User talk:United States Man/Archive 11
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiCup 2022 July newsletter
The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
- Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
- Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.
Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
2022 Eastern Kentucky floods WP:BOLD merge
Hey. I'm not going to edit war you over this, but I highly encourage you to revert your
- I left my reasoning on your talk page. United States Man (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 August 2022
- From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something
- News and notes: Information considered harmful
- In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap
- Op-Ed: The "recession" affair
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)
- Community view: Youth culture and notability
- Opinion: Criminals among us
- Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement
- Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country
- Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us
- Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists
- Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot
- On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories
- Essay: How to research an image
- Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed
- Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia
- Gallery: A backstage pass
- From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened
Aon Damage Total adders
Can you look at
- THERE ARE NO NOAA TOTALS!!! 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip: Yeah, I’ll try. Might be this evening. I wish we could just ban anon users from WP:Weather completely. This IP jumping under different addresses is way out of hand. United States Man (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
ANI notice (More disruptive editing from WP:SEVERE)
There is currently a discussion at
Just a head's up, User:12.153.230.177 mentioned one of your edits saying, ""That being said, I want to draw attention to a frivolous comment by United States Man, who is now proposing to ban IPs from WP Weather, which is 15 times more ridiculous then this entire ANI was before.
Thought you should know, since they did not ping you or notify you previously about your comment being mentioned in an AN/I.
Disambiguation link notification for August 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Ford Health 200, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 August 2022
- News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere
- Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?
- In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
- Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees
- News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me
- In focus: Thinking inside the box
- Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...
- Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now
- Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth
- Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.
- Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links
- Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come
- Essay: Delete the junk!
- Humour: CommonsComix No. 1
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago
Reliable Source Noticeboard Discussion In Progress
Hello. This is a friendly head's up that a discussion was started on the
WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
adding tornadoes to the list of tors from july-sep 2022
https://twitter.com/NWSTucson/status/1562947255031607296 https://twitter.com/NWSVegas/status/1562792355983306758 https://twitter.com/nwstwincities/status/1566932597334085632?s=21&t=2oTsXu8eqC0nGt2BwXl4PA Here are 3 tornadoes that need to be added, i suck at editing so i fugured id just forward the info to you. IndyPlaneSpot (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
thanks for thanking me on my edit i made, here you go :D
Lolkikmoddi (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Having fun trading back-and-forth edits?
- @Sarrail: That was pretty funny how that worked out ;) United States Man (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2022
- News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"
- In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements
- Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution
- Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News
- Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs
- Featured content: Farm-fresh content
- CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
"2021 Tornado outbreak in the Southern United States" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2021 Tornado outbreak in the Southern United States and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#2021 Tornado outbreak in the Southern United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Martinsville Lap Record
Hey, I couldn’t figure out how to reference the time but I have this link that has the fastest laps. https://motorsportstats.com/results/nascar-cup-series/2022/xfinity-500/classification/race Also, the lap by Sacks was set in quali, not the race. Chastain’s lap should stand as fastest race lap. Luca tedesco712 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'll link in here. The problem is that the template for this info box was created by the authors of the FIA racing series segment. And in FIA racing series, official lap records only count if they were set in the race and not in qualifying or practice. For this reason, this template explicitly requires a race lap record. So we would first have to add to the template so that general lap records can also be entered there. --Mark McWire (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Accidentally reverted a bunch of May 2022 tornado info
Hey just letting you know that was an accident. I didn't mean to get rid of any info, in fact I was additional sourcing and information and something went wrong. My apologies. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
- @TornadoInformation12: I know you didn't do that on purpose. I just figured you didn't realize that that happened. United States Man (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2022
- From the team: A new goose on the roost
- News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment
- Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove
- Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com
- Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?
- Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal
Just a heads up
Just letting you know, I pinged you in a SPI because of the talk page discussion.
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
A kitten for you!
Sorry for the "forum" thingy but I thank you for it, so here is a kitten! :D
Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
removing parts of templates on Tornadoes of 2022
why do you keep removing my edits on
- If you would observe how those tables have been done in the last 15 years' worth of those pages, you would see that totals and casualties are never included there. United States Man (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- is there any reason why they aren't? same with the fact that if an outbreak is in the US it's not included in the subheading, but it is if the tornado is anywhere else. talk20:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- ? talk16:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- is there any reason why they aren't? same with the fact that if an outbreak is in the US it's not included in the subheading, but it is if the tornado is anywhere else.
Idiot on the Tornado outbreak of November 4–5, 2022 article
Can I get some help here? Some moron keeps wants to keep making one of the tornadoes EF4. I swear I'm sick and tired of this type of crap. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- There's literally no one here at all besides three or four that even know the simplest of things to do with these outbreaks anymore. United States Man (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Citations
Please use citations when adding information to
- Yet you come to my talk page being very rude to me. United States Man (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being rude. I was just a little frustrated. Hopefully, both of us got the point across to each other, so in the future out interactions will be better for both of us. Cheers. talk) 01:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being rude. I was just a little frustrated. Hopefully, both of us got the point across to each other, so in the future out interactions will be better for both of us. Cheers.
WikiCup 2022 November newsletter
The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is
- Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
- Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
- BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
- Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
- Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
- Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
- PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
- Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.
During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.
- Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
- Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
- Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
- Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
- Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
- SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
- Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
- Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
- Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
- Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
A Barnstar For You!
The Mediator Barnstar | ||
Thank you for the compromise on talk ) 20:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
|
Long tornado summary formats
The use of the "slash marks for state lines" format used in the November 4, 2022 and other recent articles firmly establishes that this is the way a majority of the editors here prefer to do it. I am not trying to start an argument, and I am not trying to be petty, but as it stands now, you are the only major contributor to tornado articles who wants it done differently, and because of this, you are essentially overruled at this point. Additionally, the fact that you don't seem to mind when others users use this format shows that there was clearly a "spite editing" element to the back and forth between us in relation to the December 10-11 2022 outbreak article, and that is not acceptable. It is not ok for you to be more trigger happy with reverting users you have had disagreements with (me), while "letting it slide" with others that you don't have a history with (newer editors), and that is very obvious at this point. I don't mean that in a confrontational way, but in order to keep the peace, you're going to have to accept that "my way" is the preferred format among most editors at this point. Put the spite to the side and just try to work collaboratively with others. Believe it or not, I really don't like butting heads with people, and I want to avoid future conflict when it comes to disagreements. Be patient, put your bias aside, and give the revert button a rest. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoIformation12
- Dude I didn't even remember that, nor did I realize that it was even still that way. Don't flatter yourself by thinking that for some reason I did that trying to spite you. I think you're definitely making Mt. Everest out of an ant hill by coming here and writing this long message. If it's any consolation, ChessEric and Elijahandskip also accuse me of singling them out, but it's obvious I don't do that to none of you. Many of you take this Wikipedia stuff too seriously. Just drop it lol United States Man (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- The only reason I wrote a long message is because at the time, this was so important to you that you reverted every change to that format I made, and insinuated that you'd defer to reporting me for edit warring. That's why it is very surprising that you don't remember this, as it resulted in a ton of drawn out discourse, and you absolutely would not budge or relent. I think it's fair to thoroughly explain my reasoning, and show what I'm doing has precedent and validity because of what happened last time.
- Regarding the "singling out" thing, that is extremely telling that I'm not the only one. I didn't even know that, but if there is one thing I have learned over time, it's that when multiple people who don't know each other come to you with the same complaint or concern, it is absolutely in your best interest to start listening to what they have to say, because that is not a coincidence. Even if you aren't singling people out, this is an indicator that you are at least behaving in a manner that gives that impression to several people. I am saying this with absolutely no malice, and whether you choose to acknowledge this or dismiss it is up to you, but I can definitely tell you which option of those two a reasonable and agreeable person would go with. I genuinely wish you the best.
- TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
- Bruh. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: Yes? ;) United States Man (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Head’s up
Hey. We have an editor working to remove the
WikiProject Weather: Map Dot & Template/Infobox Colors
Dear project member, This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (
We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our
Interesting tidbit for the Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020
I heard something interesting recently that I thought may be worth adding if we can find a source for it. I was at club meeting on the night of the Tornado outbreak of November 4–5, 2022 and the topic of the Nashville supercell came up. From what I was told, the person handling the warnings that night was no properly trained and there was some trouble for the NWS Nashville because of it. I don't know how accurate this is, but if someone could find a source for that, I thought it would be a good detail to add. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: I don't know what kind of "club" this is, but I actually know that to be factually inaccurate. Anyway, it has no place in this article either way (we aren't in the business of NWS bashing). United States Man (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 November 2022
- News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"
- In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"
- Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed
- Book review: Writing the Revolution
- Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality
- Essay: The Six Million FP Man
- Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff
- Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"
- Featured content: A great month for featured articles
- Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
- CommonsComix: Joker's trick
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
Nomination for deletion of Template:2011 Super Outbreak/Deadly
Template:2011 Super Outbreak/Deadly has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
The Signpost: 1 January 2023
- Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief
- Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"
- Essay: Mobile editing
- Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022
- Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes
- Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?
- Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!
- CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
A Cookie For You
The Signpost: 16 January 2023
- Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020
- News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion
- In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again
- Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery
- In focus: Busting into Grand Central
- Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100
- Featured content: Flip your lid
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Our “friend” might be back
I just started another
- I know he’s back. There’s several IPs that I’ve seen. I’m getting tired of the admins either giving it a slap on the wrist or not doing anything at all. United States Man (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Griffin, GA EF3 tornado wording
Hey I reverted your good faith edit about the confusing tornado merge that occurred during the Griffin EF3. So I see why you changed it, as based on the DAT contour map, it looks like the satellite itself was responsible for the EF3 damage. However, the survey text attributes the EF3 damage to the main tornado, and this was the only EF3 damage along the whole path. Because of this, I have to change the wording to avoid confusion. If the wording in the survey text was different, or the satellite tornado itself was given an EF3 rating, I'd go with your wording, but I can't given the overall rating designation and description of the event. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
- You "can't", but that doesn't mean you get to dictate what others write. You try to rewrite and take ownership of all the articles after the fact, which is highly annoying. United States Man (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
The Signpost: 4 February 2023
- From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function
- News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan
- Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos
- Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter
- Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour
- Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles
- Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea
- Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
We had a few disagreements yesterday, but one thing we agreed on was that I had found another sock of Andrew5. Thanks for your input on the matter; the one I originally pointed out was quickly blocked as a result. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC) |
A kitten for you!
happy Valentine day (and yes i know its the 8th but happy holidays)
Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
recent edits to the may 21-26 2011 outbreak
Why is there a giant blank template in the article that you reverted back to? IJustLookUpRandomArticlesSometimes (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2023
- In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage
- Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?
- Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK
- Featured content: Eden, lost.
- Gallery: Love is in the air
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!
- Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song
I'm done
Your reverts of my edits on
- I guess I'm not taking a break after all, as I edit WP too much to take a break XD
- Also, technically this is my 1000th edit on this website! Poodle23 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Poodle23: I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think you could just step back a bit and spend a few months learning from others around here. That will help you in the long run, and it's how I learned a long time ago (even though I sometimes don't seem to use that knowledge). United States Man (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- If i may interjet here as the editor who found out that Ted Fujita had proposed to call the super outbreak the Jumbo Outbreak, when doing some more research on Winter Storm Naming in the US. My feeling was that it was important to note that it was called that in the Winter Storm Naming article as it maybe moved to a global article about weather system naming in the future. However, I really wasnt sure how it would go down in the Outbreak article and decided against putting it in.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be bolded in the lead. It seems out of place and wrong. It could be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but not bolded. United States Man (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- If i may interjet here as the editor who found out that Ted Fujita had proposed to call the super outbreak the Jumbo Outbreak, when doing some more research on Winter Storm Naming in the US. My feeling was that it was important to note that it was called that in the Winter Storm Naming article as it maybe moved to a global article about weather system naming in the future. However, I really wasnt sure how it would go down in the Outbreak article and decided against putting it in.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Poodle23: I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think you could just step back a bit and spend a few months learning from others around here. That will help you in the long run, and it's how I learned a long time ago (even though I sometimes don't seem to use that knowledge). United States Man (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Question
You keep saying from time to time that you dont like the way the project is going. As a result, I was wondering in what direction would you like the broder weather projects on Wikipedia to go while being compliant with Wikipedias rules? Jason Rees (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
- Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
- Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
- FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
- TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
- Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.
The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Bold ratings
I just wanted to confirm this because I asked this before, but I hadn't gotten an answer. You have been bolding ratings when modernizing totals as well as when you made the
"Suing" to restore the original colours
@United States Man: I am interested in finding a way to marshal support for restoring the original storm-track colours. Evidently people with actual disabilities were not consulted prior to the recent, disruptive changes, which were conducted in an autocratic manner and whose "solution" was worse than the original version. If the original colours are not restored, I am seriously considering ending once and for all my contributions on Wikipedia. The latest changes are but the most recent symptoms of an increasingly untenable system of management. Political correctness has gained unfettered rule. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CapeVerdeWave: I would strongly suggest that you read through the discussions carefully, before saying that the colours were done in an autocratic manner and/or threatening to sue, as they were done through several RFCs with consensus built and were generally closed by independent Wikipedia editors. I would also state that the colour discussions were open to all and had people with disabilities comment during them. I would also comment that I am also disabled and had a cataract last year, which significantly restricted my vision. It is also worth noting that "marshal[ing] support" to restore the original colours would probably be against Wiki's rules on canvassing.Jason Rees (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Jason Rees: I understand and am under no circumstances interested in canvassing or legal action. Please feel free to remove this entire section. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 March 2023
- News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?
- Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy
- In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?
- Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter
- Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
The Signpost: 20 March 2023
- News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate
- Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians
- In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences
- Featured content: Way too many featured articles
- Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA
- Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?
Good article reassessment for 2011 Super Outbreak
2011 Super Outbreak has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Why are you opposed to change?
General question for you. Recently, you told me to "stop doing 180s on your editing habits". Over the last few months, you seem to almost be hell-bent on preventing any sort of change. You seem to have ignored administrator messages and alerts at AN/I. Every change done that affects the "how it has always been", you seem to be extremely determined to push back on it. I don't understand why you seem to always want to provoke other editors. I'm not just talking about myself either because we often do not see eye to eye. But even during the time we aren't fighting each other, I've seen you get into debates with so many other editors. You are a good editor...a really good one. I am honestly worried about your attitude though. Others notice it as well. You gave me some advice, so I wanted to give you some advice as well: Be willing to start discussions more than reverting. I started doing that with all the RfCs I started (which I know you hated). That said, it prevented arguments and edit warring. I honestly don't see many discussions ever started by you, but rather reversions by you. I believe if you start more discussions rather than just constantly reverting everytime you disagree with someone (not just me), you will become a better editor.
P.S. I'm not going to start a discussion for the recent reversions.
Wynne EF3
I'm confused where you're getting the EF3 for Wynne in DAT from. I'm looking right at it and there's nothing published by MEG. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's gone now. Probably was accidentally QC'ed and became visible in the public viewer. Looking like there's gonna be at least 8 EF3's confirmed by the end in addition to the Iowa EF4. United States Man (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
LR tornado
Hello, the tornado that hit lr hit western portions of the downtown by the way. I am a citizen of LR. It did hit western portions of the “central business district”
- Looking at a simple map of the track would show that the tornado passed well west of the downtown area and well north of downtown North Little Rock. The fact that you live in the area holds no weight in the discussion. United States Man (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 April 2023
- From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions
- News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing
- Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid
- Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages
- Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic
Second Bowling Green tornado
I'm curious as to your reasoning for the second Bowling Green tornado warranting a section. Its impact was of little notability, especially in the context of the outbreak, and the only bit of importance it seems to have is that it hit Bowling Green at the same time as the EF3. If it were not for that coincidence, I don't believe we would have even considered giving it a section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's just it. Bowling Green was significantly impacted by both tornadoes. These articles shouldn't be like robots. There should be some leeway from article to article on what we can do. Might could trim the EF3 section a bit, but I really see no harm in leaving it mostly as is. United States Man (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm working on rewriting the first tornado (User:Cyclonebiskit/BG) and leaving comments to get my thought processes across more clearly and why/how I've been trying to trim these down. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Infobox weather events
Hi! What warrants this agressive tone, If I may ask? --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- It seems like USM dislikes the new infobox and tries to subvert it when he can. His edit history at 2011 Joplin tornado suggests that his is opposed to change even though it was WP:OTHERCONTENT, a thing to avoid).
- @) 00:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2023
- News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns
- In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia
- Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman
- Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a desysopping
- Special report: Signpost statistics between years 2005 and 2022
- News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation
- Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two
- Humour: The law of hats
- Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme
WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:
- Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
- Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
- Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
- BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
- FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.
Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, PCN02WPS, and AirshipJungleman29.
So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
The Signpost: 8 May 2023
- News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU
- In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics
- Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions
- Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion
- News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation
The Signpost: 22 May 2023
- In the media: History, propaganda and censorship
- Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"
- Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles
- Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
The Signpost: 5 June 2023
- News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea
- Featured content: Poetry under pressure
- Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye
Unconstructive template editing
Template:Infobox weather event/meteorology is, as the documentation indicates, a template for meteorological data. Template:Infobox weather event/Effects is for storm effects. I'm surprised that you think adding casualties and affected areas as part of meteorological data is proper use of the template, especially when the two is only used (incorrectly) by Template:Infobox weather event/Tornado family (only used on a single page), and only due to your changes (1, 2). Polluting templates with unnecessary parameters make them unmaintainable and disorganized; this was the exact issue that {{Infobox weather event}} aimed to resolve with previous boxes. As the /Tornado family template has been updated to remove use of the parameters and re-aligned with existing infoboxes and 1974 Super Outbreak has been corrected to use the proper templates, they are essentially obsolete.
In the future, communicate before making changes, especially on a template used on over a thousand of pages and in a highly technical space that you don't seem to be that well-versed in, considering you didn't consider adding the /Effects box to the article in the first place. I'd be more than happy to execute these changes for you in a matter that takes into consideration the entire family of infoboxes, but only if you had at least made the effort to post on the talk page beforehand. Chlod (say hi!) 23:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:AN/I if you do not make constructive corrections. United States Man (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- A thanks would be appreciated. Chlod (say hi!) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm interested to know what "other pages" you speak of here. They are also likely using the templates incorrectly and against the documentation. Feed me a list. I'm willing to be the janitor that cleans this up for others. Chlod (say hi!) 23:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Chlod: Why would I thank you for your display of being the template czar. I now have to fix it all myself and use the more clunky box with the extra template because you refuse common sense. United States Man (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm interested to know what "other pages" you speak of here. They are also likely using the templates incorrectly and against the documentation. Feed me a list. I'm willing to be the janitor that cleans this up for others. Chlod (say hi!) 23:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- A thanks would be appreciated. Chlod (say hi!) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 June 2023
- News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing
- Featured content: Content, featured
- Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics
Is the day of the week necessary?
I’m not going to be adding the day of the week to pre-1950 tornado charts. Too much work to Google things like “What day of the week was February 12, 1945” all the time. It seems to add unnecessary steps. When copy/pasting it isn’t that bad. But when you are creating the charts from scratch, it becomes just unnecessary and time-consuming work. In fact, the copy/editor who had the idea for the new tornado chart actually questioned why the header “List of confirmed tornadoes…” was even on the charts. I’m ok with them there, but like, do we seriously need the day of the week in the header? It doesn’t really add anything and it 100% get’s overlooked for most readers since everyone isn’t looking at the day of the week, but rather the date and the tornado intensity. Just a thought, why don’t we just remove the day of the week? WeatherWriter (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Eh. I don't really support removing it. If you don't want them on the pre-1950s stuff, fine. But, we should keep the rest of it consistent. United States Man (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you consider not a “niche”?
In the AfDs, you said tornadoes causing more than $1 million in damage was too “niche”. What is not too “niche” for you? $100 million? $1 billion? If these actually get deleted, this will set the precedent of absolutely no tornado costliest list besides the current top 10. That is it. I’m taking the costliest AfDs slightly personal now since you haven’t nominated List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes for being too niche or List of costliest tornadoes in the Americas for being too niche and violating the RfC which you wanted. So…What is not a “niche” damage total for you? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 July 2023
- Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia
- Featured content: Incensed
- Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?
WikiCup 2023 July newsletter
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
- Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
- Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.
Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
The Signpost: 17 July 2023
- In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia
- Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)
- Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!
- Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
The Signpost: 1 August 2023
- News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server
- In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change
- Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!
- Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!
- In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia
- Opinion: Are global bans the last step?
- Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July
- Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party
THANK YOU
I don't know where you've been but trying to manage everything by myself (as the main editor that is) has been EXTREMELY difficult. Thank you. If you could help with refs on the list pages, I would greatly appreciate it. ChessEric 02:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's definitely been getting off the rails lately. Another sockpuppet it seems... United States Man (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigations/Tornadoesarecool13
- Hi United States Man,
- It's Tornadofan2.0, I am not Sockpuppet. I do not know who this person is and I have nothing to do with him/her.
- Thank you for your understanding!
- Regards,
- Tornadofan2.0 Tornadofan2.0 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Severe weather outbreak of April 19-20, 2023
Hello United States Man. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of
The Signpost: 15 August 2023
- News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects
- Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them
- Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing
- Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether
- Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed
- Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
A kitten for you!
idk if u had any bad days this month but have a kitty to get rid of those days, also ur cool united states man
Lolkikmoddi (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Apology
Hey United States Man. I wanted to apologize for my reverts on 1973 Central Alabama tornado. I was out of line. I’m very glad I caught myself before getting too hot-headed. I’m still working on that part of my character. I’ve been told multiple times to start discussions when someone disagrees and I failed to do that on the tornado’s article. I hope you accept my apology and we can move forward with the appropriate discussions, given we disagree. I hope you have a good day. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 August 2023
- From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online
- News and notes: You like RecentChanges?
- In the media: Taking it sleazy
- Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia
- Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties
- Humour: The Dehumourification Plan
- Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday
WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
- Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
- Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
- Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)
I appreciate your edit on 2013 Moore tornado
Hey United States Man! I wanted to thank you for this edit to the image on
Continued issues with User:WeatherWriter
@Jason Rees and Jasper Deng: Pinging you since I can see you've tried to talk to him before. Frequently when I review my watchlist, I see the need to go behind and cleanup articles in several areas. Some of those have been edited by WeatherWriter, to which he generally takes offense to me editing anything he has touched, even when I provide policy to support changes. I was recently accused by him at Wikipedia talk:No original research of removing information after a discussion was started: "All of a sudden, when a question was posed here, you decided to remove it as being OR, prior to a discussion even getting answered. Like whatelse are we to think, given the mass deletion spree, on top of removing it coincidentally just after this discussion was started...". The "mass deletion" he refers to was a single edit I made to Tornado records to remove information that wasn't supported by a reliable source. I was accused of making the edit after the discussion was started, although I had actually made the edit well before the discussion, and proper attention to that fact was not paid. I believe the user was previously told to utilize common sense when editing, but that apparently hasn't helped. United States Man (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Really. :( I had just complimented you (actually minutes before this) about solving a situation we disagreed on... I'm trying to work with you, but it seems we don't agree on anything. I'm attempting to follow a 0RR or 1RR pattern, hence the start of the discussion on WP:OR's talk page, which was done completely in compliance with a 0RR situation from 1999 Loyal Valley tornado, which can be seen in the article contribution history. I was mis-informed about the accusations, which I appologized for and quickly struckthrough my comments as well as thanked your comment pointing out my error. Then before you ping other people here, I compliment you for solving a problem we disagreed with. Well done...As promised to both Jason Rees and Jasper Deng, I will not apologize for starting discussions after discussions for disagreements to help solve a 0RR and 1RR situation. Should I not compliment you anymore when we come to a solution, because that is how I'm feeling right now? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I know you mean well, but I don't understand why you continually back out, apologize, and compliment me after you get proven wrong. It has been happening on that same cycle for years. I didn't really take that comment above as sincere because you had previously tried to send me a warning to make a WP:POINT. You tend to get so caught up in fighting others that you fail to realize that maybe they actually know what they are doing. United States Man (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, regarding the tornado speeds, you may not know it, but Storm Data is literally riddled with hundreds errors, especially pre-2005. By including forward speeds based on times and lengths, without being explicitly stated, we could be inadvertently providing false information on Wikipedia. Another issue is that Storm Data doesn't account for curvature in the path, instead using only a start and end point and an interpolation between for the path length. In old data, that can lead to a listed path length that doesn't match the actual path, thus messing up any self-calculation that is made using those numbers. United States Man (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- (WP:POINT, but rather to tell you the NWS source where the image came from didn't have any mention of it entering Moore. That's all it was. That was why I complimented you after you fixed it. That's all it was. I wasn't trying to make a point. As a promise to Jason Rees and Jasper Deng, I am working to follow a 0RR and 1RR lifestyle. This means starting discussions after discussions. When you chanrged it originally, I reverted, trying to say it was an OR violation, given NWS didn't say it was taken when entering Moore. I was coming here to do the basic OR level 1 template, which is friendly, where I could explain the situation out. As I was typing that out, you re-reverted it. Even despite you calling my actual attempt to communicate with you "spam", I complimented you for fixing the error. That's legit all it was. I burned a lot of bridged in the last few months, but I seriously am trying to slowly build them back. That is all it is. I don't expect you to think I'm sincere overnight, but I do hope we can work through situations and discussions, since we will probably interact in a lot of them, given our differing viewpoints. But for real, I am working to follow 0RR and 1RR, which is what I did on 2013 Moore tornado, Tornado records, and 1999 Loyal Valley tornado, which we disagreed on today. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- You did make me feel bad now, because like I said, I know you mean well. I just wish you'd understand that maybe not every single fact and information tidbit belongs on Wikipedia. It isn't an exhaustive fact sheet. United States Man (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, don't feel bad. I should have paid more attention to edit time stamps before commenting. For that, I am sorry. I would like to say I do recognize not every little fact belongs in a Wikipedia article. In the last 2 weeks, there are several things I did not open a discussion on, which was reverted (from you or others). The few things I did open a discussion on were ones I felt needed discussed. That's part of a discussion, which is where editors talk about whether or not something is useful for an article, i.e. following WP:SILENCE. I sort of want to know how to best discuss items with you. Would you prefer discussions on the article's talk page or here? I don't want to spam you, nor do I want to make you annoyed/angry, but I just want to know how to discuss things with you, since both methods didn't seem to work before. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, don't feel bad. I should have paid more attention to edit time stamps before commenting. For that, I am sorry. I would like to say I do recognize not every little fact belongs in a Wikipedia article. In the last 2 weeks, there are several things I did not open a discussion on, which was reverted (from you or others). The few things I did open a discussion on were ones I felt needed discussed. That's part of a discussion, which is where editors talk about whether or not something is useful for an article, i.e. following
- You did make me feel bad now, because like I said, I know you mean well. I just wish you'd understand that maybe not every single fact and information tidbit belongs on Wikipedia. It isn't an exhaustive fact sheet. United States Man (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I know you mean well, but I don't understand why you continually back out, apologize, and compliment me after you get proven wrong. It has been happening on that same cycle for years. I didn't really take that comment above as sincere because you had previously tried to send me a warning to make a
- Just popping in to say that I have seen this conversation and will respond when i get more time and I'm more awake.Jason Rees (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey United States Man, I do have a question. In your first message here, you said that you review your watchlist to go clean-up different articles. I do the same often (with my watchlist having over 8,000 articles). Today, the first edit you made was on 1999 Loyal Valley tornado, which was started today. If I may ask politely, do you watch my contributions? I'm asking because your watchlist, in theory, would not have contained that article, given it was created a little less than 3 hours before you edited it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter: While I cannot comment as to if @United States Man: watches your contributions, I will say that we all get notices such as a link was made from X to Y. I will also state that I have been trying to keep an eye on your contributions but failing miserably due to time pressures.Jason Rees (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey United States Man, I do have a question. In your first message here, you said that you review your watchlist to go clean-up different articles. I do the same often (with my watchlist having over 8,000 articles). Today, the first edit you made was on 1999 Loyal Valley tornado, which was started today. If I may ask politely, do you watch my contributions? I'm asking because your watchlist, in theory, would not have contained that article, given it was created a little less than 3 hours before you edited it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: Case modified by motion
This motion does not affect you and you can safely ignore and/or remove this message. You're receiving this notification because you had been a party to the case.
In the
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, United States Man. Thank you for your work on
Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 September 2023
- In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?
- Obituary: Nosebagbear
- Featured content: Catching up
- Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic
The Signpost: 3 October 2023
- News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published
- Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"
- Featured content: By your logic,
- Poetry: "The Sight"
The Signpost: 23 October 2023
- News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?
- In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the original collaborative writing
- Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images to make massive improvements
- Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!
- Traffic report: The calm and the storm
- News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes
WikiCup 2023 November newsletter
The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-
- BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
- Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
- Epicgenius with 1518 points
- MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
- BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
- AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
- Sammi Brie with 520 points
- Unlimitedlead with 5 points
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.
- Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
- MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
- Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
- MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
- BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
- Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
- LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
- MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
- Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
- Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.
The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 November 2023
- Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015
- In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man
- Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023
- News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia
- Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
- Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.
- Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare
The Signpost: 20 November 2023
- In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup
- News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health
- Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads
- Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom
- Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships
Disambiguation link notification for November 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
United States Man (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I see User:WeatherWriter has been unblocked and allowed to edit again. I request the same for my account as there seems to be no difference in the original behavior in both of us. I have no interest in re-engaging in that topic anyway and would prefer editing in different areas. United States Man (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I think that's fair. The block notice says "on multiple articles", but WeatherWriter was also edit warring on the same article. I didn't realize that you two were edit warring also on
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- You gotta see this! Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Abuse of processs by Wikipedia administrators regarding Andrew5 and Long Island based IP addresses interested in weather and baseball. I am alerting you since, I kid you not, you were impersonated by United States Stan, who set their message to look like it came from you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Either desperation has set it, or he’s doing it all for amusement. United States Man (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 December 2023
- In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns
- Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"
- Comix: Bold comics for a new age
- Essay: I am going to die
- Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence
- Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain
- Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies
Happy Holidays!
Hello United States Man: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ChrisWx 🎄 (Happy holidays!) 20:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2023
- Special report: Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?
- News and notes: The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023
- In the media: Consider the humble fork
- Discussion report: Arabic Wikipedia blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI
- In focus: Liquidation of Wikimedia RU
- Technology report: Dark mode is coming
- Recent research: "LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less" with Wikidata
- Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols
- Comix: Lollus lmaois 200C tincture
- Crossword: when the crossword is sus
- Traffic report: What's the big deal? I'm an animal!
- From the editor: A piccy iz worth OVAR 9000!!!11oneone! wordz ^_^
- Humour: Guess the joke contest
Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 January 2024
- From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!
- Special report: Public Domain Day 2024
- Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit
- News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!
- WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine
- Obituary: Anthony Bradbury
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023
- Comix: Conflict resolution
The Signpost: 31 January 2024
- News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
- Opinion: Until it happens to you
- Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
- Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"
- Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down