User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 5

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.

Project consensus has always been to use only the RSMC pressure in the current infobox, distinct from the permanent infobox. Please stop changing the pressure from JMA’s value. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Note for archival purposes in the future. I do not acknowledge that I was involved in any “edit war” on Typhoon Mawar and this template feels targeted as the other editor, who I only reverted a single time, did not provide any edit summary for their initial revert & did not receive an alert from Jasper Deng for being involved in an “edit war”. For those reasons, I choose to disregard this alert from Jasper Deng and will treat it like it was never sent.

talk

) 21:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You cannot

ignore other editors’ concerns so that attitude is not acceptable. The warning is warranted because of your history of reverting without discussion and disregarding consensus. The other editor does not have such an extensive history and is in any case enforcing the prevailing projectwide consensus. In this particular situation I am convinced you would have reverted more had the other editor reverted again; intent to revert is also part of the definition of edit warring. The three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts, so if your behavior suggests continued intent to revert, it constitutes edit warring as well.—Jasper Deng (talk)

21:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

talk

) 21:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

“I must have done nothing wrong because my most recent edits are good” is not a valid excuse or argument”. The point is that your conduct on that article is not acceptable because you are edit warring against the projectwide consensus that the

Wikipedia is not about winning so there is no requirement for me to warn the other user as well. Your only recourse is to follow established Wikipedia processes.—Jasper Deng (talk)

21:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well in that case, please do not remove the factual accuracy disputed template from the article since there is two separate

talk

) 21:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I did remove it, because it contravenes the standing

WT:WPTC or drop it. —Jasper Deng (talk)

21:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Stick dropped. I acknowledge the consensus, but believe there is a content accuracy dispute in the article and you are basically forcing one to be there. Whatever though. Take your consensus/borderline

talk

) 21:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Elijahandskip reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: ). Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

talk

) 22:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I am leaving it open because while I appreciate that you are dropping the stick on this instance, there's no evidence you are going to refrain from continuing the overall chronic pattern of edit warring. There has to be accountability: you cannot just edit war and then, as soon as you're reported, cry "I dropped the stick! Nothing more!". It doesn't negate the disruption caused. Trust me, I hate bringing users to noticeboards, but you really need to reconsider your behavior and approach to content disputes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hope you realize mentioning the discussion prior to the noticeboard would have stopped it right then and there. Either way, with all due respect, please don't interact with me any further. I will not interact with you any further. Have a good day!

talk

) 00:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This young man is a stubborn person who refuses to use his brain to perceive right or wrong as well as always wants to be the right person despite the fact that he is seriously wrong. Vệ Thần ^{- Talk} 00:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

talk

) 00:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• A "bare URL and 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

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Weather of 2023, 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

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Weather of 2023, 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

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

• A "bare URL and 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

The redirect Tornado and tornado outbreaks has been listed at

I've recently put significant effort into expanding the article on the 1996 Oakfield tornado outbreak. It was previously just a stub, and I felt that such a significant event warranted a more detailed and informative article. Now that I've made these additions, I'm hoping to get some assistance with reviewing and fact-checking the content. I've done my best to ensure accuracy and conform to Wikipedia's standards, but I think it would be beneficial to have another set of eyes, especially from someone with a background in meteorology and Wikipedia editing. I'm aiming to ensure this article aligns with the quality of other F5/EF5 tornado articles. Any feedback you or other members of the WikiProject Weather could provide would be invaluable. If you have the time and are willing to help, I'd be very grateful.

I'm looking forward to your response and to becoming more involved in the Wikipedia community. Xelapilled (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey. You changed your name. WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ANYBODY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? XD ChessEric 00:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello WeatherWriter,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The

WT:NPPR

when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at

AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed

, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at

draftspace is optional

, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own

WP:ARTIST

4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this
  short poll
  about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hi, there seems to be an issue with the following line in User:WeatherWriter/Verifiability, not truth in action: "...stated a tornado was caused more damaged than...". Maybe it is supposed to say "stated a tornado caused more damage than"? -sche (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

As a best practice, it is best to keep the header the same when converting the tables (i.e. "List of confirmed tornadoes – Thursday, June 1, 2023"). Thanks, United States Man (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need the day of the week? The date, sure, but the day of the week seems like an easy error point when doing copy/pasting to convert the charts. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If you are copy/pasting, then how would there be an error? If you don't feel like you have the ability to accomplish the job without errors, then maybe don't make changes? The current day/date format is consistent across most tables, so no need to change it. United States Man (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I reverted those changes for now because of issues with the column headers that appear to have been overlooked as well as the unnecessary bolding of the ratings. I bring up further discussion on WP Weather talk. United States Man (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for your work in updating the tornado table format on the latest tornado lists! ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 03:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello WeatherWriter,

The

New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed

. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 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/List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 (2nd nomination) 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) 02:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of costliest tornadoes in 2023 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/List of costliest tornadoes in 2023 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) 02:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I am not familiar with the weather-related RfC whose outcome has you so upset, but the combination of (1) announcing you are retired, (2) stating that you are going to be a pain for everyone, and (3) going through lots of articles removing information, smacks of disruptive point-making. I don't see anything in the RfC saying that all these figures need to be removed overnight. Please reconsider this approach. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Newyorkbrad. In the RfC, it was stated, “Costliness of a tornado must have a reliable secondary source attributed to the fact…Editors should reference a non-NOAA secondary source…”. In an ongoing AfD, Conyo14 stated that we should, “Provide the source they [being NOAA] get from”. NCEI, NWS, and SPC all fall under NOAA. Basically, the RfC and that ongoing AfD have confirmed that all NOAA damage totals must be supported by a secondary reliable source. I explain that almost all damage totals come from NOAA, but that doesn’t change the RfC’s conclusion that they still must be supported. So, even though I’m “retired” (noting I added that template a few minutes ago), nothing stops me from just making sure the articles follow the RfC’s conclusion, which is that damage totals from NOAA must have a secondary source. An example of this would be Hurricane Ian, which has sources saying the NOAA damage total. If no one but NOAA says the damage total, it cannot be on Wikipedia. When I mean “be a pain”, I meant I’ll be annoying while listening to what everyone “wanted”, which was removing NOAA damage totals not supported by RS. Hope that explains what happened and such. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: What do you mean by they all don’t need to be removed in 1 night? The RfC was back in April/May 2023. These articles have been violating its conclusion for months. Removing them is the solution. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: The RfC does not give the conclusion you are working off. The result of the RfC was that we cannot say that an individual tornado is the Xth costliest because NOAA has an unreliable way of counting tornado damage and doesn't actually rank them. This is completely separate from NOAA's recordkeeping of tropical cyclone damage and needing a backup source. All of the edits you made need to be undone. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Just saw the above discussion... and my sentiment is the same. Your current course of action is incorrect and just removing perfectly valid information. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on your reaction, then there is 0 reason to delete List of costliest tornadoes in 2022. Uses “valid” information. Whatever. I tried to listen to what y’all demand per that RfC then say I’m wrong. I’m done with this. I will fight tooth and nail with everything y’all have said…now that a bunch of y’all have admitted NOAA data is perfectly fine on Wikipedia. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

All your content removals have been reverted. I suggest you cease and desist. I also suggest that you step back and take a break and employ a little bit more thought into your editing instead of the windshield wiper effect. United States Man (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And you should stop targeting lists with, what y’all just said, is perfectly valid information and sources that I create… The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The whole reason the lists are in question is because you're applying meaning to the values that isn't presented in the source. That's literally what the RfC result concluded: do not state an event was the "Xth costliest" unless the source corroborates that claim. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 implies that something is "Xth costliest" then I'm going to nominate List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes for deletion under the same principle. The March version of the list for sure violated that RfC's outcome...But there is no way in hell a person can claim a list of tornadoes with a damage total over $1 million, ordered in chrolological order, says a tornado is "Xth costliest". The hurricane list is worse since it actually organized them in order of NOAA damage totals from highest to least. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with the way data is presented in either list. Listing hurricanes by cost is simple math that falls under WP:CALC. It is not specifically referring to them as 1st, 2nd, 3rd (like the original RfC list) unless specifically designated as such by NOAA. I have not yet commented on that AfD, but any opposition I have would probably be based on notability, not list presentation. I'm not sure how notable a $1M threshold is. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think making further disruptive edits after having been advised by four users to cool off is a wise move. United States Man (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And I'm advising you to back off as well. That RfC which you demanded has caused more problems than if you had just left NOAA damage totals alone USM. I'm going to leave for tonight. If and or when that costliest tornado list is deleted, that hurricane list will go as well to AfD since it follows the same damn principle y'all are saying that list of tornadoes follows. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit and Wxtrackercody: The continued vulgar language and accusations of "targeting" by this user may be grounds for an AN/I discussion that could go as far as a topic ban. United States Man (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I'm sorry for being upset. From this moment forward, I will never bring up costliest disaster lists ever again. I'm going to retire for a while and take the advice a user gave me a while ago to try to get someone to adopt me. I tried to get adopted a while ago, but no one wished to adopt me. I will go back to the pre-1950 tornado lists. I'm tired of debating. I get heated in debates so quickly, hence the advice of adopt-a-user. I'm retiring for a while, so I won't be editing for a long time. When I come back though, I'll be in the pre-1950 tornadoes section. Peace y'all. Here is my formal retiring announcement. If any of y'all would wish to adopt me in the future (whenever I decide to come back - month or more from now), please leave a message on my talk page. I may even use the Wikiaholic lock-account feature to ensure retirement for a while. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

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.Jason Rees (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate it. I know I am hot-headed. That is the issue which has caused me problems for years on Wikipedia. After reading the advice you gave me last month, I thought about it for a while and maybe had a solution to help guide me. Jason Rees, you have been editing way longer than I have. I’ll say what I thought, at least during my June 2023 break, would help, but I truly do not know what the solution is, so please guide me.

The idea I had come up with was: For discussions I encounter, I would send any reply I wanted to send to you. All I would want is guidance on helping me make sure the replies first and foremost, aren’t hot-headed. But, ultimately, I want guidance to help make sure I’m not misinterpreting any policies or as I recently did, discussion consensus’. Understanding the policies, along with stopping hot-headed replies, I think would have solved most of the problems I have encountered throughout the last 3+ years of editing.

That was what I came up with for any mentorship I got during my break last month. I truly do not know if that ideology is the best. But, you have way more experience that me. I want your guidance. What do you think is the best course of action for me to take? I know I’m on probably my very last chance before a complete topic-block or complete ban from editing Wikipedia and I do not want that to happen. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply its been one of those days and i was to knackered to respond last night. As you correctly noted I have been editing Wikipedia for several years now, but i still get wound up or give heated responses to things from time to time. As a result one of the best things i find is to just walk away from Wiki at times and do other things. For example im researching my family tree. I would also query how your college work is going? Anyway sending your replies to me isn't a bad idea, however, keeping them brief and not jumping to conclusions is probably a better one. Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Word of advice. Tread very carefully with your userpage. In particular I am not sure its appropiate to be calling out trolls/vandalism or inviting people to ask you questions about the weather on your talk page.Jason Rees (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Thank you for the advice. Yeah, it 100% isn’t a good idea to call someone a troll or vandal, so I deleted that section. I also went ahead and replaced the part about asking weather questions with 2 userboxes. Thank you for the head’s up and advice. <3 The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Figured I pop in over here to let you know you can trout me as needed. My tornado experience is limited to growing up in southern ct in the 80s. Took until now for me to consider dipping my toes into treating them as a weather pattern instead of a terror! ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 09:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You were right, it was not the user's own work. See [2] and the page it was contained on (about halfway down). Wes sideman (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions 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/List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions 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) 12:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Storm Prediction Center mesoscale discussion 329 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/Storm Prediction Center mesoscale discussion 329 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) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

2023 Desert Southwest floods 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/2023 Desert Southwest floods 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) 06:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

You really need to pick your battles and your comments more carefully as you are starting to come across, as a baby throwing their toys out of their pram over this primary source thing and are I feel contradicting yourself.Jason Rees (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. To be fair, this started with me doing the first step of

WP:FAR for Hurricane Walaka, which was for a small message on the article talk page and then give two-weeks for changes to be made. I honestly didn’t expect Hurricane Noah to take it straight to a large talk-page discussion (basically circumventing the 2-week thing that is suppose to happen). I truly just don’t think it should be FAR material. I’m not going to comment any further in the large talk page discussion on FAR since it honestly shouldn’t have been a thing, but nonetheless, it was started. I’m not sure what you want me to say here, cause I still do believe it shouldn’t be a FA, but the whole process that I wanted to do slowly and learn about (hence my question to you and Hurricane Noah) got blown out of proportion and taken to a large talk page discussion. It does feel dumb thought because I genuinely wanted to learn the process for and do a FAR. But, like you said, I basically picked the wrong article to learn the process on. Well, guess I can’t even do/learn the process without contradicting myself. Either way, thanks for the advice and I’m not continuing that dumb and way-over complicated “battle” anymore. I’ll try to watch the FAR stuff for Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean since that process with started by two other editors earlier this month and try to learn the process that way. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)

01:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

In the future, I should probably ask another editor (like yourself) before starting something that has the potential to blow out of proportion like this did. It wasn’t my intention, but I guess I need to read-up on more policies and such. I was trying to make a policy-based argument, but like you said, I was contradicting myself. Jason Rees, what policies do you think I need to read-up on? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

From now on, I don't want you to start any talk page conversations that are likely to be controversial, jumps to a conclusion, criticizes anyones work or tries to enforce Wikipedia policy without reference to me since I am your mentor not @Jasper Deng:. I also feel that you need to avoid reading any policies for now, but instead, get your hands dirty by developing an article on a subject that everyone agrees is notable (eg a TC that has had its name retired). That way we can teach you about how we use primary and secondary sources as well as the process required for Good and Featured articles.Jason Rees (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Prior to your message, I had created and had recently submitted Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 to see if it qualified as a Good Article. I got it to B class, so I think that would be the best way for me to learn the process. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I would review it but its out of my area of expertise.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk

The article Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 for comments about the article, and Talk:Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, WeatherWriter. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is LoveHop123. I saw that you invited me to the WikiProject of Weather. I don't know how to join. Can you help me? Thank you so much. Appreciate it. User talk:LoveHop123 02:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey LoveHop123! So to join the WikiProject, you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather#Current members, and you just add your signature (~~~~) at the bottom of the page with a # in front of it. So it would like like #~~~~. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you see real quick if I did it correctly? Thanks. LoveHop123 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep! You did it correctly! You are now a member of WikiProject Weather! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. User talk:LoveHop123 02:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

your the goat of weather (you are epic)

Lolkikmoddi (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Invest 93L has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26 § Invest 93L until a consensus is reached. United States Man (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Invest 93L (2023) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26 § Invest 93L (2023) until a consensus is reached. United States Man (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Tonight I was extremely disappointed to come home from a massive week of work and find that you have potentially breached Wikipedias 3 revert rule just because of 7 media articles that tell you a state of emergency has been declared for a number of counties because of 93L. You need to stop overreacting to what the media does as being pointy when others point you in the right direction as its gotten you in trouble twice this week. Jason Rees (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:UNDUE policy right now. It really just annoys me that I have a double standard. I can’t get linked to any discussions/policies we use, and yet, get blasted because I don’t know them by heart already. Either way, it is probably best for me to just forget the whole policy thing. I’m never going to be able to learn or understand anything. All I can apparently do…erm well not even do properly…is create historical tornado articles from 50+ years ago. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)

22:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing that is getting you in trouble isn't taht you don't know the policy's of by heart but your lack of common sense. Why should we include a tropical disturbance amd go against what NHC and others include as a part of the season just because of a state of emergency for parts of Florida and a lot of media attention? I should also note that we do include tropical disturbances in the SHEM, since they are numbered and included as a part of the season.Jason Rees (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This episode, if anything, illustrates profoundly the need for a 0RR/1RR hybrid restriction for you, WeatherWriter, enforceable by block. Specifically, as I said here, 0RR with respect to your own edits (never restore an edit by yourself that was already reverted) or anyone else's reverts of any edit, and 1RR for others' edits that are not already reverts. It's a noble cause to advocate consistency, but not when it leads to clear edit warring.

I suggest you approach content disputes with a more open mind, and don't take it so hard on yourself when others point out precedents and policies to you. Others are trying to help you learn; however it is important that you think about the purposes of policies, which are a means to an end. --Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I am going to give a self-imposed 0RR guideline a try. In the past, I got called out for creating too many discussions, but, given the advice here, I plan to ignore any backlash I receive for starting discussions if I get reverted without a policy being mentioned or something being mentioned where I can go read up and work to understand the other editor's POV. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, if you are reverted that’s evidence of your content being under dispute so a discussion is proper in that case, unless you are trying to

beat a dead horse—always check for previous consensus whenever anything of yours is disputed before you open a discussion.—Jasper Deng (talk)

03:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I realize I never gave you a barnstar before. Thanks for all your hard work on weather-related articles! You've done great work so far. And yes, the yearly-tornado pages need some major work... Tails Wx 15:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: Thank you so much! <3 The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi WeatherWriter,

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)

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello WeatherWriter,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the

NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here

- it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet

WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more

, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023–24 European windstorm season, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and 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

2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel like speaking about it in an editing section, but give me a few moments to give you an actual source of how the EF4 rating was obtained for Ashby. It was not the machine shop. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I found the source. Machine shop & home were rated EF4 per the NWS webpage. I just fixed it in the article. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. Please take a look at this video made BY the survey team who surveyed the Ashby tornado. This specifically noted throughout this video that it was the home that was rated EF4, not the machine shop. They explain the survey process and how they earned the EF4 rating, and it was through the home. No where do they mention the machine shop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1mWb0rilDA Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ll take your word on it for now as I am not able to listen to it for a while. If the video truly says the machine shop was not rated EF4, then it needs to be noted that the machine was was originally rated EF4, then downgraded to EF3, given NWS said EF4 on the webpage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for listening, but I should also note that the site does say that it said it reached its peak intensity *after* it crossed Highway 82 and destroyed the machine shop quoted here: "It likely reached maximum EF-4 intensity *after* it crossed Highway 82 and destroyed a machine shop", they keyword here is after, not that it reached maximum EF-4 intensity as it crossed Highway 82 and destroyed a machine shop. After that was mentioned, it said "It then continued in a northeast direction and reached both maximum width and intensity as it moved into and across a rural homestead", meaning it really reached its maximum official intensity of EF4 as it reached the home, which was after the machine shop. The small keywords here are very important. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that the wording of "It likely reached maximum EF-4 intensity after it crossed Highway 82 and destroyed a machine shop" makes it sound like its saying it reached maximum intensity after crossing Highway 82, and then did EF-4 damage to the machine shop, but that's all one sentence, where it's really saying that it reached maximum intensity *after* crossing Highway 82 and hitting the machine shop. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain this revert? I removed that entry because it didn't actually provide any information on the conflict, and was instead simply a "declaration of a state of war," which is obvious from the fact that 5,000 missiles were fired at Israel. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It was mentioned by BNO News and now other media outlets. While it doesn't provide much information, it still provides some information, as it was a formal declaration of war (at least how BNO News reported it). Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave that there for now, although the sources didn't state it was a formal state of war. (Side note: entries at Current events are written in present tense.) Regards, Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, "Israel declares state of war", means declaration of war, which, by definition (first sentence of the Wiki article even) means it is formal. Also, thanks for the head's up about present tense. I'll keep that in mind going forward. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)