User talk:AJ1399

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, AJ1399! Thank you for your contributions. I am ԱշոտՏՆՂ and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Template:Miami weatherbox, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Template:Miami weatherbox, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Miami weatherbox. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miami normals

No, the previous numbers are what are used by NWS climatology reports and the vast majority of media outlets, and can be arrived by:

The Observed Weather tab → 1. Monthly Weather Summary → 2. Miami → 3. Choose the month (this is the result for last month):

<quote> ...THE MIAMI CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2016...

CLIMATE NORMAL PERIOD 1981 TO 2010 CLIMATE RECORD PERIOD 1895 TO 2016

WEATHER OBSERVED NORMAL DEPART LAST YEAR`S

                VALUE   DATE(S)  VALUE   FROM    VALUE
                                         NORMAL

............................................................. TEMPERATURE (F) RECORD

HIGH              96   04/26/2015
                       04/30/1971
                       54/01/2206
LOW               39   04/14/1940

HIGHEST 91 04/02 96 LOWEST 65 04/10 66

                       04/06

AVG. MAXIMUM 83.9 83.2 0.7 86.6 AVG. MINIMUM 70.2 68.3 1.9 74.1 MEAN 77.1 75.8 1.3 80.4 DAYS MAX >= 90 1 7 DAYS MAX <= 32 0 0 DAYS MIN <= 32 0 0 DAYS MIN <= 0 0 0 </quote>

The link you gave → 1. Location: "Miami Area" or "Miami Intl Ap, FL" → 2. Product: "Daily/monthly normals" → 3. Use default Options
The FTP text source given. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson climate

Don't tell me on my Talk page. Edit it yourself. :) Bellagio99 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. El_C 01:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

El_C 01:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. El_C 01:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan Institute of Virology Article

Hello.

If I properly cite my sources will by contribution to the article be allowed to stand?

Thanks!

No, it is original research and fringe material. It will not be allowed to stand. El_C 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that's it's fringe material is your opinion, I did state that at this point the allegations are indeed speculation but the Washington Post and Forbes are both considered to be reputable sources of informations by various fact-checkers and media watchdogs.

As the uninvolved admin, who is invoking Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, I deem it to be synthesis. You may attempt to gain consensus on the article talk page, however. El_C 01:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can tone down the parts that, yes, I agree, could be construed as synthesis. I'm not demanding that the form of the article I published must be reinstated, I just think it's important that the opening paragraph of the article at least mentions these serious allegations and the facts behind them.

Again, please feel free to secure consensus for your changes on the article talk page. Perhaps other contributors can help refine these. El_C 01:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for your input.

Just wanted to follow up. What a difference a few days make! It is now no longer a conspiracy theory, but just a theory whose due weight has been noted accordingly: Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#Concerns_as_source. Once again, I appreciate the patience you've exhibited. El_C 00:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]