User talk:EF5/Archives/2024/July

A cup of tea for you!

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

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

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

Aircraft contributions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Caproni Ca 104.jpeg listed for discussion

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

Utva 212 image

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Utva 212.jpg

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ZLEA _T\^C 23:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Sources

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion of Caproni Ca.104

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

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

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

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Aircraft again: reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focke-Wulf W 4 moved to draftspace

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

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

Glenview GMP.I Flyride moved to draftspace

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

Texas Helicopters M-79T Hornet moved to draftspace

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

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

Silvercraft SH-200 moved to draftspace

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

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

Utva 212 moved to draftspace

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

Aero HC-3 moved to draftspace

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

Sending your articles to draft

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

Focke-Wulf W 7 moved to draftspace

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

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

Deletion of Bartel BM-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Silvercraft SH-200 (July 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rlandmann was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

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

Holy unsourced pages Batman!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CS1 error on NGC 5461

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

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

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

CS1 error on Downtown One

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

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

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

Theodor Buchhold -- multiple problems with sources and citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And at Downtown One

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

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

Theodor Buchhold moved to draftspace

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

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

Downtown One moved to draftspace

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Charlescityiatornadoaftermath2.jpg

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Charlescityiatornadoaftermath2.jpg listed for discussion

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

And a barnstar for you too!

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

versus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signature

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

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

License tagging for File:Screenshot 2024-07-14 10.13.39 PM.png

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

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

Your GA nomination of 1997 Jarrell tornado

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

Source problems with 1942 Aeroflot Tupolev ANT-20bis crash

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

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

Since this pattern of editing is very consistent and ongoing, I strongly recommend that you use the AfC process for any new substantial articles. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes Improvement Time!

Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.

There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!

If you wish to participate, please visit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to it as soon as possible (also something off-topic, I already see a massive uptick in tornado article (specifically F5 ones) pageviews view due to Twister 2 releasing tomorrow. Anyway, yeah, I'll get to it :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NGC 5278, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arp 239. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Arp 239 dab page

Saw your edit summary, and you did fine on the structure of the dab. Each entry should also have a brief description, which I've added. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback! I wasn't really sure exactly how to set one up, so some clarification definitely helped! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aero engines?

Quick question -- are you interested in aero engines at all? If so, I might have one for after the R-50 project. (And all good if this isn't your thing; no pressure) --Rlandmann (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

While aircraft motors and engines aren't really something that peaks my interest, I wouldn't mind taking a step back from the repetitive galaxy articles and trying something new! Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Noted; let's take a look further down the track, and like I said, if it turns out you're not interested, all fine. (I'm not 100% sure there's enough free material to make it viable anyway, but I'm about 90% sure!) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024

Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315 Online events: New: | Women in film and stage | Indigenous women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) | Translation contest 2024 (July, August, September) | Women in Sports (July, August) Announcements from other communities TBD Tip of the month: Check your athlete's notability before researching and creating her bio. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

AfC notification: Draft:2015 Garland tornado has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:2015 Garland tornado. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2015 Garland tornado has been accepted

2015 Garland 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 talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2013 Granbury tornado has been accepted

2013 Granbury 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 talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dan arndt (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to create List of IC Objects

Hi @Sir MemeGod, I know there is a List of NGC objects but there is no article about list of IC objects on Wikipedia. It would be nice for you to create a list for IC objects so both notable and non-notable IC galaxies, stars, nebulae and non-existent objects would be placed there. The list would be similar to the format of Lists of Stars in the New General Catalogue. This list can also be expanded when more IC subjects are added in. I've got two IC articles currently in the AFD discussion and that could be merged into the list as well. I hope you find the information useful. Thanks. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to it within this next week. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 06:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey there Galaxybeing! There are about 5,000 IC objects, so I physically can't even set this up. Sorry! (It'd be a website-breaking table). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I need some help...

In May 2024 you created the disambiguation page Arp 83. That created a bit of a problem at Template:Astronomical catalogs as that is now linking to this disambiguation page. I like to solve that but have no clue how. Can you have a look at it? (Or maybe call in the template experts?). Thanks in advance! The Banner talk 16:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I can fix it! Thanks for bringing it to my attention! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this template was a lot more complicated than I thought it would be. I'll see if I can get someone to help. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I can do a lot with fixing templates but this one was out of my league. And on top of that, my knowledge of astronomy is at best poor. The Banner talk 12:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Arp 84 is now giving the same problems. The Banner talk 08:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:2011 Lake Martin tornado has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:2011 Lake Martin tornado. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2016 Katie tornado (July 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2016 Katie tornado and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sir MemeGod! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2011 Lake Martin tornado has been accepted

2011 Lake Martin 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 talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)