User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:WeatherWriter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Elijahandskip. Thank you for creating List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2020–present). User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Just thought I'd give you this after seeing you have to revert the damage total for Hurricane Ian so many times. Keep up the good work! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much ChessEric! <3. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Your welcome! I don't get any, but I don't care. I like to give them out more anyway. Again, thanks for hard work! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Archiving

You might want to consider setting up your talk page for automatic archiving. You have almost 150 discussion headers here. You can see my talk page as an example. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Did I set the archive system up right? Still new to the bots on here, so I have no idea if I did it right. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I think so. It will take a little bit for the bot to come through iirc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoLGS (talk • contribs)

Your Teahouse response

I'm way behind, but I just saw this question where you stated that good articles were the best quality. I hope you know it's featured articles that are the highest quality.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey Vchimpanzee I do know that. I was referencing really anything higher than GA status, hence the “good/A+“ comment. Probably a slightly poor wording choice on my part, but WP Weather only had 1,300 ish articles that are GA or higher. That was the reference, rather than “GA” being the highest. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Is A+ another name for featured?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If you consider a “plus” to mean anything higher than the item being mentioned, then yes. Sorry for the poor choice of words. In the weather world, a “plus” means that or higher, so I used it when I shouldn’t have. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Elijahandskip. Thank you for your work on Tornadoes of 1946. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 20:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You beat me to it bro! XD

Me and Halls4521 were in the process of making articles for 1940–1949. I'll just merge some of the info in. For future reference, use the links below so that we don't have conflicting articles being made:

ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah got it! Lol. I honestly had no idea the articles were even being considered by others. For the future ones, I’ll edit those and once there is decent content in it, we can just move it into mainspace. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks man! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For the Tornadoes of 1946 article: There were (at least) 15 F4 tornadoes that year on 15 different days. Two official, and 13 estimated. Also, it looks like there were ≥71 deaths that year in the U.S., and >88 worldwide.--Halls4521 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion closure

Following your request I have closed the discussion at Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion#December 10 2021 TN/KY. ~~ Gusfriend (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Elijahandskip. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don't immediately move articles to the mainspace

It's kinda annoying, because then the outbreak might not get going and you just did a big flop. However, you did get lucky here. So yeah, just don't do that until we see if the outbreak got going/had significant tornadoes or not. Also, good job on the new articles like "Tornadoes of 1947". Poodle23 (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of got that from other reactions to the move. I am going back to my typical stonewall until absolute notability is proven, which is what I did with Hurricane Ian. I was a main reason it wasn’t moved into mainspace until after the Cuba landfall. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Poodle23 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I started a draft for today's possible tornado outbreak at Draft:Tornado outbreak of December 13–14, 2022. Poodle23 (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I created another draft here. If the outbreak isn't notable enough, i'll delete the draft, but for now, we can work on it. Poodle23 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I just posted a message about that on the talk page as well. A minimum of 3–4 editors should be needed on a consensus to move it into mainspace. In 2023, I’m going to be a pain for some editors, but it has to be done. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I also agree with you. "Multiple strong tornadoes" and "reported injuries" isn't enough for an instant move. Poodle23 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Southwest Ontario Tornado Outbreak of 1984

Man, I don't even know if this passes WP:GNG, WP:NEVENTS, or WP:NWEATHER. It didn't cause too much damage, most tornadoes were F3 or lower, and there's barely any sources out there. Though there are 30 injuries connected to one of the tornadoes. I was going to start on an AfD on this until I noticed the 30 injuries. May I hear your opinion on this article? Sarrail (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sarrail: Yeah, for sure does not pass anything to be an article. Rather than an AfD, a merge discussion into Tornadoes of 1984 would probably be best. The outbreak articles cites 0 sources, which is actually ok (not ideal, but seems to be standard practice sadly) for the larger tornadoes by year articles, since sources become more and more scarce the older it is and numerous things sources are now dead links. AfD would yield the same result as well with a merge in the end. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone's opened an AfD, but oddly, doesn't have an AfD discussion about it. We probably need a merge disccusion rather than an AfD, however. Tails Wx 01:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Hurricane Ian

Hey Elijahandskip. I was wondering if you had a recommendation about the statements from the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office. Back in early October, they claimed that there was two dozen deaths. Meanwhile, the Florida Medical Examiners Commission (FMEC) last report from weeks ago says that only nine people passed away due to the storm. The discrepancy is confusing, but it seems that the sheriff's office gave a misleading number and failed to correct it. I take it that we should just use the numbers from FMEC from this point forward for Charlotte County, but should we note the discrepancy in the infobox or in the text? Additionally, do you have a suggestion for how to handle the missing from the capsized boat? There was a boat with 27 people with 8 rescued, 7 reported deceased, and 12 still missing. Should we note that they are still listed as missing or leave it as it is in the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Christmas present for contributions at 2022 Atlantic hurricane season

		The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions at this season's article. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 00:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello Elijahandskip: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Sarrail (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Sarrail (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Late December 2022 North American winter storm

On 26 December 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Late December 2022 North American winter storm, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of December 2022 North American winter storm (disambiguation)

The article December 2022 North American winter storm (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page is not needed, as December 2022 North American winter storm now has a hat note pointing to Tornado outbreak of December 12–15, 2022#Non-tornadic impacts

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello WeatherWriter,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Elijahandskip, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

2022–2023 California floods reversion

You reverted my edit. Fine, but did you read my explanation on the talk page? This is hardly a death toll that will stand as a record for long, and its ranking as a deadly event on the global scale is not a meaningful part of the story. This is a local story. Statistics related to CA or the US might be important, but a global ranking that will surely be dwarfed by the next tropical cyclone to hit the West Pacific is really meaningless. Why do you thinki that is an important enough detail to be in the lede? Dcs002 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002: I hadn’t seen the talk page reasoning prior to reverting it. Honestly, I loved the new wording, but at the present time, it is the deadliest of 2023. Once it drops to number 2 (which it is bound to sometime probably in the next few weeks), we should change the wording back to not dwarf the significance of it. In my mind, while it is the deadliest of 2023, that is bigger than a local story. Once it drops to number 2, then the local story is most likely more significant. Hope my mindset made sense. Thanks for messaging, because in all honestly, I wouldn’t had checked the talk page for discussion until you messaged. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Just thought of something else to add on. While it probably won’t be the deadliest globally for long, the chance of a US event surpassing it in the foreseeable future is extremely small. Heck, to the bets of my knowledge, only the floods plus the Jan 12 tornado outbreak had direct meteorological deaths. Once it drops out of the worldwide total, maybe we should keep it set as the US deadliest event for 2023? Just a thought. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't see the importance of ranking it at all. 19 people were killed (or whatever the final number turns out to be). That stands on its own. Adding a ranking is an unnecessary distraction from the story, IMO. I don't think there should be a rank there at all. If we get toward the end of the year and the US hasn't had anything more deadly, it might be actually meaningful to add it then, if there's a RS verifying it as the deadliest weather event in the US, but to say anything is the worst of the year so far when we're just over two weeks into the year sounds competitive and silly to me. It's not encyclopedic, and I don't think it belongs in the article, let alone in the lede. That's my opinion. Dcs002 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Message received

Hello, I’ve received your message.

I see you redirected me to WP:ANI. I have reported the users that are targeting me to WP:ANI. At first I didn’t quite understand how it worked, but I think I figured it out. Anyhow, I’ve also sent an email to the Wikipedia headquarters as well, just incase. I’ve received a reply in which they stated that they are going to investigate the matter, and also advised me to go to WP:ANI.

The reason I put those messages on the talk page was because I wanted to warn others, so that they don’t become victims as well.

But for now I’m going to try and focus on improving Wikipedia articles, and hopefully Wikipedia is able to stop these spammers. 86.83.170.173 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Low 12U

Hello @Elijahandskip and sorry to bother you but does this [1] storm currently exist? The BoM currently does not note any active storms classified as that. If so, I will remove it. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 02:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Layah50! I tried to locate anything for an active Tropical Low 12U and was unable to find anything. Since that section doesn’t cite any sources, it is probably best to go ahead and remove it. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll remove it Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 04:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1970–1979)

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1970–1979), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1980–1989)

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1980–1989), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1990–1999)

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1990–1999), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Link to this stupid article deletion attempt

I forgot to ping you for this discussion. My bad. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Crap. Fram is the nominator. Be careful ChessEric because Fram and me go way back. He has point blank said I am not fit to edit Wikipedia and has attempted to say an admins decision to undo my politics tban many months ago should have been overturned because the admin “made a mistake” to him. Don’t go into a policy debate with Fram at any cost. I went ahead and added my !vote, but I’m staying out of the discussion to avoid Fram’s attention again, especially since I’ve asked him previously to not interact with me, so I’m not going to interact with him or the discussion beside that single Keep !vote. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)}

Pinging United States Man. Just wanting you to read the comment above. Be prepared for Fram to possibly drag this to a noticeboard in an attempt to delete all the tornado lists. I’m gonna stay out of this due to my past history from Fram. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I'm honestly getting sick and tired of editors trying to impose their will on a project that they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT. I'll avoid him from now on, but if he even THINKS of trying anything and coming after me, I WILL SKIN HIM ALIVE. It appears that there is a lot of evidence that points to Him being a bad editor and dude doesn't even have a user page (he redirected it to his talk page). Dude is all talk and no walk; he'll WISH he had left me alone. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Aye, sorry for coming here, but editor Ponyo has officialized his AfD for canvassing on you, Elijah. He argued with me that we, as a Wikiproject, are "imposing arbutrary rulings" on speceficiations within our Project articles, and I've tried to make him see otherwise, as most of us simply create articles that way because it is agreed upon without it having to be written anywhere. Is your account in jeopardy?Mjeims (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing at an AfD.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bowen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lightning strikes of 2021

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lightning strikes of 2021, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lightning strikes of 2022

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lightning strikes of 2022, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 2023" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 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 February 17 § Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 2023 until a consensus is reached. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Canadian Enhanced Fujita scale

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Canadian Enhanced Fujita scale, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:1974 Xenia tornado

Starting this when discussion seemed to be going against it is in extremely bad faith. I think you are trying to subvert previous discussion out of spite because you have a problem with me. Editing out of spite is a terrible way to edit, and you seem to continuously do that. You will only be hurting the whole page by creating a WP:CONTENTFORK and hurting the project by editing in a detrimental way. United States Man (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Urgh, I should be asleep. Look, USM, it's not up to you, or even the WikiProject as a whole, to regulate what another editor spends their time on. Like I said on my talk, we don't do pre-creation consensus - that's not a thing. If this user wants to work up a draft on something they think is notable, that's fine. When it's finished, if you don't think it's independently notable, you can nominate it for deletion, merging, whatever. Don't accuse people of acting in bad faith because you disagree with them. Girth Summit _(blether) 02:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So editors should be allowed to plainly and obviously edit out of spite? United States Man (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are confident that that's what they're doing, and can evidence that, then bring it to a noticeboard. If you're not willing to do that, then keep your powder dry. This isn't the first time I've told you that accusations of bad faith editing are viewed as personal attacks when they are made without evidence and at improper venues. Please don't make this a thing I need to take action about, I really don't want to. Girth Summit _(blether) 02:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 1974 Xenia tornado for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1974 Xenia tornado 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/1974 Xenia tornado 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) 02:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Error with NCEI

I figured out the error with the NCEI numbers. You can only find 500 events, so any events not in the 500 will be factored out of the total. There are probably thousands of NCEI entries per month. 71.125.62.146 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s true. The difference is, you can set the events for any given timeframe to be the top 500 deadliest/injuries, property damage, crop damage, or oldest or newest. Generally, for a given event, there isn’t 500 reports that contain damage or deaths or injuries, so those normally can be taken in a single link. The only way one could not use NCEI for damage/deaths/injuries is when more than 500 reports (with damage, deaths, or injuries depending on what you are searching for) occur in 1 day. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Hurricane Ian tornado outbreak

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hurricane Ian tornado outbreak, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Temora Twister February 2007 - panoramio - David Holt.jpg

Please reverse your undoing of my edit ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Temora_Twister_February_2007_-_panoramio_-_David_Holt.jpg&oldid=prev&diff=737746562&markasread=60541822&markasreadwiki=commonswiki). This is not a picture of a tornado but from a strong dust devil as the funnel is in blue sky in a dry environment of interior Australia. It is not because it is titled "twister", a very general term, that it is a tornado.

Pierre cb (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

March 1-3 tornado outbreak

hey, in regards to the march 1-3 tornado outbreak, i was thinking of adding an image of the SPC outlook for march 2? lemme know what u think 2001:56A:F0C0:6E00:84A2:F541:20F7:D8C9 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

that was me btw sorry i forgot to sign in CKulak05 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@CKulak05: That would probably be a good idea. File:SPC Severe Weather Outlook for March 2, 2023.jpg is probably the best one to add. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

agreed CKulak05 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

i added it - thx for the image btw CKulak05 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969)

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lightning strikes of 2021

Hello, Elijahandskip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lightning strikes of 2021".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lightning strikes of 2022

Hello, Elijahandskip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lightning strikes of 2022".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of United States flash flood emergencies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of United States flash flood emergencies 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 United States flash flood emergencies 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) 08:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Storm Bettina

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Storm Bettina, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 for deletion

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 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) 23:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Fork

Im getting sick of repeating myself. NWS Jackson has said nothing regarding the rating of the tornado and a single media release from an official with them doesn’t count. HavocPlayz (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The damage assessment toolkit has an EF2 Damage point just northeast of Rolling Fork. Obviously, it will be rated higher, however, NOAA has officially given a preliminary EF2 damage point for that tornado. So it is a preliminary EF2 until further preliminary information releases. Just how it is. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

NOAA is not in charge of ratings. It is the local WFO. What part of that do you not understand HavocPlayz (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Well you are a troll then. XD. NOAA is in charge of the local WFOs. Also, the local WFOs add information to the DAT, which is on a the NOAA servers. Btw, all the PNS statements you are looking for are ALSO on the NOAA servers. Well, you are point blank a troll and vandal since you apparently don’t believe NOAA rates tornadoes. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your recent editing history at Tornado outbreak of March 24–25, 2023 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 22:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion involving you on WikiProject Weather’s talk page

A discussion involving you is currently active on WikiProject Weather’s talk page. Participate in the discussion here. I has been two days since I pinged you and you have not acknowledged it. Infinity (talk - contributions) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:2022 France and United Kingdom tornado outbreak

Hello, Elijahandskip. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2022 France and United Kingdom tornado outbreak, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hurricane Ian tornado outbreak

Hello, Elijahandskip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hurricane Ian tornado outbreak".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of tornadoes with confirmed satellite tornadoes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of tornadoes with confirmed satellite tornadoes 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 with confirmed satellite tornadoes 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) 19:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

F6

What FAQ are you talking about? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Whoops. Someone decided to try to revert all the F6 things, including the FAQ. Talk:Fujita scale has the FAQ. Until I looked at the talk page, I didn’t even realize the person deleted the FAQ (without any discussion). lol Elijahandskip (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Storm Bettina

Hello, Elijahandskip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Storm Bettina".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol \| May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
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) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Torro and IF Scales

I set color values for these two tornado scales to make them look better. The old colors were really funky and didn't make much sense. You can see the new ones here and here. Noah^Talk 16:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I knew the old colors were bad, but since it was a 12-color scale rather than 6, the original color discussion didn’t catch them. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2022 France and United Kingdom tornado outbreak

Hello, Elijahandskip. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2022 France and United Kingdom tornado outbreak".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ten mile wide tornado

The article Ten mile wide tornado has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambig page for a probable error (see Talk:List of United States tornadoes in 1946

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 216.194.32.123 (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Ten mile wide tornado for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ten mile wide tornado 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/Ten mile wide tornado 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.

Primefac (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for 2023 Fort Lauderdale floods

On 4 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2023 Fort Lauderdale floods, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the 2023 Fort Lauderdale floods, 25.91 inches (65.8 cm) of rain fell in Fort Lauderdale, equivalent to a third of the city's annual rainfall total? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2023 Fort Lauderdale floods. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2023 Fort Lauderdale floods), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Your recent editing history at Typhoon Mawar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Elijahandskip (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)

Jasper Deng: The edit warring template was targeted at me. If you actually bothered to see my recent editing history, you would see I have been reverting numerous trolls and vandals, some of which have reverted my edit. I got an alert that my edit was reverted by a user with no edit summary on an edit I provided with an edit summary. My reaction was instant troll. The first thing you do is revert me and then send me an edit warring template with an almost “do not change period” style tone. You also failed to send the other user an edit warring template. This was fully targeted at me with no discussion prior to anything. So saying ignoring this is “not acceptable” is wrong. Targeting an editor is wrong and you know better than that. You should have sent me a talk page message OR better yet, ping me on the article talk page to start a discussion and explain about using JMA’s things over JTWC is “standard” rather doing a very targeted edit warring template. So, like I said at the beginning, I still will not acknowledge this “edit warring” template as it was just plain rude and targeted and was honestly not warranted. Now for the sake of WP:CIVILITY, I’m going to drop this issue and ignore the pressure factual inaccuracies on the article since you seem to be unwilling to discussion why JMA is more accurate than JTWC, with the article point blank says JTWC’s pressure is 903. But whatever. Please remember to discuss with editors rather than instantly be rude. Elijahandskip (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 Regional Specialized Meteorological Center of the basin takes precedence over all other sources. In the case of the JTWC, pressure is not officially a product of theirs; you cannot find it in their published warnings. I am contacting you specifically because of your long term pattern of this type of behavior. 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 reliable sources that have differing pressures. That solves the whole problem. Have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I did remove it, because it contravenes the standing WP:WPTC consensus on the matter. Either discuss at 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 WP:OWN and do what you want. I’m going to stay out of that article for now since y’all want to control what sources are used for what without stating that they disagree. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. 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)

Jasper Deng, I request that you withdraw that as I have dropped the stick. I don’t want to fight the issue anymore, so withdrawing that is the best plan. Elijahandskip (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! Elijahandskip (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)

Final-Fantasy-HH, with all due respect, please don't interact with me. Our first interaction besides a single revert is this...and I'm already not enjoying it. So out of respect to me, don't interact with me and out of respect to you, I won't interact with you. Have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Climate change

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 false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Weather of 2023

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 false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Weather of 2023

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 false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Climate change in the United States

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 false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"Tornado and tornado outbreaks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tornado and tornado outbreaks 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 May 30 § Tornado and tornado outbreaks until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for Review: 1996 Oakfield Tornado Article

First of all, I appreciate the warm welcome and the invitation to join the WikiProject Weather. It's great to see a community of people with shared interests collaborating to improve Wikipedia's meteorological content.

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)

Name change

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

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

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 WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at 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 WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the 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 WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that 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 SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is 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.

wording

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)

Dates on tornado tables

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

New pages patrol needs your help!

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)

Nomination of List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 for deletion

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)

Nomination of List of costliest tornadoes in 2023 for deletion

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)

Removal of information

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)

Mentorship

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)

Userpage

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)

Hi!

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)

The July 1 Canada tornado

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)

Concern regarding Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1990–1999)

Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1990–1999), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1970–1979)

Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1970–1979), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:2008 Parkersburg–New Hartford, Iowa tornado

Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2008 Parkersburg–New Hartford, Iowa tornado, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions for deletion

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)

Nomination of Storm Prediction Center mesoscale discussion 329 for deletion

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)

Nomination of 2023 Desert Southwest floods for deletion

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)

Concern regarding Draft:Canadian Enhanced Fujita scale

Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Canadian Enhanced Fujita scale, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Word of advice

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)

Your GA nomination of Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945

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)

Your draft article, Draft:Canadian Enhanced Fujita scale

Hello, WeatherWriter. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Canadian Enhanced Fujita scale".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

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

How to join WikiProject of Weather

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)

A goat for you!

your the goat of weather (you are epic)

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

Deprodding of 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake

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!

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tornado events by year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1945 tornado outbreak. 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) 06:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"Invest 93L" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

"Invest 93L (2023)" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

3RR

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)

@Jason Rees: I understand that. I’m honestly extremely disappointed and completely confused on the whole issue. There was some discussion that occurred, that I requested be linked, and all I got was basically “we just do it”. On the WP:Weather talk page, I thought that maybe having a centralized location for all these hidden rules and things for articles would be nice. I then get told it wouldn’t be helpful. Like right now, I can’t even discuss things with editors, since there are hidden consensuses that no one is willing to share with me. Anytime I do a “just trust me” style comment, I get blasted, yet I get them all the time. For example, one comment was “ Based on our past practices”. When I asked to see what consensus discussion said a tropical disturbance should not be included and a tropical depression should be, I got ignored. I’ve dropped the Invest 93L thing and I am working to understand the 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)

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: Case modified by motion

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 "WikiProject Tropical Cyclones" arbitration case, remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") has now been rescinded following a successful topic ban appeal at WP:ARCA. There will be a notification about this at the ArbCom noticeboard shortly.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

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)

Concern regarding Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969)

Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1980–1989)

Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1980–1989), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

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 PageTriage code, initiated by 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)

CS1 error on 2023–24 European windstorm season

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 false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado has been accepted

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 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Ashby-Dalton, MN EF4

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)

Your revert

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)