or whatever. I can't even believe I have these kinds of conversations with an editor who has 14,000+ edits. Wow. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no basis for interaction bans yet at this stage, and as unpleasant as this was, I actually still have hope for resolution and don't want to bicker with you. Believe it or not, I actually want us to be able to collaborate and be productive together, as I can tell you have the passion and drive to be a very productive tornado article editor at some point. I DO see your potential, and you actually remind me of myself when I joined this site as a kid, which makes me want to help you get to the point where I can "hand over the torch" so to speak, and see you do this 100% on your own. I will own up to when I am going about things the wrong way and being to harsh, and will start by saying I am guilty of that today. On my end, I promise I will not remove your stuff as long as it is largely NWS/DAT sourced, relevant, and encyclopedic in tone. On your end, all I ask is you either hang back on having such an active role in tornado draft/article creation for while, or if you refuse to do that, at least be ok with me reverting or re-writing a lot of your stuff while you are still learning (half of my contributions were removed or changed during my first year or two of editing tornado articles, so I know how it feels). Can we shake on that agreement, and at least try to wipe the slate clean one more time? We actually seemed to be doing ok until you published the Sulphur article. What really set me off is that I explained in detail what sources to use and avoid, and how to summarize damage/EF scale intensity information using those sources. You said "Ok will do", but after reading the Sulphur article, I saw you did all the things I specifically asked you not to do, so I lost it. I felt like I wasn't taken seriously or listened to, so things went off the rails again and I'm sorry, but I do want to give us another shot at working together in a civil manner. I actually want to have a more detailed conversation this weekend about making sure this never happens again. What do you say?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I'm busy at the current moment, I will read the message when I have time (some serious family stuff right now) MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MemeGod27, thank you for contributing to weather articles here on Wikipedia and helping out, I wanted to give you some pointers to guide you in the right direction:

Please do not create drafts or articles for a tornado outbreaks before they've been proven to be significant events with widespread coverage, proving notability. For example, the draft for Tornado outbreak sequence of April_25–28, 2024 was created during the Nebraska/Iowa portion of the tornado outbreak following the Blair tornado because it was already receiving large-scale coverage from many sources, and it was clearly a major tornado event unfolding. Meanwhile, drafts such as Draft:2024 Hollister tornado and Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 30, 2024 were inappropriate because they did not receive widespread coverage from reliable sources, and didn't sufficiently prove notability for a significant tornado outbreak, or a standalone tornado that warrants an article.

Also, please do not insert data that isn't reliably sourced into the articles. For example, you inserted specific damage ratings for specific buildings on 2024 Sulphur tornado which were not sourced from an official source, such as the Damage Assessment Toolkit or NWS Norman. There is a policy on Wikipedia against personal research and estimates being included in articles, so please do not include them in the articles you write.

It may take multiple days for the full scope of tornado outbreaks to be realized, and if it becomes clear a few days later that a tornado outbreak was a significant, large-scale one that deserves an article, then it can be done then. It does not need to be done before or during based on forecasts, unless its immediately clear that it's significantly notable, as mentioned above. Additionally, it may take multiple months for a tornado's lasting notability to be realized, e.g., through rebuilding efforts, and an article can be created then when it has been proven, and when more info from official sources (NWS and Damage Assessment Toolkit) has come out.

I understand that you may have other worries you need to tend to right now, or that you just want to steer clear of this topic right now, and that's fine. This advice is here whenever you're ready to return to it, or have a bit more time to work on weather articles on Wikipedia. I'm here to help you out, so if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ping me and ask me. Thanks, and hope my advice can help! All the best, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have retired, so I wanted to say that it's sad to see you go, and I hope you decide to return at some point. I truly believe you were becoming a productive, competent editor that just needed a few pointers in the right direction, for weather articles anyway. Wishing you the best for your future endeavors, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 22:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I just can't do it anymore with the constant harassment . You at least give me constructive tips, I honestly want to keep going on WikiPedia but I just can't take how toxic many community members are. "There's no point pursuing what you enjoy if you don't enjoy it." -MemeGod27 (also thanks for your help in general, you were definitely on my list of actually friendly editors) MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I may be back, but if I come back later in the year and the events that went down today happen again, I'm leaving for good. It's insane how a literal encyclopedia can drain someone's morale. Thanks :/ MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could at least help out some, and I understand that. I try to be a bit more understanding with relatively new editors to highlight areas they could improve so they can actually help fix those issues and become competent, constructive editors in the future. I fully understand that statement as well. I'm hoping you do return later in the year as you were clearly passionate about the topic, and I do truly think you can come back and be a very good, productive contributor. I'm sorry this made your morale drain so much, I still believe that you can be a great editor, and were clearly a good-faith, passionate one. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Some people here definitely need a talking to about how to deal with inexperienced editors. I won't name names because I'm not that kind of person, but I'm hope the community as a whole takes this as a valuable lesson to not murder the newcomers. Thanks so much for all the help. :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My autocorrect is bugging out, I'm sorry for the horrible grammar lol. Cya MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Last message here, seriously) If I don't come back after tonight (if I make no edits by 3:00 PM EST tomorrow) please update my user page with a message stating that "this user has left" or something. I've also directly addressed some of the editors who caused most of this to go down, and I hope they can take away something from this situation. Seeing as I'm still being harassed as we speak, it's gonna be a long while before I'm back. Thanks so, so, sooo much for being an amazing person overall, and probably the friendliest editor I've ever met on here! :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bro what did they do 4.39.220.106 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherWriter wants to be your friend! Friends promote WikiLove and make people happy. This user wants to be your friend because they like you. You can contact me at my talk page. Oh, and hopefully you will be my friend too! Become someones friend! Add {{subst:Friend}} to their talk page.

• I have not been super active in the last few days because of jobs and overall just stuff. However, I did take a moment to look over what happened today and I am sorry for all the debate today. In about two weeks (after May 9-10th timeframe), I would be more than willing to sort of mentor you through creating an article if you are up for it. I’ve creating a ton of articles, including four which have reached the status of “Good Article”, with one of those currently in nomination to become a “Featured Article”.

Taking a Wikibreak is always a good thing. I have actually taken several in the past (some just a few days and one actually a month long).

Also, if you decide to give Wikipedia another try, there are several tornado-related articles that you can improve without really any interactions with others. An example is List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes, an article which I started back in 2022, is still far from being complete. You could also pick a random Tornadoes of (Year) article. Most if not all of those articles can always be improved. While typing this, I pulled up Tornadoes of 1986, which is actually very bare of information.

Again, I am willing to help mentor you through an article creation or even just overall editing if you want me to in the future. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well…I tried the Friend template and for some reason it ain’t working. Sorry about that. Maybe an admin will randomly see this message and fix it for me. Hmmm… The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)  Done ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 00:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for that. It'll really depend on if I even think I should come back here or not. Seeing the events of today and the way some editors have acted towards me in the past few days, I am most likely not coming back (sadly). If I do? I would love to learn from an actually experienced editor like you! I want to learn, no matter how much it seems like I don't in today's debacle. Sending all the WikiLove right back at you! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps any, you can think of Wikipedia oddly enough like a social media platform…Like Twitter (I refuse to say X, even though it is X…lol). Cool and interesting stuff is posted, people debate like it is life and death, everyone forgets about it and moves on with life. One of the best pieces of advice I got from my own mentor (Jason Rees) was back on July 4, 2023, right after I got into a super heated debate with others. To not lose the full affect of it, I will just quote the whole thing as I personally think it also applies to you, just the same as it applied to me last year: “Hey, I have read through some of the stuff above and would agree with them, that it would be wise for you to take a step back from Wikipedia for a few days and let real life unfold. WHen you are ready I would be willing to informally mentor you as i think you are a productive and passionate editor, who just needs pushing in the right direction.” (bolding/emphasis my doing)

After that message, I took a break from editing (forget how long exact, but a couple of days at least). After my Wikibreak, I came back to editing and by August 16, just a little over a month later, an article which I wrote reached the status of “Good Article” for the first time.

Just like I was told, I will tell you the exact same thing: Take a break and if/when you are ready to give it another try, I will be here to guide you through editing. Hopefully this helps cheer you up! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess that did cheer me up a bit. :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And… the harassment continues by another editor who I am not naming. I'm done here. Goodbye. Thanks for everything, really. You were one of the better people that I've met in my short time here.  :( MemeGod ._. (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if you will decide to come back to Wikipedia ever, but if I was to say one final thing, you can choose to WP:IAD…otherwise known as “ignoring all dramas”. Who cares if someone things you are not a good editor? So what? Back in 2021, I had an editor say straight to my face that I was not competent enough to edit Wikipedia. Did that hurt? Yes (as it was an editor who currently has over 240,000 edits!) and I had a long Wikibreak after it. However, I was determined to prove them wrong. If you feel like others are harassing you, take a break, let the drama die down, and then prove them wrong. Well, if this truly is the last thing you see as a Wikipedia editor, hopefully you can say you at least made a friend while it lasted. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that multiple times, including Floquenbean himself. I'm gonna take a break, and if I come back I'll WP:IAD (every day I learn about new policies and essays lol). Thanks! See you on the flip side. MemeGod ._. (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter Sorry if I'm bothering you, but are you still free to teach me a few things or help me a bit? I am working on Draft:Weather of 2001, and honestly need some help from an expert. Thanks so much! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I took the day off, so sorry for the late reply. In the morning, I will take a look at the draft/article and I can help you with it and also answer any questions you have. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter It's all good! Thanks so much for even offering to help me in the first place! I'm also working on Draft:1997 Jarrell tornado aswell, but I think that I have that one wrangled and ready. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So a few things: Weather of 2000 and Weather of 2001 are a good start-class equivalent articles. The main things would be to obviously add more sources to each section/expand each section & actually by working on a timeline. If you look at Weather of 2022, there is a yearly timeline. Like I said, those are good start-class articles (Wikipedia:Content assessment for further on the class of articles). 2000 is probably borderline C-class, but 2001 is a solid start-class.

Now onto Draft:1997 Jarrell tornado. First thing, references go at the end of sentences (i.e. This tornado is Texas' most recent F5 or EF5 tornado, as of 2024.[4] instead of This tornado is Texas' most recent F5 or EF5 tornado, as of 2024[4].

Secondly, the meteorological synopsis section has no references currently, so references need to be added to it.

I am going to go ahead and switch over to the draft talk page Draft talk:1997 Jarrell tornado for additional comments going forward, just so future editors could see what was discussed/changed. I went ahead and removed to AFC submission template just so it doesn't get pushed into mainspace too fast (before it is actually ready), as that could lead to other editors possibly challenging it in mainspace.

I also wanted to note something, I am going to be kind and all that through comments and reviewing the article, but I may ask some difficult questions. Obviously, the goal for the article would be to one day reach Good Article status {which requires a non-involved editor (someone who hasn't edited the article basically at all) dissecting the article bit-by-bit in a peer review}. But I promise you that I will be here to help/answer questions through it. But, like I said, I will basically peer-review the article and answer any questions that you have.

The draft content looks solid at first glance, so nice job on that! But, I haven't done a full verifiability check on it yet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. Unlike Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1–3, 2024, I'm going to try to get this as complete and good as possible, and then publish it. I'll start adding references as well for that section, and I'm gonna add some extra sections, like "reactions" and "documentation". Anyways, I will also now transfer over to the Draft talk. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, a really good method to use when creating articles (excluding standard ones like Weather of YYYY or Tornadoes of YYYY, where notability is automatically presumed) is to use the Good Article criteria. For drafts I create, I basically go through the checklist myself before publishing it into mainspace. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Always better to publish something when it qualifies as "good" than a start-class article that can be SPED before it even gets to that point. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also, just a quick question so I know how to best describe stuff: Do you use the Visual editor or Source editor? If you don't know which one you use, then you could tell by this: If you were to go editing the tornado summary for List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2024#January 5 event, do you see:

|- class="expand-child"

| colspan="8" style=" border-bottom: 1px solid black;|Some trees were snapped and uprooted, power lines were damaged, and some homes had minor structural damage.

or would you just edit the straight text. If you see the stuff I just posted, then it is the source editor, if not, then visual editor. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna be honest, I absolutely suck at source editing. I mainly use visual editing, but if needed I use source. (To answer your question, mainly visual)  :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works! That just lets me know how to describe stuff going forward (i.e. don't copy the whole source editing code stuff...lol). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh….. (lol, guilty as charged) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found at user:randykitty's talk page.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make anymore accusations of harassment while there, if the editor needs more information, you will most likely be asked.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I fully respect your decision to step away, as it's honestly grown extremely stressful for me as well (hence why I just about left last night). Thank you for getting an admin involved, and I do realize that some of it is my fault. See you on something not related to this. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O7, hope to see you later.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

o7 MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 16:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long think session about what you and weatherwriter had said, and since one of the two people who have been causing this stress apologized, I think I'll give it one last chance. I really thought I was leaving last night, but yea. I'm still taking a 2 week break, but I'll be a better person from now on, and WP:IAD once I'm legitimately back. Thx MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that all the drama does clear up, though, because I'm honestly still low on morale here. All conflicts have ends, however, and I just hope it ends quickly. MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the drama will clear up when you return in a couple of weeks. I'm glad you're giving it one last chance, I believe that WP:IAD is a good approach to take. You may also like to see this. Hope the causes of this stress don't return, and until you get back, enjoy New York City! ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 17:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've never been in a city with more than 3 million people, so NYC is definitely going to be an adventure. Cya when I get back! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kiso 5639, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Skyrocket Galaxy has been described by NASA as looking like a "July 4th skyrocket"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Skyrocket Galaxy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kiso 5639), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, that happened quick. Thanks so much! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 00:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed reading the article - interesting! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some galaxies are definetely cooler than others, and if NASA themselves call a galaxy beautiful, you know it's gotta be good. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed the earlier galaxy article as well. Thanks for your contributions! Feel free to drop me a note if you need advice about sourcing or other wiki-details. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 6–9, 2024 for more information. The pictures you took of those storms. Can you please move them to Commons that way we have something other than an error page. Thank you. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:5054:A7C6:AA2D:9AE2 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally added them on commons MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Weather of 2000. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Zsinj^Talk 01:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll work on it tonight. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been published, there is adequate sourcing. Article still needs expansion, however MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article COSMOS field, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the COSMOS field (pictured) is the largest contiguous survey of the universe ever taken by the Hubble Space Telescope? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/COSMOS field. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, COSMOS field), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for making those articles for "Weather of YYYY"! I worked on a bunch of them, but just ran out of steam keeping that up, so I appreciate you continuing those efforts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm getting back so late, but thank you so much! My major pet peeve is seeing a red link that has been sitting stale and untouched for a while, and I just compulsively go down the article-creation rabbit hole. I'll be working on improving some of the "Weather of YYYY" articles in the coming months. But thank you, and I hope you had an amazing weekend! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yea my weekend is going well. I agree about the red links being a pet peeve, especially if you can imagine them being useful articles, and there isn't really any other place for them. I've done a few of those weather of YYYY, and it's tough to try and get it all in there. I was pretty happy with Weather of 2012, where I included a timeline with deadly events, and managed to get some decent info for the different weather events. The tricky thing is knowing not to include everything (or else the articles would be too long), but still provide enough to give a good overview. It's like the article for 2012. It should exist as a top-tier article, from which various topics converge. I think eventually we could have yearly weather articles going back to 1900, if not earlier, but at least for now I'm glad to see it back to 2000. Do you think it would be worth trying to get a task force together to work on these articles, or what? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, 100%. I mean, we literally have what... a 60 year gap in-between these articles? There should be a weather article for every year that deserves one, aka every year because mother nature doesn't just take year-long breaks. And I'm glad your weekend went well! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Weather of YYYY Task Force" also sounds kind of sick for some reason, and I can't explain why MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even if every year doesn't deserve an article, there can be (for example) a page called something like "Weather by year (1950-2000)" which is where years not really notable can have info go, and articles that are created can have a summed-up version of the year's events, while still linking to the main article. Kinda like List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019), but less like a list and more of a general "year" article, like 2012. Sorry if that was a bit complicated :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I had no idea there were any other yearly weather articles before 2000! Hah yea that's a pretty big gap of articles. But I don't think any years would be skipped. By their nature, the weather by year articles would mention tropical cyclones by every year, and considering that every year back to 1798 has had at least one known tropical cyclones, and floods happen multiple times a year, I don't think there would be a good end date for how far to go back to. And parent article is Weather by year, which has already been created, but is a bit messy. As good as it would be to list every tornado around the world, I don't think anyone has such a list, ditto the number of snowstorms, or floods, in a given year, so these weather articles more function as navigation. Still important though, since how otherwise might you come across certain topics? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Still, we should try to fill that large gap in the "Weather of YYYY" articles, via a task force or really anything, as many serious events have happened within that timeframe that need articles. Take the 1970 Bhola Cyclone, which was just one event in a large year weather-wise. I'm sure some other people would love to help, as there are a ton of users actively on the WikiProject!  :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Or how about all of the deadly disasters that we don't have on Wikipedia yet, that might only be discovered with a year by year search? I'm sure a lot of hurricane fans know about the 1970 Bhola cyclone, but what about the other deadly floods and storms? The "Weather of 1972" would include 1972 Iran blizzard, the deadliest blizzard on record. A lot of editors mostly only care about the newer articles (like whatever is the current weather season), but these old events have shaped the world in huge ways that isn't being conveyed properly on Wikipedia, by virtue of there not being articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats something I've noticed heavily. The '71 Red River Delta floods, which killed 300,000+ people, has only been mentioned on an "articles requested" log and doesn't have an article. I 100% agree MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea... that's partly why I've been working on some older typhoon season articles. The western Pacific is usually one of the busiest basins, and deadliest basins, but we only have yearly seasons going back to 1938, with scattered random seasons going back to 1900. It takes a lot of effort to write these, but someone has to! And personally I think it's kind of exciting, finding something new to write about on Wikipedia that is decently important. As important as the newer seasons are, there is plenty of information out there on, say, Hurricane Katrina, especially on Wikipedia. But the Red River flood, because it's not in the US, and it was over 50 years old, it's barely mentioned on Wikipedia. Maybe we need more articles like Floods in Vietnam, which would surely mention the country's deadliest flood, or more articles like Weather in 1971, or, honestly, we probably need both, plus a ton more articles. Sometimes I feel that editors don't realize how much more work is needed... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I am currently working on a few older tornado drafts, as they have been sitting at the "requested articles" page for over 3 years. It's crazy how many people know about the Jarrell tornado, but there wasn't an article for it. :). MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I am currently working on a few older tornado drafts, as they have been sitting at the "requested articles" page for over 3 years. It's crazy how many people know about the Jarrell tornado, but there wasn't an article for it. :). MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I am currently working on a few older tornado drafts, as they have been sitting at the "requested articles" page for over 3 years. It's crazy how many people know about the Jarrell tornado, but there wasn't an article for it. :). MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh… my Wikipedia just bugged out hard, haha! MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL the internet tubes got clogged XD ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the task force, I think we have to think big. I think it should be part of a coordinated effort to get all of the weather by year articles, going back to 1900. It's honestly pretty arbitrary, but weather articles by year already goes back to 1900, tropical cyclones by year goes back to 1991, tornadoes by year goes back to the 1940s. The trickier part will be creating all of the other articles- floods by year, droughts by year, etc. Jason Rees (talk · contribs) and I have talked about this a lot. I think it needs to be a giant project where we need to seek out help, and potentially resources. I say that because at a certain point, it might be difficult to do the weather articles by year, because there's so many articles that haven't been created. For example, I'm working on 1937 Pacific typhoon season, and I've found several deadly storms that had no mention on Wikipedia. What's a few hundred deaths here or there? The answer is the history of our civilization, and the monumental ask of trying to make sense of it all. The good news it that we're not doing anything all that new here. The big proposal here is essentially the creation of a lot of Wiki-infrastructure. For example, let's say you wanted to find information on a certain weather event, but all you knew was that it was in a given year. 1914. In the future once this is done, we'll have Weather of 1914, so they can look in Tropical cyclones in 1914 and confirm that it wasn't a hurricane in the Atlantic (that was the quietest Atlantic hurricane season on record), but maybe it was a tornado, or a severe weather outbreak. Well, if we have all of these articles, hopefully one day we'll have a decent compendium of all of the major weather disasters of the world going back to 1900. And once we have that, let's go back to 1800. And then who knows. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes sense. I honestly wouldn't mind focusing on them for a bit, they are pretty fun to write, and you can learn about stuff you didn't even know existed! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink Hey there again (long time no see)! I was quickly wondering, how do you create a task force? I was gonna make one for Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects, but couldn't find any info. I'll get back to workin' on some weather articles soon too :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest bringing it up on the talk page for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects and bring up the idea. If it's only going to be you working on it, then it's not a task force. But if you have editors you're collaborating with, then you should discuss the proposal with them for how to develop the idea, where the resources are, the scope, whatnot. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the Jarrell tornado article! It is exactly the sort of individual article that should exist. And incidentally, it piqued my interest, since I noticed there have been no EF/F5's in Texas in the 21st century. BTW, what do you think about the proposed task force idea? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Also thanks so much, it's one of the few weather-related articles I've done that hasn't been either deleted, merged or infamous for the horrific discussions surrounding it (see Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1–3, 2024, the talk pages for Tornadoes of 2024 and the WP:Weather talk page for that diabolical mess). I'll join and begin helping as soon as possible! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might've spoken too soon, I gotta double check about the Jarrell tornado article. Did you copy and paste the existing section from Wikipedia and just expand it to flesh it out more? That's a violation of policies. By nature of it being a "wiki", there is a log for each edit, so you can see who wrote what information. By doing a copy and paste, you have erased that history. It's always best to write articles from anew. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In initial edits, I will say that I did. From there, I did reword and went more in-depth on things covered in the initial summary. It's still a heavy work in progress; and I'm sorry, I had no idea that was a violation of anything. I'll work on changing that entire section as soon as I can. Again, I had no idea that was a violation, and I can honestly rewrite that entire section if you'd like. Sorry. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you check edit history, it was initially a draft that was heavily expanded on, and there shouldn't be anything exactly the same as the smaller summary in the main outbreak article. Everything was rewritten, and I added things like road names, sections, fatalities, damage, basically the essential stuff. I'm gonna be honest, I still need to work on it. I can rewrite the article by later tomorrow if you'd like me to, and to clarify everything else in the article was directly written by me, including the prose, "documentation" section and corresponding subsections, "reactions" and "case studies". :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the meteorological synopsis is something that I've seen people directly copy-and-paste from article, so I can rewrite that (as like I said I had no idea there were copyrights corresponding to individual articles). Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that articles are copyrighted, it's that the way we're even allowed to make edits on Wikipedia is by preserving the edit history, and copying and pasting is never appropriate. Also, just because other people do it, doesn't mean it's right. I hope you're not too dejected about the article being at AFD - that is a process that is going to play out, so I don't want to comment about that here. But I did want to mention that I set up the page for - Draft:List of Texas tornadoes. I based it off of List of California tornadoes. It will be too much to try and document every single Texas tornado, again there have been hundreds. So IDK if this is a project you're interested in at all, or even how doable it is. I found some basic sources, like climatology, plus a list of the deadliest events in state history. That seems like good stuff for an article. But again, the article could become too much if every single event was listed. So IDK to do. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think the 1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado article is now? MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm conflicted, and I've been mulling over it. There was nothing wrong with the original outbreak article, and knowing that you copied the content to make the new article, IDK, the new article doesn't add enough in my opinion to justify making it in the first place. Not saying it should be deleted now, but there are a lot of unsourced paragraphs now, whereas the original article was a good article. And several portions of the article are still word for word copies of the original article, like The U.S. Congress approved a relief bill allocating $5.4 billion for 35 states affected by natural disasters, including Texas. However, the bill also included other provisions that led President Bill Clinton to veto the bill. In short, I don't think the article was needed, and that you may have spent a lot of time working on something that wasn't needed. I don't want to tell you how to waste your time :P But that's partly why I wanted to reach out to you and maybe collaborate. I'm honestly inspired when I see people wanting to write new articles on Wikipedia, but given how many articles there already are, there aren't too many great topics for new articles out there.... except for the big stuff, like "Weather of 1999", state list articles, whatnot. I'm not sure that many individual tornadoes should get articles, when the default is usually including them as part of an outbreak article. At the same time, I don't want to squash your writing ambitions on here, as it can be very discouraging if people say your works aren't good enough for Wikipedia, or if there are problems. Please don't take the fact that there were issues as a sign of you being a bad writer, rather the oppose - the fact you were willing to write an article is a sign of your potential as a writer! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, what you said makes sense, but jumping from a 23,000 byte section to a 50,000+ byte article seems like enough info. Also, I copied the initial content. Even if I managed to copy 23,000 bytes of info, I'd still have to write another 25,000 to even make the article how long it is now. I'll stop talking about it, but yeah. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the draft just a teeny bit, if you wanna check it out MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to stop talking about it :) Also, it's not about the number of bytes, but sometimes it's how you say it. If you can say the same amount of information in 50 kb as 25 kb (hypothetically), then you're not adding anything. Consider the following:

• "The powerful tornado hit the town and destroyed 800 buildings, leaving 2000 homeless."

versus

• "Along its path through the region, the powerful tornado leveled buildings and uprooted people's lives. At least 800 buildings were destroyed. As a result, about 2,000 people were unable to return to their homes."

That's the same information, but the second one is twice as long. The same thing often happens with people creating storm articles for low-impact storms. Regularly, the users think that a storm is interesting and deserves an article, so they will go on and on about the storm, even though they didn't really add anything new. So it's not a matter of "enough info", but it's expanding to provide information that wasn't in the existing article, and that is where the debate about content forking comes into play. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "case studies", "gallery", "damage", and "documentation" aren't in the main outbreak article. The tornado summary doesn't even make up half of the article. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, majority of the "aftermath" section is non-existent from the main outbreak article, and the entire reason the outbreak is notable is because of the Jarrell tornado. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Case studies" and "documentation" are a little redundant, since the case studies would be based on the documentation of what actually happened. Further, the bit about "National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)" is already in the outbreak article. The "gallery" section is more appropriate for Wikimedia commons, since the same story can be told with a few images instead of the whole gallery. As for the "damage" section, it has two short paragraphs that are unsourced. The first is lifted word-for-word from the original article, and is actually sourced in the outbreak article, unlike in the Jarrell article. And, again, the information is repeated. The "Damage" section mentions the $40.1 million damage total, which the main article also has. And the bit about the opposite order is also in the original outbreak article. The more I read both articles, the more I don't think the article should exist, so I have to go comment on the AFD. Please no hard feelings. I see your potential as an editor and writer. I think you just did it the wrong way in this case. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mk. You do that, I'll keep editing. Also byte length does matter, I don't know a single person who goes by words. I'm gonna end this conversation here, before it turns into what happened between me and TornadoInformation12. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before we end this convo, just wanted to point out Wikipedia's policy on article size. The byte length only is a factor if it's pushing the technical limits of an article. Otherwise it's based on the words the reader would actually be reading, so, the number of words in prose, not the number of bytes in the editor screen (which most people never see). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Makes sense ig. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell 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.

United States Man (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a content fork? Like I'm respectfully asking. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jarrell article is long enough and has a greater focus on a well-known specificity, so I would not delete it. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MemeGod27! So I wanted to mention something that actually isn’t written down anywhere, but is more of an “unwritten rule” around Wikipedia. Typically, if a photograph becomes: (1) a Featured Picture (WP:FP) on Wikipedia, (2) a Featured Picture on the Commons, or (3) a Valued Image on the Commons, it typically is not replaced/removed from an article, unless by another image from those categories. 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado is a weird/good example of this “unwritten rule” actually.

So obviously a tornado photograph trumps any photograph on a tornado-based article, since it is the true subject of the article. However, if you click the “More Details” on the damage photograph in the infobox, you would see that it is a Featured Picture on the Commons. That, oddly enough, is why the infobox has two images, instead of just the tornado image. Because it became a Featured Picture, it basically has “priority” over other images. If it is written down some where, I actually have no idea where it would be/what “essay” says that, but from experience, that is just an unwritten rule that editors sort of do on their own, just because X image won an “award” over Y image. Hopefully that helps! If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I forgot about the fourth picture “award” category, which is Quality Image on the Commons. So yeah, anything from those four categories typically isn’t replaced unless it is by something else from those four categories. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'm usually one to add images to articles, but I understand if a Featured Pic should go up top. After all, the image is recognized as one of the best. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Quit adding it until you get consensus in favor. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm not gonna argue this time, I 100% agree. The both of us had explained the situation to each other on the talk page, and are now all good. Thanks! (Also the 3rd revert most likely came from me reverting myself earlier today) :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E 2600:1700:B290:48D0:A8CF:3B8C:E327:AC02 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, wow that list has really progressed nicely! I warned you that the list might be a huge undertaking, but you're plowing full-stream ahead, nice. I'm not sure what your plans are, but here's a little advice from when I worked on the California tornadoes - if there are multiple tornadoes on the same day, start with something like "There were X tornadoes across the state". That was something that came up a few times in California tornadoes, and I had conflicting reports for the day with the most tornadoes. Luckily, it's easier for Texas. It looks like Hurricane Beulah spawned 67 tornadoes on September 20, 1967, which according to the NWS was the most tornadoes in the same day in any US state, until it was tied in 2003 (South Dakota), and then surpassed in 2008 (Kansas) - source. That's backed up by this source, which I'm not sure as much of its reliability.

So in summary, if you just mention the outbreak first and give a summary, then you don't have to write as much. Heck, for Beulah, I might just mention that there were 67 tornadoes, and that being a national record. Or a breakdown of tornado by intensity. Of course, that makes me wonder if Beulah's outbreak should have its own article - Hurricane Beulah tornado outbreak - since there were 117 overall, the most from a tropical cyclone until the Hurricane Ivan tornado outbreak of 2004. This is why these articles are useful, to link together different events, and put things into context at a state level. I'm trying to do that now for List of California hurricanes, which I realize was half-written about Arizona storms for some reason, and a lot of events were missing.

Does that all make sense? Any questions? You doing OK? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that all makes sense! It's definitely a task, but I think I'm doin' pretty good on it. I am weirdly fast at article-browsing, and constructing detailed lists usually is something I'm not too bad at. I can probably knock it out by Thursday or Friday if time allows. Personal-wise, I'm doing okay (could be better, but life is life). Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if I devote a week to each "tornadoes in ___" article that doesn't currently exist, I could probably get it done in 1-2 months! I wouldn't mind, as my summer break is next week and summer is notoriously boring. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear back so quickly! Yea, lists are both difficult and easy at the same time. Organizationally it's not the most difficult, but the tricky part is to get the right amount of information. Not too little, not too much, make sure it's relevant and to the point. And btw, you might need to have sub-articles in the future (like List of Texas tornadoes (2000–present). I worked on List of Florida hurricanes, which has five sub-articles, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 2000-present list is split in the near future. So if the list gets too long, that's OK, it might be time to publish a portion of it, and then keep List of Texas tornadoes as an overview, like maybe listing the F5/E5's on the main list, as well as any deadly events, with links to the various time periods? Just a thought in case list seems overwhelming.

And did you mean Tornadoes in ___ as in by location or year? The task is easier if you collaborate with other people, ideally other tornado editors from Texas. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant location, one of the main issues I've been finding hard to get is organizing the tornado count charts. It's nearly impossible to keep track of those darn F0 and F1 tornadoes (lol). I might put it in the main space by tomorrow and then link WikiProject Texas to it, and hopefully others will see it and help. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea.... that's why I had the table at the bottom, so you could list the number of tornadoes by intensity by each county. Your call if you want to do it that way, but I felt it made things easier to organize at the state-level. And after all, a lot of statewide things are usually organized at the county level, like election maps, health statistics, metropolitan statistical areas, whatnot. Before you publish, make sure everything is cited, by the way. I see a ton of stuff that's unsourced. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm working on citations right now. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently working on Draft:List of Ohio tornadoes, thanks for the support here by the way! You are genuinely one of the few people on here that I can have a civilized conversation with! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio is one of the states I was hoping would eventually get a list. Be sure to update stuff like climatology, as in how many tornadoes there are yearly, plus the day with the most tornadoes. That's useful information that readers will likely want to know. I notice the Beulah outbreak wasn't added to Texas yet. The best way to do the lists is focusing on the important events (and not random F0 and F1's). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bada bing Bada boom Bada bop pow. I do add what I can, but its a list of tornadoes, not significant tornadoes. Anything goes. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, you really need to add more stuff before you publish! I appreciate the quick work, but look at the lead. "The U.S. state of Ohio experiences roughly 137 tornadoes every year, including". That's copied from Texas. Do you want to move the list back to draft space, since it's not done yet. You have nothing about climatology. No mention when the earliest recorded tornado event was. And again, large sections are unsourced. So unless you want to deal with another AFD, I suggest moving the article back to draft and working on it some more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be all dramatic, it's called fixing something. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help being dramatic, I'm a musician :P But also, there are rules for articles, and you don't own them once they're published. Plus, you largely ignored my advice to skip the F0's and F1's, and you published the list when a lot of it was still unsourced. So... yea I'm going to be dramatic if you're doing things the wrong way! It's called criticism ;) I'm not saying that what you did was worthless, quite the opposite, just that the work was unfinished. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, as a piano player I can confirm that we are the silent bunch :) . I get that I don't own articles, you also gave me that advice literally the second I had finished up things. Also, I know what criticism is, don't even get me the heck started on the April 1-3 nightmare :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, I know you may not keep up with the weather, but the strongest tornado I have ever seen just hit Greenfield, IA. A house was slabbed there, I hope nobody lost their life.(kinda venting, kinda informative, I have relatives in Des Moines) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't hear about that, I hope everyone was safe. I personally don't know how anyone can feel safe in such weather-prone areas. My hope is that eventually we build up and create a weather article for every place around the world for every weather type. You're helping to chip away at that bit by bit, but this is why I suggested you try and seek help and collaborators. I'm not the most active on Wikipedia (believe me, I only have bits of time to sneak in edits), so don't think I'm trying to control your editing or anything, just trying to provide a bit of wiki-guidance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First ever tornado chase yesterday!!! Also, I get all your points, you're a great mentor/person/friend/idk! Thanks for trying to bring me up when times get rough, I needed that. I guess I'll listen more from now on. Have an amazing Wednesday! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact for today, I am currently working on Draft:List of Alaska tornadoes (I'm gonna get as much done as I can in one edit, so it doesn't exist yet) so I looked it up, and did you know that Alaska has only had four tornadoes EVER? I would've thought that they like, y'know, 2-3 tornadoes yearly. Anyone, thought you'd enjoy that, lol :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also still keeping to my promise to get every single state done over the summer, I already have done Michigan, Ohio, New York, Texas (also sorry for removing NJ, that was an accident haha) and am planning to do Washington and Oregon this weekend. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MemeGod27. Thank you for your work on List of Ohio tornadoes. Another editor, Clearfrienda, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great job

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Clearfrienda}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Clearfrienda ^💬 23:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Thanks MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really get to chase that violent tornado? If so, I am jealous! There are never any clear or notable tornadoes occuring near Austin! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, first (and most likely last, that was TERRIFYING) chase ever! I live in Ohio, but went down to Des Moines because one of my relatives was sick. I only briefly chased it, but it was one of the wildest things I have EVER seen. It was rain-wrapped from where I was for most of its' life, but there was like this brief point that the sides were illuminated by the light (I'm sorry I'm just so excited rn) kinda like the 2011 El Reno-Piedmont tornado. It was honestly all fun and games until I learned that people had died, I was gonna go back down to Greenfield later today but apparently EMS shut down the city. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm glad that we are back to being decent people to each other! I'm always glad to see two people who have had a tough past make up and just be chill! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the past, I can now clearly see you are a well-meaning and active contributor to this community!

In all cases, I'm glad to hear you are safe and got to enjoy such a historic event. I'm nearing 25 and still haven't seen a tornado in person (though I have been under countless warnings). Still, its unfortunate that the first tornado that you witnessed was a violent killer tornado that upended many lives. I am guessing the tornado you photographed was the Greenfield EF3+ tornado or the Carbon EF2+ tornado, both of which were violent deviant monsters.

Imagine the prospect of seeing a EF4/EF5 on your first chase ever...that is amazing. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know! It downed wind turbines, which is something that the Greenfield tornado was confirmed to have done. It would be cool but again kind of sad to have an EF4+ tornado as the first one I've ever chased, just looking at photos of the damage is absolutely insane. I've been in multiple tornadoes (specifically on march 31 of last year) but I never SAW the tornado with my own eyes. Unfortunately the Greenfield one wasn't super photogenic from my vantage point. While TornadoInformation12 and you were offline, I made 1997 Jarrell tornado, which is kind of like my way of showing how much I've grown in the past month. Anyway, have a great day, and I hope that the storms developing don't do too much more damage! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a quick look at the Jarrell page, and while it needs a lot of work to truly become a good article it is in fine shape for now.

I have tried to delete some sections that I see as redundant or without precedent (such as the 1990s death comparisons - unless someone is willing to update every tornado article of the 1990s plus create other comparisons for tornado articles of other decades, it should be deleted). But yeah, I am willing to help edit grammar and structure to create a more neutral and informative article! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Hey, at least most people were in support of keeping it! I will agree that it needs work, but I'll work hard to get it up to GA, and maybe even FA in the far-fetched future! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, the Greenfield tornado is now a confirmed EF4+. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god a storm chaser died outside of Greenfield. I had no idea that whatever the hell I was chasing was so violent, jesus christ. I am so, so, so glad that I kept my distance, that is the first storm chasing death since 2013. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify about if it WAS the Greenfield tornado, I'm not exactly sure. All I know was that I was within the general vicinity of Greenfield, and happened at around the same time. It honestly could've been another tornado however. I'll look more into it, but I pray that Greenfield can rebuild quickly. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MemeGod27: glad you are safe. Did you also take any other photos or video of the tornado? Hopefully you can confirm which tornado you saw. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 18:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did get a video (the photo I did take was a still from the video I took), I can confirm that it was the Greenfield tornado, the one in the photo downed a wind turbine (I saw it when I was driving back, it looked like it straight-up disintegrated), but that was something that the Greenfield tornado did. So this WAS the Greenfield EF3+ that I saw. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can upload more stills from the video if you'd like, but as I said the tornado was heavily rain-wrapped and I wasn't able to get any other good shots from my view. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna go get some damage photos down in Greenfield, but apparently they blocked the whole town off, so I can't do that. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | Women in Music | Alphabet run X, Y & Z Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon June 2024 - Going Back in Time The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Find a Grave is NOT a reliable source (as it is user-generated content). It can be used to look for biographical clues. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I saw you've welcomed me back and have been nothing but kind and forgiving to me after my blowup and unannounced break that followed, even though I really don't deserve it. All I can say is sorry once again, and thank you for being welcoming. Btw, I can see your editing skills rapidly improving, so keep it up. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

No problem! Right before you left, I had noticed that you responded to a message from WeatherWriter, in which you stated that you just wanted to help, and may have taken it too far. Everyone makes mistakes (heck I almost left after you went on a break because of something I did), and I understand that most things can be forgiven. You do deserve a welcome back, because you tried to help, not hurt. Even if it wasn't the best way to go, at least we tried. I'm glad we reconciled, and are now not getting into stupid arguments! Also, for a B-Class article which I made while you were on break, see 1997 Jarrell tornado. Thanks so much, I can't wait to start editing with you again! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoInformation12 Also, see List of Texas tornadoes, List of Ohio tornadoes, List of New York tornadoes, List of Michigan tornadoes, Weather of 2000 and Weather of 2001, all of which I have created in the weeks that you were gone. Welcome back (I like saying it, haha) :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Tornadoes in Iceland. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I deleted the revision where you showed your IP address. Hope all is well, happy editing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please IGNORE the | discussion linked here that I started because I did not know this at the time; but I started a discussion on the wrong file. Please direct any comments on the dead man walking tornado to the actual deletion discussion | linked here. And also, please ignore my struck out comments on that discussion. Apparently I didn’t know until just now that there were TWO pictures taken in the exact same spot, by the exact same person, and presumably by the exact same camera. Just at different times. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it’s an 8-picture photo sequence, the famous photo was photo #7 and the photo in which is on the document is photo #6. It’s crazy how they were only taken a few seconds apart. Thanks for the concerns though! :P MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya MemeGod. I wondered if you had any interest in help writing up the main article for the List of Texas hurricanes? Right now, it just exists as a disambiguation page, but it could have generic stuff like climatology, a list of the strongest landfalls (like Florida has), and maybe a list of the deadly storms (I don't know how many there were). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sure, I can get to it by Friday (currently on a break). I can also honestly help with whatever you need help with, summer is extremely boring for me. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about any deadlines. Draft:List of Texas hurricanes - I made a draft to experiment on the best format. We need something, and we need stuff to be sourced (and it can't be copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia). I set up stuff. Once I'm done with List of California hurricanes, I can help set some things up. To format it like List of Florida hurricanes would include having a list of every major hurricane on record. Think that's worth adding? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a word of friendly advice, I saw you had a conversation below where someone wanted to contact you via email. I don't mean any disrespect to MillieBeatle, but you should always be careful if someone wants to contact you outside of whatever platform you are on. Always consider basic internet security and safety when you're reaching out to people. You never really know who you're interacting with, although that would be bad faith, and it is also good to have a policy of assuming good faith from fellow editors. Hope you don't mind the advice. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I completely understand! I’ve been on the intenrt to know who is good and bad (heck I took a cybersecurity course) and they are a genuine good person. But yeah, I’ll take that advice! :D WxTrinity (talk to me!) 12:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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

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

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Trinity :3 (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I wanted to tell you great job with the creation of the article! I added a clean-up tag on the article as there is a couple of punctuation and reference errors I quickly noticed. If someone else doesn't fix them before I come back, I plan to fix them, so don't worry about the tag on it. Again, really great work! I'll make some notes on the talk page if I see anything that needs fixing or correcting (besides basic MOS edits). If I do find something besides basic MOS stuff, would you like me to ping you on the talk page or just leave the comment without a ping? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also, I’ll add the “aftermath” and other sections once I get home, Wikipedia really isn’t optimized for mobile devices. You can leave a comment without the ping, I have the talk page in my watchlist. Have a great day! :D WxTrinity (talk to me!) 20:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m honestly surprised an article hasn’t already been made for it, the tornado track sticks out like a sore thumb on Tornado Archive and other sites. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right before you had your Wikibreak a while ago, I mentioned that there is a lot of old tornado stuff that needs worked on. I wasn't kidding about that. Basically, anything pre-2011 Super Outbreak is in really bad shape with only a handful of exceptions (like Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007). There is so much missing. Until last year, the 1964 Central Nebraska tornado (an official US F5 tornado) had a single sentence on Wikipedia. A single sentence for an official F5 tornado. EF0 tornadoes get more than that in 2024, and yet, it didn't have but 1 sentence. Welcome to tornado-editing on Wikipedia! (lol). If you want, I think both Jarrell and Montello...with some additional fine-tooth comb work...could reach good article status. If you want to work to get those to GA status, just let me know and I can guide you through that process. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) P.S., don't nominate either for GA yet, as both still need a good amount of work, but I am here to help if you want to aim for GA on either of them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a lot of things were just straight up missing. Heck, the Montello tornado got a small mention on the “tornadoes of 1930” page but nothing else! WxTrinity (talk to me!) 22:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick MOS note: So I noticed it on 1997 Jarrell tornado and 1930 Montello tornado. When placing a reference mid-sentence, it goes after the comma;like The tornado directly impacted Volpago del Montello at F5 intensity,[4] flattening well-built structures and sweeping an entire warehouse off of its' foundation. instead of before the comma. Likewise, references go at the end of sentences, after the period; like It hit the southern portions of Muson, causing damage but no fatalities.[5] No need to apologize or anything like that. But, since I have seen it in two articles you wrote, I wanted to let you know about it and see some examples [bolded to show where it is] of how the formatting works. Hope that helps! If you have any questions, feel free to ping me or message me on my talk page! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey there, WxTrinity, and great work on the article as well! I also added another tag, a {{improve categories}} tag, since there's only one category and more categories should be added. Additionally, I've reviewed the article as I believe it passes notability guidelines; those issues outlined in the article aren't too significant and can be cleaned up. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️, ⚧️) 00:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! I’ll get started in cleaning it up today! :D WxTrinity (talk to me!) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely out of the blue, however I am new to wikipedia and I was wondering if I could get your assistance related to tornados

Sorry if this disturbs you, however you seem open to interaction with people right now. MillieBeatle (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure! Sorry for the late reply, but whatever you need help with, I can definetely be of assistance! :) WxTrinity (talk to me!) 13:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of information that is on tornados on Wikipedia is extremely inconsistent.

This is very apparent when you compare states on the western seaboard to New England. Even though Tornados are just as rare in New England as parts of the west coast, most states in New England have lists of tornados and show which tornados occurred in a given year.

This is a topic that interests me, however I know like noting about wikipedia or editing it so if you be kind enough to help me out with all of that I would really appreciate it :3

If you are willing to, Is there a way to contact you off of Wikipedia so messaging would be easier?

Thanks in advance MillieBeatle (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'd love to help! Is it okay if we keep it on-site, I've just have had some really bad experiences in the past with people off-site (not saying you are a bad person, I'm, sure you're great). But again, I'm free to help! :3 WxTrinity (talk to me!) 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously okay if we keep it on site, I do not wish to make you uncomfortable.

If that is that us what you prefer I suppose I will start to at least attempt to make a few pages, and I can send them over and ask you what to change.

However I would greatly appreciate if there was an alternative way to talk since I feel just with the nature of this it would make for an easier back and forth discussion.It seems to talk a while to get responses on the talk page

I completely understand your previous situations, and again, it's completely okay if you'd prefer to keep it here, but I do not get notifications from wikipedia so it is a bit annoying to keep checking back here.

I do genuinely want to help with all the tornado stuff, however is is extremely daunting and having someone to at least talk to would be nice. If there is anyway I could prove to you this is completely in good faith let me know.

I'm sorry that you have had poor experiences in the past. MillieBeatle (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes perfect sense. I honestly believe that you are a good person, no need to “prove” it! Do you have email or something? By-phone would also work. Whichever way works best for you! Thanks for reaching out! :D WxTrinity (talk to me!) 16:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the email linked the my account, however since I just created it and dont have 10 edits you would have to send the first message. (iirc you also have the have one linked ans turned on)

If you have any instant messaging stuff along the lines of discord or similar, that would be the easiest but phone and/or email work a lot better then here.

Anyways, We can discuss all that and exchange contact information in the email, lmk if there is anything else you need MillieBeatle (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’ll get to it WxTrinity (talk to me!) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to follow up and say I haven't received anything

It's totally fine if you don't want to exchange contact over email just lmk MillieBeatle (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can’t see your email, you’d have to email me (I added a button at the bottom of my user page) WxTrinity (talk to me!) 20:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to it says That my account isn't auto confirmed

Here, this is too complicated, I don't really have a reason to concerned as the following are public

Normally my discord has friend requests restricted but I am gonna remove that rq if you prefer to contact me that way, Discord would be the easiest option as it is the only way I can reliably receive messages on my Phone, Laptop, and desktop

Both of these are just my user name on here, if you need to contact me via email it's just gmail MillieBeatle (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I sent an email to you, I‘ll send a discord request but I’m not really on it that often. Either way, anything works! :D WxTrinity (talk to me!) 20:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WxTrinity! I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work in tornado-related articles! P.S. How about archiving your talk page, as there are quite a bit of threads and it takes quite some time to load. If you want, you can check out my talk page to see how I set it up to happen automatically :). Cheers!

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Also, yea, I’ve been trying to get one set up, my talk page is definitely wayyy too long. Have a great rest of your Saturday! WxTrinity (talk to me!) 20:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I see your history correctly, you are promoting that you see it as your mission to have convicted felon in the first sentence, and then you are subsequently changing your username? A neutral point of view does not have convicted felon in the first sentence. That is done to push your own agenda on a topic that is currently newsworthy. If you are simply consumed with hate and want a jab in the first sentence I can see "only US president to be twice impeached" but that too does not deserve to be in the first sentence. The first sentence should be a simple straightforward non controversial fact. Nevilleaga (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? My username change is completely unrelated. Also it’s the opposite, I reverted someone who put “convicted felon” in the sentence due to the open RfC. Thanks for your concerns! WxTrinity (talk to me!) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NGC 2935, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NGC 3290, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WxTrinity. Thank you for your work on NGC 3290. Another editor, Bastun, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work on your new article. Articles such as this would benefit greatly from being added to appropriate categories (on the article page itself) and WikiProjects such as Astronomy (on the article's Talk page).

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NGC 1024, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you and anyone else who wants to to edit Draft:list of particularly dangerous situation watches. It seems as if that article has sorta been forgotten about. We’ve only gotten down to 2020 (for completely listed) and if I recall, the entries only go back to 2019. There’s still a lot more in IEM archives. Your help at expanding the list to mainspace ready format would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, unfortunately I will be gone for 2 weeks but when I return maybe I can work on it? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I sent this message to several others too (such as @Ks0stm, @WeatherWriter, @TornadoLGS, and @TornadoInformation12). Just trying to draw attention to the draft before it ends up getting abandoned. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod, If you are going to reply, please do so on the article talk page. There is a similar discussion going on there. Do not reply here. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IC 1682 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC 1682 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.

C messier (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Sir MemeGod. I see you've added a "Sir" to your name, so in the spirit of being fancy, here's a cup of tea to welcome you back into the editing spirit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, sir! Good to know someone remembers me after being irrelevant for 2.7 weeks! Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aww I don't get an uppercase "Sir"? Damn. But yea! This encyclopedia isn't going to write itself. And with two active storms, I worry everyone's attention is going to be on current events, rather than writing about the past, so I'm happy to remind/be reminded of people who have similar priorities (hopefully!) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir MemeGod -- thanks for your recent work on helping us plug some of the gaps in our aircraft coverage!

I'm a bit puzzled about the Caproni Ca.104 though -- the photo shows an aircraft completely different from the one described in the text, and the source I've been able to quickly find says this was a small, aerobatic trainer aircraft (like shown in the photo). All the references in the article are broken, so I can't verify where the information in the article text is coming from. Can you help please? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering if you might have been sending a bunch of aircraft redlinks to "Redirects for Creation"? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(There was an issue with my AI software (I know, I'm hopping on the AI train) which displayed descriptions for a different but similar Caproni aircraft which I am yet to identify. The image was found in Pintrest saying it was a CC Caproni Ca.104 image, which may not be accurate looking back. The info was also scraped from ISBN codes which did work, I'll try to fix the broken links. Also, the software is 100% working (I am still running some tests on it). Anyway, it was most likely the AI getting confused, which I will manually fiix within the next hour or so (same goes for Focke-Wulf W 7). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm still new to the whole "AI article writing" thing, so I'd be fine with just ceasing to use it if it is unreliable. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Large language models. As has been demonstrated by Caproni Ca.104, LLM AI such as ChatGPT is nowhere near ready to contribute to Wikipedia, at least without close supervision. I admit that I have also jumped onto the AI train, so to speak, but I do not use it to contribute to Wikipedia due to its limitations, and I don't know that I will ever trust it to write articles on its own. Maybe someday I will be proven wrong, but until then, I strongly encourage you to write articles yourself or in collaboration with other (carbon-based) editors. I know about Caproni Ca.104 and Focke-Wulf W 7, but are there any other articles that you created with AI? - ZLEA _T\^C 23:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Focke-Wulf W 7 was not made with AI, Focke-Wulf W 4 was. Also no, Just W 4 and Ca.104. Since AI has proven itself to be a disaster in just about every aspect of an article, I think I'll just stick to non-AI article creation. Thanks! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I have now tagged the proper articles. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as ZLEA says, please stop. I have no doubt that AI will be able to do this one day, but we are still a very long way away from that point, and your experiments here are outputting literal garbage at this point. To use AI effectively to support article writing, you would need sufficient subject-area knowledge to spot and address problems.

For example, the Focke-Wulf W 4 article is also deeply problematic -- the content in it is completely made-up, and the sources cited do not support the information that point to them.

FWIW, the Ca.104 image *is* a Ca-104, whatever the text is talking about. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I 100% get that. From now on I'll just keep article writing in human hands. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And have you also been sending redirection requests? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't been sending requests for anything. I just look at the aircraft missing article list and skim until i find one that seems to have good sources. Nothing about redirects. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good! Thanks for your understanding here and willingness to work more constructively. I'd be more than happy to help out with any aircraft-related content you want to create in future. Reach out if you think I can help or offer advice!

I will add that unfortunately, practically all the "low-hanging fruit" for aircraft coverage are long gone now. The remaining types tend to require a lot of work to get to sources that are Reliable. Often these are print sources and not on line, and/or in languages other than English and/or long out of print! These days, I find I'm spending around $50-$100 in research materials per new article... --Rlandmann (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's something I've noticed. I have experience in WikiAstronomy (you wouldn't BELIEVE how hard it is to find anything remotely notable there, everything's taken) but I still work my butt off to make articles, no matter how short or long. Also thanks for not being too harsh, you're one of the nicer people that I've met (just scrolling up on my talk page says a lot). Thanks again! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 00:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy for a few hours, but after that, if you're open to it, I'm happy to find you an aircraft to work on that has reasonable sources available and which I can point you to. Would that be helpful? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll write anything that has sources, I already have a notepad list of like 10 articles that are able to be written that I haven't got to yet. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 00:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Caproni Ca 104.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ZLEA _T\^C 23:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the description of File:Utva 212.jpg, you say "Image taken from Polish Wikipedia". Could you please provide a link to that version of the image? I tried looking for it, but was unable to find it. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is Polish, because translations say Polish & Croation but the "Sr" is Serbian Wiki. Either way, it's here. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbian Wikipedia file page has a fair use tag, indicating that it is copyrighted. If you are unsure about the copyright status of a file on another language's Wikipedia, you can run the page through Google Translate by pasting the URL into here. For example, here is the translated file page. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Utva 212.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation of https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0:Utva_212.jpg and has no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. ZLEA _T\^C 23:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sir MemeGod! I got to thinking some after a handful of GANs and a recent FAC that we as a WikiProject should probably have a source list. We both know meteorology is, in general, a close-knit community. Honestly, we have several things that are reliable sources, which to an outside (non-weather editor) person, would not presume are reliable (like Tweets/Facebook posts from NWS, Mets, or organizations). We also have various things like IEM posting preliminary damage surveys from the NWS, but only NCDC/NCEI post the finalized info and such.

I went ahead and started WP:WXRS. I’ve started just going through various weather event articles (mostly tornado so far), just looking for any of the oddity sources to get them list/shell of sources made. I don’t really want to go through the talk pages to hunt for discussions yet (probably a solid 24-hours of work for that…R.I.P. me).

Anyway, all I wanted to say was if you wanted to help out by listing sources or writing up a few descriptions, feel free to! Later in life, I will (or someone will) go through talk pages to look for the discussions to see the reliability of the sources and then we will probably have some WikiProject Weather discussions regarding several sources. But, it will indeed make Wikipedia a better place in the end, once the centralized list is made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I said I'd take a step back from WikiWeather, but the addiction never stops (haha). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 00:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page Caproni Ca.104 has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

WP:G3 -- Blatant Hoax -- false AI-generation per talk page discussion and User talk:Sir MemeGod

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again... Thanks for contributing articles about the Texas Helicopters M-79T Hornet and the Glenview GMP.I Flyride. The bad news is that are some pretty serious problems with the sources you've used there.

The biggest of these is that we cannot ever use Aviastar as a source -- it's basically a pirate site that plagiarises material from copyright sources. We need to remove those citations. See WP:AVIASTAR for details.

Secondly, web forums like [1], [2], and [3] are practically never acceptable as Reliable Sources for Wikipedia. See WP:RSSELF for the content guideline.

These articles, like everything else on Wikipedia, need to be supported by Reliable Sources.

I'm looking into Silvercraft SH-200 article. Again, the references to Aviastar need to go, and the archived link to planeworlds.com also looks like a self-published site (somebody's blog...), as does the reference to [4]. In the latter case, however, that site can point you to useful sources if you're able to track them down. I've bought quite a few references after finding out about them on that site. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I had no idea that a little aviation website could be so malicious. I'll fix all of the references, it's almost impossible trying to scrape little information into an article, especially when it's a little-known craft (but it CAN be done). Thanks, and I'll get to it soon! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not optimistic. My initial assessment is that there are not sufficient free sources online to support articles about any of these three aircraft (which is why they're not covered yet...). In each case, this is going to need a trip to a library with a large reference collection, or spending some serious money on buying reference materials. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of unreliable aviation sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources which should be helpful. I just realized that it needs a shortcut. I'll go ahead and create one. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some RS to the three articles named above. They do need page numbers though, if you're citing them to support points in the articles. See WP:CITEPAGE for instructions on how to do this. Also, note that [5] which you've used in your draft on the SV-20 does not appear to be a RS. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Other editors moved the Focke-Wulf W 4 and Glenview Flyride to draftspace, and this seemed to me the best course for the Texas Helicopters Hornet and the Silvercraft SH-200 as well. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Focke-Wulf W 4. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Glenview GMP.I Flyride, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Texas Helicopters M-79T Hornet. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and only one of the supplied sources is reliable, and it has no page numbers.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rlandmann (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Silvercraft SH-200. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has very serious problems with sources: most are unreliable, the reliable one has no page numbers, and information is not present in the sources it is cited to. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rlandmann (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Utva 212, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Aero HC-3, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’ve sent a number of your new articles to draft for poor sourcing. From the discussion you’ve had above with Rlandmann you can see that some sites can’t be used as reliable sources. Also please don’t use LLM tools to create articles. If you really know what you’re doing and spend a lot of time checking their output they can be helpful, but you are using them to generate completely fake sources and that is completely unacceptable. Faking sources is just about the worst thing you can do in Wikipedia, and will end up getting you blocked. If you want to create articles on aircraft you may want to sign up for WikiProject Aviation where experienced editors can give you good advice. All the best Mccapra (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Focke-Wulf W 7. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because the citations provided seem to have been made up. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rlandmann (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Rlandmann (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain this a little further; the article was mostly made up of text apparently machine-translated from [6] and had very light changes of wording applied here-and-there. That's never OK. The text you contribute to Wikipedia needs to be entirely your own words. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't machine-translated? The article itself is translated from the same article at the Polish Wikipedia (which I gave proper licensing to). I made 2 articles from the AI garbage, every other article I've ever made is hand-written or a direct translation from another wiki. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article can be found here, if it WAS copyrighted, then I would have had no idea. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking so that I understand -- when you say that you translated the article from Polish, how did you translate it?

That aside, yeah, however you translated it, this looks like it's not your fault: the Polish Wikipedia article is itself a close copy of the page at www.samolotypolskie.pl, which was published at least a few months earlier than the pl.Wikipedia article. You weren't to know that. I've reported the problem over there, but different Wikipedias have different rules, so it's up to them now.

Translating articles from one Wikipedia to another is risky business for a range of reasons, including:

• the possibility that the text violates somebody else's copyright (as we've just seen)
• different language Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines around things like what qualifies as a reliable source, what level of citations are required (which you've also run into today)
• unless you are a subject matter expert, unintentionally creating mistranslations, especially if relying on machine translation (both the Utva 212 article and Focke-Wulf W 7 article had examples of this
• the possibility that the sources have been mis-cited, either innocently, or negligently, or maliciously.

There's a lot more advice over at WP:HOWTRANS too.

In general, direct translation is a bad idea unless you're really familiar with the subject, the source language, or ideally both. It's almost always better to treat the other-language article as a starting point, but rewrite it in your own words and check the sources yourself. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Hi Sir MemeGod -- this helicopter is very definitely a suitable and welcome subject for an article. However, as it is, the draft is full of claims that aren't verifiable and aren't supported by the sources you cite them to.

For example: "The prototype, registered I-SILD, first flew on April 12, 1977." is cited to [7], but that page doesn't mention the SH-200 at all, let alone the date it flew or the registration of the prototype.

Or another example: you say that the helicopter was "designed with the assistance of Tom Tjaarda" and cite it to [8] -- but that page says no such thing.

Which brings me to the second point: two out of the five sources you're citing do not qualify as reliable. Specifically:

• planeworlds.com[9] was somebody's self-published blog and can't be used

and the same goes for

• aviadejavu.ru[10]

The archived company website[11] would also be a great source, except, as already noted, it doesn't seem to mention the SH-200 at all...!

On the upside, if you have access to Jane's for 1978, that's an excellent, gold-standard source, as is Simpson. My advice would be to base your article on those two sources and delete anything in there that you can't find in them.

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Silvercraft SH-200 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rlandmann (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there MemeGod. I saw that you had a lot of your articles recently get rejected due to lack of sources. What's up with that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot, not worth talking about. I tried my luck at another community, and I guess WikiAviation has a completely different set of rules. Guess I'll just stick with weather :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply a lot of my citations were deemed unreliable, were removed, thus making the entire article undersourced. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well hopefully that means you'll be coming back to the tropical cyclone/weather project! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You betcha. Galaxy article writer by night, weather nerd by day :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now with Beryl Berylling towards Mexico and that general area, I definetely see the need for some (somewhat) seasoned contributors to re-activate and help out Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I hope that Beryl will bring some people back to the project, ideally working on some articles that aren't just the current ones. It reminds me that we probably need List of Yucatán Peninsula hurricanes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, good idea! Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again :) A few days ago, I offered to find you an aircraft that we don't currently have an article about but which could be written using easily available sources. It's been really difficult! Like I said back then, practically all of the low-hanging fruit are gone many years ago. But I found one! I've set up a draft over at Draft:Yamaha R-50 and pointed to a free, online, reliable reference as a starting point.

If you're interested in developing this article, I'm willing to work with you on building it.

A few notes:

• the source I've provided is Reliable, but it's not independent of the subject (that is, it was published by the same company that built the aircraft, Yamaha). This means that we can trust the information in there, but we can't use it to establish Notability. If we based the article just on this one source, the draft could not be accepted, and if it had just been created in articlespace based only on this reference, it would likely be speedily deleted.
• there is an article about this aircraft on Japanese Wikipedia but please don't refer to it to start writing. Based on past experiences, I think this will mislead you more than help you.

The "mission if you choose to accept it":

• Do: use the provided source to add a few sentences to the draft in your own words. Try to include everything specifically about the R-50 that's in the source.
• Do: start by describing what exactly the R-50 is, as if to someone who had no idea.
• Don't: add anything that's not actually in the source, or not specifically about the R-50 (for example, detail about the RCASS)
• Don't: add any more information or sources for now. Let's start small with just what's in this one, good, Reliable source.
• Don't: add sections or headings for now; we'll do that as we go.

What do you think? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be up for it! Also, sorry if I conducted myself in an unprofessional manner on the 30th, I tend to be super self-conscious about what I say and do, and just wanted to get that off my shoulders, and sorry if I upset anyone. :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all -- and the article is off to a really great start! I'm going to make a few tweaks and comment them so you can see what I changed and why. I'll also add the citation tags as a model, and then I'll come back with step 2! --Rlandmann (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback and step 2[edit]

OK! So, here' what I did;

• Removed a statement that isn't actually stated in the source. Be careful with these!
• Clarified the relationship between the RCASS and R-50
• Introduced citations to the article. Like I said in the edit summary, we might be able to trim these down in the final polish, but for now, they're going to help us keep track of where each specific piece of information in the article came from.

Step 2 Your next tasks:

• Add a second sentence for the opening paragraph describing what the R-50 looks like. I haven't yet found a freely-licenced photo we can use of this aircraft, and we might not be able to get one. So a verbal description will be especially helpful (and we should always include one anyway).
• Add more to the final paragraph. There's actually a little bit more about the R-50 in the source that we can use! Pay attention to the paragraph in the source that begins "Initially, the R-50 was developed so that..." See what else you can add to the draft from there.
• and Cite the facts you add to the final paragraph, using the tag that I demoed for you.

Over to you! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding, I accidentally fell asleep :)

1. I made a relatively long description which I just made a new paragraph for, as it couldn't fit in one sentence.

2. Added about the pine tree/insects thing, that skipped over me for some reason

3. Cited it Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work -- looks good! I'll go in, make a few more tweaks and then line up the next tasks and a new reference! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback and step 3[edit]

So, the biggest problem was a pretty big factual error that you introduced -- the R-50 has a two-bladed rotor, not four-bladed. My guess is that you mistook the rotor's stabilizer bar for a second pair of blades. I fixed this, and also replaced some wording with more precise aeronautical terms.

A general style tip -- there's no real advantage to wiki-linking common English words like "leg", "skid", and "mast". For a general Wikipedia article, I use the mental litmus-test: "if this word appeared in a mainstream English newspaper/news website, would readers need it defined?" For those three words, the answer is clearly no. For common aeronautical terms, you could go either way. Personally, I swap "newspaper" for "news-stand aerospace magazine" in my litmus test when writing about aircraft types; I feel that our main readership is probably a bit more specialized for most of these articles. But if in doubt, I recommend the "newspaper test".

Step 3 Next task! I've added a new website reference to the article. It's mostly about Yamaha's follow-on to the R-50, the RMAX, which we actually already have an article about (which you should ignore for now -- let's keep working this as a "clean sheet" exercise). The new article has four paragraphs about the R-50, starting "Yamaha's development of utility-use unmanned helicopters began with..." Some of the information in those four paragraphs repeats what we already know about the R-50, but there's quite a bit of new stuff in there as well.

• Add the new facts from the New Atlas article to the Draft.
• Don't just tack them on the end; work them into the existing text at points that clarify or expand what you've written so far
• Don't add citation tags just yet; we'll come back to this in the next round.

Over to you! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be good now, I...

1. Added that the R-50 was the world's first unmanned heli-crop duster (really cool fact if I'll be honest)

2. Added about the training school part

3. Added about the engine in the last paragraph Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 3a Great work, especially slotting the new information into logical places in the Draft! And... there are still a few more cool facts in that article. Some hints for extra material you can work in:

• What problems did the R-50 solve for Japanese farmers?
• Apart from farming, what other role did the R-50 prove useful for?

• Add this information to the Draft and...
• Cite where the information came from, using the new tag

Back to you --Rlandmann (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I...

1. Added that it cut down manual labour costs

2. Added that it enabled higher-value crops to be grown

3. Cited everything Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 4[edit]

The only "feedback" here is that the added info and citations are perfection. We are now done with that source!

This next task is only a little one, but uses a couple of new skills: you're going to add a whole new reference source.

While investigating to see whether there was enough free material out there to support an article on the R-50, I stumbled across a passing reference in a Reliable Source. Even though it's very, very scant (the article is, again, more about the R-MAX) -- it does reinforce one of the facts that you found in the last source, and it adds one or two more. So, the task:

• Read this article to find a couple of new facts about the R-50 (carefully avoiding stuff about the R-MAX!)
• Add those facts to the Draft, weaving them in as you know how to do
• Add a citation for each fact you include, creating your own tags based on the ones already in the Draft
• Add a citation to an existing fact in the Draft that this source also backs up
• Add a new Bibliography entry for this source, using the {{cite web}} template and the other, existing references as a guide. The available information about a source can vary quite a lot, but for this one, you should include:
  • title (of the article)
  • website (that is, its title)
  • date (that the article was published)
  • url
  • publisher (what company owns this website?)
  • location (what city is that company based in?)
  • access-date (the date you read the article)

(Hint: there are a couple of items needed to construct that bibliography that aren't on that page itself; you will need to visit other pages on that website to find them!) --Rlandmann (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for responding so late, but I:

1. Added costs and max payload (with citations, of course)

2. Added second citation for the "1987" part

3. Added the article under "Bibliography", it was near-impossible trying to find the publisher:) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback and step 5[edit]

No worries -- there's literally no timeline to this. :)

And... yes! Getting the publishing details was admittedly tough (hence the hint I left) and you did well! So, just a few comments and then onto the next source.

Bibliography entry: Keeping in mind that there isn't one, universally accepted way to format bibliography entries, this guidance holds generally true:

• When writing a bibliography entry, we generally don't keep stylistic elements like TITLES IN ALL CAPS.
• You did really well in tracking down the name of the publisher and the place of publication! One small correction: the place of publication seems to be Valencia, not Santa Clarita. The "Subscribe" link at the top of the article takes you here, which confirms the publisher name, and their address (if you scroll to the bottom of the page).
• "California, United States" is a bit over-the top. It's a bit like linking common English words -- we can assume that pretty much any English-speaker knows which country California is in. So I took out "United States"
• Although you did this in the in-text citations, not the bibliography, note that if there's no author credited, we don't include one, so the |last=MXA parameter wasn't needed. (And, if you did need to include a corporate author, as we sometimes do, you'd use |author=MXA, because "MXA" isn't actually a surname).
• And like the California example, a source with an English title on English Wikipedia doesn't really need its language spelled out as English.

Citations: This is still a bit of a challenge, but don't worry, there will be plenty more practice before we're done with the R-50! :)

There are lots of different ways to add citations to an article. The way I've been modelling for you in this Draft is a stand-alone bibliography + in-text references tags. One of the main advantages of this approach is that it means you don't need a full citation template inside the article itself. This makes the text much more maintainable in the long term.

So, in this approach:

• the in-text citation only needs to have an identifier so you can find the full details in the bibliography. Generally, we use the author's surname and the year of publication; but for anonymous sources, we can just use the title (or title+year) instead. Take a look at this diff to see how much simpler that makes things.
• also, when we use a citation multiple time in an article, we can add the name= parameter to the <ref> tag and then can re-use the citation multiple times. This makes the code in the article simpler still, and also keeps the citations section at the end of the article neater. This is how you use it.

Now... one little problem. You added the MXA Motorcross Action citation to the end of a sentence which reads "The first model of the R-50, dubbed the "L09" was completed in 1987, and was able to crop-dust with a payload of around 15 kilograms at a demonstration flight later that year." That's a long sentence, which contains about four separate facts. The only one of those facts that you'll find in the MXA article is that R-50 development was completed in 1987.

When adding citations to articles, you need to make it really clear which fact(s) you're attaching the citation to, because the MXA article doesn't say anything about the "L09" designation, the crop-dusting payload, or the demonstration flight. (This is the same problem you've had in a few other contributions). Actually, the main fact that I thought the MXA article added weight to was that the R-50 got used for aerial photography. So I moved the citation there. Take a look how I distinguished between the stuff in MXA and the stuff in Hanlon.

A second little problem -- note that MXA tells us what the helicopter itself cost back in 2021 when the article was published, but says nothing about its operating costs. So saying, in 2024, that "It costs between $150,000-$200,000 to operate" is pretty different from what it says in the actual source. Careful with this!

Sorry that got so long; there was a fair bit to cover there. OK: on to step 5...

Step 5

New source time! Yet another source that's mostly about the R-MAX, but again, page 11 of this presentation has two new R-50 facts.

The task:

• Add a new bibliography entry for this source. There actually isn't a perfect template for this kind of source. {{cite report}} is probably the closest. Parameters to include are:
  • last
  • first
  • title
  • url
  • date (needs detective work! See if you can find it!)
  • publisher (also needs detective work!)
  • location (and yet more detective work!)
  • access-date
• Add two new R-50 facts from page 11, weaving them into the text.
• Add citations for your new facts:
  • this is your first source with page numbers, so the in-text citation style should go "Surname Year, p.11"
  • use the <ref name="xyz"> trick to combine your in-text citations when you add them to your facts.

Over to you! --Rlandmann (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was definitely one of the more challenging things I've done:

1. I managed to get the citation, and every thing but the date, publisher and website (since its' a pdf I'm not sure). The Maine.gov at the top is really throwing me off. I've marked everything that I'm not sure about with a "?"

2. Same goes with the bibliography entry

3. The only thing that I didn't have issues with was the actual information. I added about the first commercial availability in Japan and the YCAS system introduction in 1995.

:) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback and step 6[edit]

Now it's my turn to have been absent a few days!

You did really well to have documented that maine.gov source as completely as you did. You found almost all of the details! Some feedback:

1. you correctly located the publication date in the article URL, but misinterpreted it slightly. "apr18" meant "April 2018", not "April 18 of some year". How do we know? A Google search for other PDFs under https://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/documents2/bd_mtgs/ shows us the pattern. That is, search for "pdf https://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/documents2/bd_mtgs/" (without the quotes) and you'll see what I mean. -- I added these details
2. you missed the publisher and location; these are at the bottom right-hand corner of every normal (not PDF) page of the Maine.gov website. The organisation that publishes the site on behalf of the State Government of Maine is called "InforME", and if you click on their logo, you find that they're located in Augusta. -- I added these details too
3. Note that Bibliographies are sorted according to surname of the first author credited, or by title if the author is anonymous. -- I moved this entry to its correct spot.
4. Important -- this is a major takeaway for you. When using in-text citations, you don't add the whole citation between the <ref> tags. Look at this diff to see how it's done. The only things that should go into those tags are:
   • author surname (or title is there isn't one)
   • year
   • page number (for a print reference if there is one)
5. Congratulations on also finding the key pieces of information that I hoped you would! -- the YACS, and that Yamaha started marketing the R-50 in 1991. I made a small tweak to the text to emphasise the latter fact, and also to call attention to something we didn't see in any of our other sources: the R-50 that went to market was a new variant, the "Type II". More about that later... ;)

Step 6

So... What the heck is a YACS???

Fortunately, we have a new source that will tell us! The task:

1. Add a new bibliography entry for this source: https://global.yamaha-motor.com/design_technology/technology/electronic/010/ -- this time, I'm leaving it to you to find as many of the details as you can! (Hint, there are other Yamaha webpages already in the bibliography that might be helpful)
2. Use the new source to explain what the YACS was, and cite it, remembering to use an in-text citation, not the whole citation
3. In fact, that whole paragraph (titled "Developing and Improving the Base Model") has all kinds of things we haven't read about the R-50 before! Use it to expand the article, remembering to keep citing where the information is coming from. And...
4. Uh-oh! You will also read one or two things in there that force us to re-examine one of our earlier sources in a new light! The challenge this time is to integrate the new information with the old information. See if you can find and reconcile the discrepancy.

(Aside: that page also contains a cool video of Yamaha's first attempt at an agricultural UAV, the RCASS that we're deliberately ignoring as out-of-scope for this article, but it's certainly fun to see. Who knows? There might even be enough information out there for an article on the RCASS, but I haven't checked. Let's get through the R-50 first!) --Rlandmann (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NGC 5461, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Downtown One, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir MemeGod -- I just took a look at what you contributed over at Theodor Buchhold and was disappointed and surprised to see very many problems with the the citations you included in the article.

In short, many things you claimed in there are not supported by any citation -- I've tagged these with {{citation needed}}

Probably worse, there are at least two claims in there that you've cited to a source that says no such thing. I've tagged these with {{failed verification}}

Finally, you have cited information to a long, historical audio interview in German, which I suspect you have not listened to and that you have no idea whether the claims you've made are supported by that source or not. -- I've tagged these with {{needs verification}}

I understand that you've contributed this as a translation from German Wikipedia. However, as the contributor here, you are responsible for making sure that citations are correct and that they meet the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia; each language Wikipedia has its own sets of sources and guidelines.

I need to be very direct here -- you need to stop adding unsourced or wrongly-sourced information to Wikipedia. I've observed this myself in the context of your aircraft contributions, and I've seen other people mention this in the context of your weather contributions. You've heard this from a lot of people over the course of a few months.

And I'll repeat my previous advice that adding translated articles is a generally bad idea unless you have a good understanding of the subject material, and preferably the source language as well. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And at Downtown One[edit]

Same pattern of claims that are either unsourced, or in this particular case -- that practially every citation is to a source that does not actually say what you claim it says. I've tagged up the draft to show you where the specific problems are.

I see that you're really wanting to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, but this behaviour is having the opposite effect. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Theodor Buchhold. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and the article contains very many claims that are either not supported by sources or are not in the sources they are cited to. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rlandmann (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Downtown One. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because almost all the information in this article is unsourced, or if it is sourced, the sources do not contain the information that is cited to them. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rlandmann (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Sir MemeGod -- just a note that I took a look over some of the weather articles you've created in the last couple of days and noted a familiar pattern of poor sourcing, including:

• unsourced claims
• sources that are not reliable
• and IMHO worst: claims that are cited to a source, but the source says no such thing.

Really, I think that all of these articles are not ready for mainspace and should be Draftified, but I also feel like I'm not the one who should be doing that. I'm not really sure how best to proceed here, but just wondering: are you aware that you are inventing details that are not in the sources you say they are? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I guess I just suck at sourcing. When I go into specifics on details, it's usually based on a damage photo (I have multiple for 1968 Hansell-Charles City tornado) or a ArcGIS map (which I don't have for either, and its' like a damage blip map). So, I just put a random citation (because you can't cite a non-free image) and hope it works (which I get isn't a good mindset to have.) I have enough info, it's just a lose-lose situation because if I add a citation I'll get called out, and if I don't it'll be undersourced. I can move it back to draftspace if you'd like (as I get you probably don't want to keep draftifying all the articles I've created). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’m glad that at least you're aware of the issue - that's a crucial start. But I'm seeing it not only in connection with images - it's that you're adding commentary based on your own interpretation of events and then citing that to a source. I'm not at my desk right now, but I'll come back with specific examples later today. And yes, you might want to draftify some or all of these yourself. -Rlandmann (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "your own commentary". Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things like "downed power lines on 123 street" are from images, and unfortunately the only source is an image or DI. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll be offline until probably 5:00 PM EST tomorrow because I'm attending a Spaatz Award presentation and a few other things, but I'm all ears after that! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case study: Draft:1964 Black Friday tornado[edit]

Maybe the best way to explain this is to take you through one of these articles, piece by piece. The pattern in the others is generally the same. As I've said elsewhere, the biggest problem is when you simply make up information or details that are not in the sources you cite.

You are also still learning what constitutes a Reliable Source for Wikipedia.

On the plus side, all the claims in this article are actually cited somewhere.

Any emphasis in the article text I'm quoting was added by me. I'm confining this analysis just to basic sourcing.

• Any claim with ✅s in its source column and comments column is perfectly fine and can stay as-is
• Any claim with a ❌ in its source column or comments column needs to be cited to a different, reliable source or removed.
• Any claim with a ⚠️ in its comments column is a mixture of sourced and unsourced information. The unsourced information needs to be cited to a different, reliable source or removed.

A tag has been placed on File:Charlescityiatornadoaftermath2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation and has no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wrongful speedy deletion. The photo is under a .gov link, making this PD. This is something that I DO know. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the photo is published on a US government web site, the photo is not the work of the agency or any federal employee. It is explicitly stated that the photographs were courtesy of Jeff Sisson. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"By giving the National Weather Service your images, you consent to putting them in the public domain. @WeatherWriter and I have explicitly been over this at least twice. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So again, you just wrongfully speedy-deleted a perfectly normal image :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that came off as rude, I'm just a little frusturated right now Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can link to the policy page, I will review and undelete if appropriate. I did not see any information about donated photos being in the public domain on the source page. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[13]https://www.weather.gov/fsd/disclaimer Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others." Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. My inclination is to accept it but I have reservations about it. I've undeleted the image and put it up for discussion at FFD. You input at that discussion would be welcome. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir MemeGod -- as I explained when I tagged this, the fact that a "photo is under a .gov link" does not necessarily make something PD. To qualify, the photo must have been taken by a US Federal Government employee in the course of their duties, something that is clearly not the case here. See here for a full explanation.

The link you've provided to the disclaimer on the NWS site creates an exception to this. So if we can determine that this condition existed at the time the copyright owner contributed his images to the NWS, then yes, the image is perfectly OK to stay (although for a different reason from the one you originally thought). Hopefully, the FFD discussion will help clarify. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Charlescityiatornadoaftermath2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Greatly Improved Editor's Barnstar
		I really, really appreciate your genuine commitment to learning the "tools of the trade". Your energy and enthusiasm are great assets and your understanding of how to use sources is rapidly getting there. Thank you for your patience and resilience. You have the makings of a formidable Wikipedian! Rlandmann (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! It's good to know that Wikipedia still has some humanity left in it! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too important, but I just noticed that your signature still links to your old username. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's... interesting. I'll fix it, and thanks for the heads up :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot 2024-07-14 10.13.39 PM.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1997 Jarrell tornado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Riley1012 -- Riley1012 (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir Meme God -- this is yet another warning about your use of sources on Wikipedia. Your work on the R-50 shows me that you can source information correctly, but 1942 Aeroflot Tupolev ANT-20bis crash is another example where, for whatever reason, you have chosen not to. In short, what I found was:

• large amounts of copyrighted text, translated by machine translation, then copied-and-pasted into the article. I removed this. Because the source you plagiarised was Russian Wikipedia, it would be theoretically possible to restore this text with the proper attribution. However, the content itself shows the problems we've seen in the past with this kind of material contributed by you, including:
  • strange English, from the machine-translation process
  • facts which are either completely unsourced or cited to sources that might (or might not!) be acceptable on the other-language Wikipedia, but do not qualify as Reliable on English Wikipedia
• relying on an unreliable source. In this case, the source you added did not contain any information that was not already in one of your reliable sources, so I just removed it
• and, as usual, worst of all -- making up your own details that are not in the sources you cited. You did this as an embellishment in some of the text you plagiarised from Russian Wikipedia, but also in the text I removed here.

Since this pattern of editing is very consistent and ongoing, I strongly recommend that you use the AfC process for any new substantial articles. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).