User talk:WeatherWriter

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Nomination of List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars 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 tornadoes observed by mobile radars 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.

Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

File you uploaded as fair use is actually a free image

Just letting you know that File:2024 vandalism of Stonehenge.png is actually under an Attribution license on their google drive, so I uploaded File:Vlcsnap at 0010-VIDEO 19062024 JustStopOil Stonehenge.png to Commons. - Sebbog13 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

Hi. Another editor already removed the information you added to this article; they considered it a BLP violation and I agree with them. Please be much more careful with BLP information, and more discerning regarding sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: What edit is this referring to? I don't even remember editing that article? It isn't even on my watchlist, so I must not have edited it recently. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, now I really am confused. Looking back, I edited the article two times on January 3, 2024. My first edit (still exists), was reverted by an IP-address user who reverted that addition as their very first edit on Wikipedia. My reversion to restore the material is what was removed and what I presume this is regarding? Due to the mass removal, I am not even sure when it was removed, but the first large removal seemed to be April 23, 2024.

So yeah, I sort of want an explanation for this accusation, since as far as I can tell, an edit I made (which still exists in the article history) back on January 3, 2024 was not reverted until late-April 2024 (meaning it had silent consensus), and I get an alert over six months later that you agreed with the IP user and then you remove only one of the two additions of the information from the article history? Honestly, without some timeline and overall clarifications, I am just going to disregard this entire alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Disregarding it would be foolish. You added some incident based on what appears to be a social media shaming site, which identified someone and mentioned the school they graduated from. You had a second source--a tweet, now apparently deleted. Those are not valid sources for a BLP, and the alleged assailant shouldn't have been identified in this way. But thank you for pointing out that you had already inserted that material: I revdeleted your first edit as well. The IP was correct. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply and additional explanation. I won’t fully disregard this. However, it does seem odd that this is the first time I’m hearing about this in over six months. Like, really odd. I don’t feel the need to escalate this, but to me, it feels somewhat like administration overreach. What went overall unchanged for months was just suddenly deleted and 100% removed from the article history, with 0 talk page discussions or alerts for over half a year. Something honestly just doesn’t feel right, but whatever. I don’t edit that article anyway. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not the first time: this was the first--which you undid without a by your leave. So you were alerted but chose not to address the problem. This was the second, though you weren't technically alerted to it. Both edit summaries were valid. No, it's not odd for something to go unnoticed for a while. Removing BLP violations by revdeletion is something we admins do routinely. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado

The article 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado and Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado

The article 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado for comments about the article, and Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I hope you aren't disappointed by the FAC, no matter what ends up happening. You have created a resource that is already one of the best ones available online, no? And it's just one article out of thousands (if not many more!) I hope you got good experience out of working on it. Certain types of articles are easier to get featured, like the ones that have a lot more information. By writing the article, you also helped provide coverage for an older historical event, and you should be proud that you did that. Please don't feel defeated. I think you're a valuable contributor, and I hope that we can continue working together to make this the best damn weather encyclopedia that ever existed! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Hurricanehink! You really did a lot to help improve the accuracy of the article as well by reviewing the FAC. I appreciate the words of encouragement, because I really was feeling down. I really appreciate the really detailed review. As you said, we are working to make the best thing we can, and it takes all of us to do that! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. You also have the unfortunate task of working on something that not a lot of people have written about. Storms like Hurricane Katrina have the opposite problem, almost too much information. Sometimes older storms fall into the realm of "well it's probably important enough" but it might be a bit of a niche local event. I have to commend you for doing something from so long ago. Often, those topics get ignored. But you know my pitch, that we need to have yearly articles going back at least to 1900, to get a better sense of it all. Crazy even that there isn't even a Tornadoes of 1945 for you to link the tornado outbreak article to! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)