Sir MemeGod

Archives (Index)

2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Sean Jones (Basketball player) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Sean Jones (Basketball player). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JTtheOG (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sample tornado table

@MemeGod27: From your request at WP:Teahouse § Where to get help with tables?, here's one of the tables from the article you mentioned, with some annotation added inside <!-- ... --> to help find its components. You can use "edit source" to paste in your draft and change the data.

March 13 event

List of confirmed tornadoes – Wednesday, March 13, 2024

EF#	Location	County / Parish	State	Start Coord.	Time (UTC)	Path length	Max width
	EF2	ENE of Alta Vista to SW of Alma	Wabaunsee	KS	38.87°N 96.4516°W / 38.87; -96.4516 (Alta Vista (Mar. 14, EF2))	00:45–01:15	8.48 mi (13.65 km)	400 yd (370 m)
The tornado remained mostly over rural areas, causing EF2 damage to hardwood trees and outbuildings. Preliminary information.
EF2	NW of Rossville	Shawnee	KS	39.1346°N 95.9799°W / 39.1346; -95.9799 (Rossville (Mar. 14, EF2))	01:27–01:46	4.72 mi (7.60 km)	200 yd (180 m)
	Homes and outbuildings were damaged. Preliminary information.

Bazza 7 (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Everything works except the "EF" part, they keep overlapping MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: You can ping me if you have a question by placing "@Bazza 7" at the start of your message. It sends me a notification that someone has mentioned my name.

I have fixed the table. You had deleted the "text" rows (two lines starting <!-- TEXT AND REFERENCE(S) -->), but not adjusted the "EF" cells; I have added the "text" rows back with empty cells. If you don't want them, you can remove the two pairs of lines again, but you will need to change rowspan="2" to rowspan="1" on the "EF" lines to compensate.

You may, now you have a working table structure, want to use the Visual Editor to tweak the table's contents (using the "edit" link, rather than "edit source"). Feel free to ask for more help. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: You might also be interested in {{Tornado table header}}, {{Tornado table row}}, and {{Tornado table footer}}! Bazza 7 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks! I've always wondered how to properly do that, and I guess now I know! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

CS1 error on COSMOS field

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page COSMOS field, 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) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

versus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi WxTrinity. Thank you for your work on NGC 3290. Another editor, Bastun, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work on your new article. Articles such as this would benefit greatly from being added to appropriate categories (on the article page itself) and WikiProjects such as Astronomy (on the article's Talk page).

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a somewhat abandoned draft article you can help me with.

I invite you and anyone else who wants to to edit Draft:list of particularly dangerous situation watches. It seems as if that article has sorta been forgotten about. We’ve only gotten down to 2020 (for completely listed) and if I recall, the entries only go back to 2019. There’s still a lot more in IEM archives. Your help at expanding the list to mainspace ready format would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, unfortunately I will be gone for 2 weeks but when I return maybe I can work on it? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I sent this message to several others too (such as @Ks0stm, @WeatherWriter, @TornadoLGS, and @TornadoInformation12). Just trying to draw attention to the draft before it ends up getting abandoned. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod, If you are going to reply, please do so on the article talk page. There is a similar discussion going on there. Do not reply here. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of IC 1682 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IC 1682 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/IC 1682 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.

C messier (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

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

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

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

Aircraft contributions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Caproni Ca 104.jpeg listed for discussion

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

Utva 212 image

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Utva 212.jpg

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

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Sources

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion of Caproni Ca.104

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

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

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

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

Aircraft again: reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focke-Wulf W 4 moved to draftspace

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

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

Glenview GMP.I Flyride moved to draftspace

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

Texas Helicopters M-79T Hornet moved to draftspace

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

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

Silvercraft SH-200 moved to draftspace

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

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

Utva 212 moved to draftspace

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

Aero HC-3 moved to draftspace

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

Sending your articles to draft

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

Focke-Wulf W 7 moved to draftspace

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

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

Deletion of Bartel BM-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy unsourced pages Batman!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An aircraft article to work on!

Hi again :) A few days ago, I offered to find you an aircraft that we don't currently have an article about but which could be written using easily available sources. It's been really difficult! Like I said back then, practically all of the low-hanging fruit are gone many years ago. But I found one! I've set up a draft over at Draft:Yamaha R-50 and pointed to a free, online, reliable reference as a starting point.

If you're interested in developing this article, I'm willing to work with you on building it.

A few notes:

• the source I've provided is Reliable, but it's not independent of the subject (that is, it was published by the same company that built the aircraft, Yamaha). This means that we can trust the information in there, but we can't use it to establish Notability. If we based the article just on this one source, the draft could not be accepted, and if it had just been created in articlespace based only on this reference, it would likely be speedily deleted.
• there is an article about this aircraft on Japanese Wikipedia but please don't refer to it to start writing. Based on past experiences, I think this will mislead you more than help you.

The "mission if you choose to accept it":

• Do: use the provided source to add a few sentences to the draft in your own words. Try to include everything specifically about the R-50 that's in the source.
• Do: start by describing what exactly the R-50 is, as if to someone who had no idea.
• Don't: add anything that's not actually in the source, or not specifically about the R-50 (for example, detail about the RCASS)
• Don't: add any more information or sources for now. Let's start small with just what's in this one, good, Reliable source.
• Don't: add sections or headings for now; we'll do that as we go.

What do you think? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be up for it! Also, sorry if I conducted myself in an unprofessional manner on the 30th, I tend to be super self-conscious about what I say and do, and just wanted to get that off my shoulders, and sorry if I upset anyone. :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries at all -- and the article is off to a really great start! I'm going to make a few tweaks and comment them so you can see what I changed and why. I'll also add the citation tags as a model, and then I'll come back with step 2! --Rlandmann (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback and step 2

OK! So, here' what I did;

• Removed a statement that isn't actually stated in the source. Be careful with these!
• Clarified the relationship between the RCASS and R-50
• Introduced citations to the article. Like I said in the edit summary, we might be able to trim these down in the final polish, but for now, they're going to help us keep track of where each specific piece of information in the article came from.

Step 2 Your next tasks:

• Add a second sentence for the opening paragraph describing what the R-50 looks like. I haven't yet found a freely-licenced photo we can use of this aircraft, and we might not be able to get one. So a verbal description will be especially helpful (and we should always include one anyway).
• Add more to the final paragraph. There's actually a little bit more about the R-50 in the source that we can use! Pay attention to the paragraph in the source that begins "Initially, the R-50 was developed so that..." See what else you can add to the draft from there.
• and Cite the facts you add to the final paragraph, using the tag that I demoed for you.

Over to you! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding, I accidentally fell asleep :)

1. I made a relatively long description which I just made a new paragraph for, as it couldn't fit in one sentence.

2. Added about the pine tree/insects thing, that skipped over me for some reason

3. Cited it Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Great work -- looks good! I'll go in, make a few more tweaks and then line up the next tasks and a new reference! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback and step 3

So, the biggest problem was a pretty big factual error that you introduced -- the R-50 has a two-bladed rotor, not four-bladed. My guess is that you mistook the rotor's stabilizer bar for a second pair of blades. I fixed this, and also replaced some wording with more precise aeronautical terms.

A general style tip -- there's no real advantage to wiki-linking common English words like "leg", "skid", and "mast". For a general Wikipedia article, I use the mental litmus-test: "if this word appeared in a mainstream English newspaper/news website, would readers need it defined?" For those three words, the answer is clearly no. For common aeronautical terms, you could go either way. Personally, I swap "newspaper" for "news-stand aerospace magazine" in my litmus test when writing about aircraft types; I feel that our main readership is probably a bit more specialized for most of these articles. But if in doubt, I recommend the "newspaper test".

Step 3 Next task! I've added a new website reference to the article. It's mostly about Yamaha's follow-on to the R-50, the RMAX, which we actually already have an article about (which you should ignore for now -- let's keep working this as a "clean sheet" exercise). The new article has four paragraphs about the R-50, starting "Yamaha's development of utility-use unmanned helicopters began with..." Some of the information in those four paragraphs repeats what we already know about the R-50, but there's quite a bit of new stuff in there as well.

• Add the new facts from the New Atlas article to the Draft.
• Don't just tack them on the end; work them into the existing text at points that clarify or expand what you've written so far
• Don't add citation tags just yet; we'll come back to this in the next round.

Over to you! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything should be good now, I...

1. Added that the R-50 was the world's first unmanned heli-crop duster (really cool fact if I'll be honest)

2. Added about the training school part

3. Added about the engine in the last paragraph Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Step 3a Great work, especially slotting the new information into logical places in the Draft! And... there are still a few more cool facts in that article. Some hints for extra material you can work in:

• What problems did the R-50 solve for Japanese farmers?
• Apart from farming, what other role did the R-50 prove useful for?

• Add this information to the Draft and...
• Cite where the information came from, using the new tag

Back to you --Rlandmann (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I...

1. Added that it cut down manual labour costs

2. Added that it enabled higher-value crops to be grown

3. Cited everything Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Step 4

The only "feedback" here is that the added info and citations are perfection. We are now done with that source!

This next task is only a little one, but uses a couple of new skills: you're going to add a whole new reference source.

While investigating to see whether there was enough free material out there to support an article on the R-50, I stumbled across a passing reference in a Reliable Source. Even though it's very, very scant (the article is, again, more about the R-MAX) -- it does reinforce one of the facts that you found in the last source, and it adds one or two more. So, the task:

• Read this article to find a couple of new facts about the R-50 (carefully avoiding stuff about the R-MAX!)
• Add those facts to the Draft, weaving them in as you know how to do
• Add a citation for each fact you include, creating your own tags based on the ones already in the Draft
• Add a citation to an existing fact in the Draft that this source also backs up
• Add a new Bibliography entry for this source, using the {{cite web}} template and the other, existing references as a guide. The available information about a source can vary quite a lot, but for this one, you should include:
  • title (of the article)
  • website (that is, its title)
  • date (that the article was published)
  • url
  • publisher (what company owns this website?)
  • location (what city is that company based in?)
  • access-date (the date you read the article)

(Hint: there are a couple of items needed to construct that bibliography that aren't on that page itself; you will need to visit other pages on that website to find them!) --Rlandmann (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for responding so late, but I:

1. Added costs and max payload (with citations, of course)

2. Added second citation for the "1987" part

3. Added the article under "Bibliography", it was near-impossible trying to find the publisher:) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback and step 5

No worries -- there's literally no timeline to this. :)

And... yes! Getting the publishing details was admittedly tough (hence the hint I left) and you did well! So, just a few comments and then onto the next source.

Bibliography entry: Keeping in mind that there isn't one, universally accepted way to format bibliography entries, this guidance holds generally true:

• When writing a bibliography entry, we generally don't keep stylistic elements like TITLES IN ALL CAPS.
• You did really well in tracking down the name of the publisher and the place of publication! One small correction: the place of publication seems to be Valencia, not Santa Clarita. The "Subscribe" link at the top of the article takes you here, which confirms the publisher name, and their address (if you scroll to the bottom of the page).
• "California, United States" is a bit over-the top. It's a bit like linking common English words -- we can assume that pretty much any English-speaker knows which country California is in. So I took out "United States"
• Although you did this in the in-text citations, not the bibliography, note that if there's no author credited, we don't include one, so the |last=MXA parameter wasn't needed. (And, if you did need to include a corporate author, as we sometimes do, you'd use |author=MXA, because "MXA" isn't actually a surname).
• And like the California example, a source with an English title on English Wikipedia doesn't really need its language spelled out as English.

Citations: This is still a bit of a challenge, but don't worry, there will be plenty more practice before we're done with the R-50! :)

There are lots of different ways to add citations to an article. The way I've been modelling for you in this Draft is a stand-alone bibliography + in-text references tags. One of the main advantages of this approach is that it means you don't need a full citation template inside the article itself. This makes the text much more maintainable in the long term.

So, in this approach:

• the in-text citation only needs to have an identifier so you can find the full details in the bibliography. Generally, we use the author's surname and the year of publication; but for anonymous sources, we can just use the title (or title+year) instead. Take a look at this diff to see how much simpler that makes things.
• also, when we use a citation multiple time in an article, we can add the name= parameter to the <ref> tag and then can re-use the citation multiple times. This makes the code in the article simpler still, and also keeps the citations section at the end of the article neater. This is how you use it.

Now... one little problem. You added the MXA Motorcross Action citation to the end of a sentence which reads "The first model of the R-50, dubbed the "L09" was completed in 1987, and was able to crop-dust with a payload of around 15 kilograms at a demonstration flight later that year." That's a long sentence, which contains about four separate facts. The only one of those facts that you'll find in the MXA article is that R-50 development was completed in 1987.

When adding citations to articles, you need to make it really clear which fact(s) you're attaching the citation to, because the MXA article doesn't say anything about the "L09" designation, the crop-dusting payload, or the demonstration flight. (This is the same problem you've had in a few other contributions). Actually, the main fact that I thought the MXA article added weight to was that the R-50 got used for aerial photography. So I moved the citation there. Take a look how I distinguished between the stuff in MXA and the stuff in Hanlon.

A second little problem -- note that MXA tells us what the helicopter itself cost back in 2021 when the article was published, but says nothing about its operating costs. So saying, in 2024, that "It costs between $150,000-$200,000 to operate" is pretty different from what it says in the actual source. Careful with this!

Sorry that got so long; there was a fair bit to cover there. OK: on to step 5...

Step 5

New source time! Yet another source that's mostly about the R-MAX, but again, page 11 of this presentation has two new R-50 facts.

The task:

• Add a new bibliography entry for this source. There actually isn't a perfect template for this kind of source. {{cite report}} is probably the closest. Parameters to include are:
  • last
  • first
  • title
  • url
  • date (needs detective work! See if you can find it!)
  • publisher (also needs detective work!)
  • location (and yet more detective work!)
  • access-date
• Add two new R-50 facts from page 11, weaving them into the text.
• Add citations for your new facts:
  • this is your first source with page numbers, so the in-text citation style should go "Surname Year, p.11"
  • use the <ref name="xyz"> trick to combine your in-text citations when you add them to your facts.

Over to you! --Rlandmann (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This was definitely one of the more challenging things I've done:

1. I managed to get the citation, and every thing but the date, publisher and website (since its' a pdf I'm not sure). The Maine.gov at the top is really throwing me off. I've marked everything that I'm not sure about with a "?"

2. Same goes with the bibliography entry

3. The only thing that I didn't have issues with was the actual information. I added about the first commercial availability in Japan and the YCAS system introduction in 1995.

:) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback and step 6

Now it's my turn to have been absent a few days!

You did really well to have documented that maine.gov source as completely as you did. You found almost all of the details! Some feedback:

1. you correctly located the publication date in the article URL, but misinterpreted it slightly. "apr18" meant "April 2018", not "April 18 of some year". How do we know? A Google search for other PDFs under https://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/documents2/bd_mtgs/ shows us the pattern. That is, search for "pdf https://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/documents2/bd_mtgs/" (without the quotes) and you'll see what I mean. -- I added these details
2. you missed the publisher and location; these are at the bottom right-hand corner of every normal (not PDF) page of the Maine.gov website. The organisation that publishes the site on behalf of the State Government of Maine is called "InforME", and if you click on their logo, you find that they're located in Augusta. -- I added these details too
3. Note that Bibliographies are sorted according to surname of the first author credited, or by title if the author is anonymous. -- I moved this entry to its correct spot.
4. Important -- this is a major takeaway for you. When using in-text citations, you don't add the whole citation between the <ref> tags. Look at this diff to see how it's done. The only things that should go into those tags are:
   • author surname (or title is there isn't one)
   • year
   • page number (for a print reference if there is one)
5. Congratulations on also finding the key pieces of information that I hoped you would! -- the YACS, and that Yamaha started marketing the R-50 in 1991. I made a small tweak to the text to emphasise the latter fact, and also to call attention to something we didn't see in any of our other sources: the R-50 that went to market was a new variant, the "Type II". More about that later... ;)

Step 6

So... What the heck is a YACS???

Fortunately, we have a new source that will tell us! The task:

1. Add a new bibliography entry for this source: https://global.yamaha-motor.com/design_technology/technology/electronic/010/ -- this time, I'm leaving it to you to find as many of the details as you can! (Hint, there are other Yamaha webpages already in the bibliography that might be helpful)
2. Use the new source to explain what the YACS was, and cite it, remembering to use an in-text citation, not the whole citation
3. In fact, that whole paragraph (titled "Developing and Improving the Base Model") has all kinds of things we haven't read about the R-50 before! Use it to expand the article, remembering to keep citing where the information is coming from. And...
4. Uh-oh! You will also read one or two things in there that force us to re-examine one of our earlier sources in a new light! The challenge this time is to integrate the new information with the old information. See if you can find and reconcile the discrepancy.

(Aside: that page also contains a cool video of Yamaha's first attempt at an agricultural UAV, the RCASS that we're deliberately ignoring as out-of-scope for this article, but it's certainly fun to see. Who knows? There might even be enough information out there for an article on the RCASS, but I haven't checked. Let's get through the R-50 first!) --Rlandmann (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for getting back to this so late, it's been an eventful (and admittedly stressful week) irl. Besides that, I...

1. Added an entire paragraph about the YACS thing (it's definitely interesting)

2. Added the bibliography stuff (although I did first access the link at almost exactly 12:00 AM EST, so I'm not exacttly sure if it should say "July 18" or "July 19")

3. Changed the "20 units" to "~1,000 units" (I had no idea that the R-50 was actually produced that many times)

4. The in-line citations were really difficult to get, but I think I got them. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback and step 7

Let's not feel the need to apologise to each other for how long it takes between stages on this. :) Sometimes one of us can respond quickly, and other times not so much. Fortunately, there's no timeline as long as we can get there in the end!

So... this was a really, really impressive effort!

• You really extracted every last nugget of information from the source, and you successfully spotted the way that it updated a previous source with a different production figure.
• You correctly structured the bibliographic reference, and you correctly created and deployed the in-text citations.

In short, you nailed the assignment!

The following should be understood purely as small tweaks:

• One of the main reasons we use in-text citations is to minimise the clutter that using full citations all the time creates for future editors, so in that spirit, keep those ref names short and snappy -- see here.
• Full references in the bibliography section get sorted by alphabetical order, by surname of the first author credited, or by title for anonymous sources. So I just moved the new reference. There was also a stray date that you included via a copy-and-paste that I removed.
• You updated the production figure, but forgot to add the new citation, so I just plugged it in]

Step 7

OK -- there's nothing actually new this time -- it's practising skills you already have, but the quantity of material adds a certain level of challenge. Take your time and don't rush, and don't feel you have to do it all in the same editing session or even the same day. I won't come in with feedback until you update this talk page to let me know you're done.

As I was exploring the sources that might be available for this article, I found a stack of references for where UAV researchers were using R-50s for all kinds of academic research. The content of those references is very highly specialised and the fine details of their work is way beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article on the helicopter itself. However, together, these references demonstrate yet another use that people have found for the R-50!

I added a framework to the Draft where this information can go for now. Later, it might be better to format it as ordinary prose, but let's see how it turns out like this for a start.

For each article in this list, you need to:

• create a bibliographic entry, remembering to park it in the right alphabetical order.
  • in general, these should use the {{cite journal}} template not web.
  • the available details might vary very considerably from one to the other, but typically might include:
    • last (surname of author)
    • first (first name of author)
    • title (of article)
    • journal (name of academic journal)
    • volume (volume number of the journal, if applicable)
    • number (number within the volume if applicable. Some journals use "issue" instead of "number", and the template supports that as well)
    • pages (if this journal has page numbers. Note that in the bibliography, this parameter lists the page number that the whole article takes up inside the journal)
    • date
    • url
    • access-date
• add the name of the organisation or researcher as dot-points in the Draft, and optionally, if you feel you can concisely summarise what they were using the R-50 for, add this as well. (This latter part is very tough; don't stress if you can't work it out. If unsure, it's better to leave this detail out rather than try to guess. Knowing when to leave information out is also a skill worth developing!!)
• use in-text citations for the information you add.

OK: and here's the list of some I found:

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

(There's another couple I'm holding onto for a future step).

See how you go with these! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to it as soon as possible, I just 2nd-degree burnt my hand while handling some pizza earlier today so it might be a good few days before I get back around to Wikipedia. :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So I got all the bibliography sources down, but I'm a bit confused as to what to add and where, as these articles are EXTREMELY long, and I just can't find anything in them relating to who else used them. Also, I was wondering something. When a journal has RECIEVED/ACCEPTED/PUBLISHED dates, which one do you use? :)

Also a side note, two of the bibliography sources had a "Line Feed Character" error, which is something that I've come across multiple times and have never figured out how to fix it.

Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Does it have something to do with airloads? Relooking at the sources, all of them are research on testbeds involving airloads of the R-50 and RMAX. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ooh! Sorry that I've missed these updates! I'll reply shortly, but wanted you to know that I'd seen them! (and sorry about your hand!!!) Rlandmann (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You're totally fine! And I quote you, " there's literally no timeline to this." My hand has also gotten a bit better, so that's good. The main thing that confused me was the "people who used the R-50" part, as I wasn't exactly sure if it was a person, organization, etc. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback and step 8

Look, this was tough! And... I inadvertently misled you, because of those four sources, only two were journals. One other was a conference paper, and the other a thesis. The various citation templates operate slightly differently from each other. That said...

• In all cases, you did a great job of finding and extracting the most relevant bibliographic information. Templates were formatted beautifully and consistently.
• I made a series of minor tweaks and fixes, and commented them as I went. Honestly, they're so minor that I won't spell them all out here, but you can trace back through the revision history to see what I changed and why.
• The only one I will mention is the need to list authors in the order they appear in the publication. It matters a surprising amount!
• I filled in the blanks about which organisations have used the R-50 for research, but didn't go do far as to extract the nature of their research. That's definitely optional in an article of this scope.

Step 8

We're getting close to the end! We have three more sources to go, one of which is in two parts. Then it's just formatting and tidying up!

This next source is a challenge, because it's a webpage that has been taken down, but which I found an archived copy for. It's another piece of research use, by a specific academic, and doing something so cool that I think it rates a specific mention.

Here's your source: [16]

And here's your mission:

• Add a bibliographic record for this source, using the {{cite report}} template (yes! really! I checked!) Include the following parameters (some might be new to you...)
  • last (surname of report author)
  • first (in this case, initials of report author)
  • title (of report)
  • date (of report)
  • publisher (organization which published report)
  • location (where that organization is located)
  • url (original URL of the report, not the archive URL...)
  • archive-url (this is the archive url...)
  • archive-date (the date the snapshot was taken...)
  • access-date (the date you consulted it)
• Add a sentence or two to the draft naming the researcher and describing their surprising work contained in the report. (Hint: look for the paragraph that starts "There are unmanned helicopters under development")
• Cite the source with an in-text citation. Remember to keep the name= attribute short and punchy.

If you work through this one carefully, I think you'll be fine, even if handling an archived source might be new territory. (It is, in this draft, anyway). --Rlandmann (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get to it! A little side note: As I am still in high school I primarily use a school-issued Chromebook to do most of my editing (it's just more convenient) and my school has web.archive.org blocked at the moment. I do have a workaround, although it is relatively unconventional.Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on NGC 5461

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

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

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

CS1 error on Downtown One

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

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

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

Theodor Buchhold -- multiple problems with sources and citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And at Downtown One

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

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

Theodor Buchhold moved to draftspace

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

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

Downtown One moved to draftspace

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

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

Poor sourcing on recent articles about weather

Hi again Sir MemeGod -- just a note that I took a look over some of the weather articles you've created in the last couple of days and noted a familiar pattern of poor sourcing, including:

• unsourced claims
• sources that are not reliable
• and IMHO worst: claims that are cited to a source, but the source says no such thing.

Really, I think that all of these articles are not ready for mainspace and should be Draftified, but I also feel like I'm not the one who should be doing that. I'm not really sure how best to proceed here, but just wondering: are you aware that you are inventing details that are not in the sources you say they are? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I guess I just suck at sourcing. When I go into specifics on details, it's usually based on a damage photo (I have multiple for 1968 Hansell-Charles City tornado) or a ArcGIS map (which I don't have for either, and its' like a damage blip map). So, I just put a random citation (because you can't cite a non-free image) and hope it works (which I get isn't a good mindset to have.) I have enough info, it's just a lose-lose situation because if I add a citation I'll get called out, and if I don't it'll be undersourced. I can move it back to draftspace if you'd like (as I get you probably don't want to keep draftifying all the articles I've created). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I’m glad that at least you're aware of the issue - that's a crucial start. But I'm seeing it not only in connection with images - it's that you're adding commentary based on your own interpretation of events and then citing that to a source. I'm not at my desk right now, but I'll come back with specific examples later today. And yes, you might want to draftify some or all of these yourself. -Rlandmann (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "your own commentary". Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Things like "downed power lines on 123 street" are from images, and unfortunately the only source is an image or DI. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be offline until probably 5:00 PM EST tomorrow because I'm attending a Spaatz Award presentation and a few other things, but I'm all ears after that! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Case study: Draft:1964 Black Friday tornado

Maybe the best way to explain this is to take you through one of these articles, piece by piece. The pattern in the others is generally the same. As I've said elsewhere, the biggest problem is when you simply make up information or details that are not in the sources you cite.

You are also still learning what constitutes a Reliable Source for Wikipedia.

On the plus side, all the claims in this article are actually cited somewhere.

Any emphasis in the article text I'm quoting was added by me. I'm confining this analysis just to basic sourcing.

• Any claim with ✅s in its source column and comments column is perfectly fine and can stay as-is
• Any claim with a ❌ in its source column or comments column needs to be cited to a different, reliable source or removed.
• Any claim with a ⚠️ in its comments column is a mixture of sourced and unsourced information. The unsourced information needs to be cited to a different, reliable source or removed.

Claim	Citations	Source quality	Comments
"The tornado killed 7 and injured a further 111, and causing an estimated $15 million in damages."	National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	✅ supports all claims
"The tornado heavily damaged downtown Wichita Falls and destroyed much of Sheppard Air Force Base."	Source 1: National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	❌ source doesn't say either of these things. It describes damage, but not how much of it happened downtown. And $10 million in damage to an Air Force Base could be writing off a single bomber; the source gives us no idea of the extent of the damage to the base.
	Source 2: Army and Air Force Exchange Service	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ confirms that "the storm caused extensive damage to the city" but says nothing about the extent of damage at Sheppard AFB.
"It is also known as the "Black Friday tornado""	historical WKY TV news story, hosted on YouTube	✅ Reliable Source	❌ at no point calls this event the "Black Friday tornado"
Two claims: "The tornado was the first-ever live broadcast tornado, and is the highest-rated tornado to ever hit Wichita Falls"	Source 1: compilation of historical KAUZ TV news footage	✅ Reliable Source	❌ directly contradicts your claim that this was the first-ever live broadcast of a tornado. The announcer says: "back in the summer of 1959... Channel Six made a television first by putting on the air live a tornado". Neither does this source claim that this is the highest-rated tornado to ever hit Wichita Falls.
	Source 2: National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ does not say that this was the first-ever live broadcast tornado. It doesn't directly say that it's the highest-rated tornado to hit Wichita Falls either, but this is reasonably gleaned from the table
"The tornado first touched down at around 3:45, at an intersection that connects Farm Road 369 and the Seymour Highway."	National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	✅ confirms these details
"It began to immediately track northeastward, crossing U.S. Highway 287 and entering into the Sunset Terrace subdivision of Wichita Falls."	National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ supports direction, but the claim that the tornado "immediately" started to move north-east is not in the source.
"It tracked briefly through the area before crossing the Red River Expressway into the Lincoln Heights Subdivision. It ran almost parallel to 14th Street, causing damage to buildings located on adjacent roads."	Tornado Alley	❌ Not a Reliable Source. From the site itself: "TA is a community created and contributed tornado data visualization resource"[17] Please read WP:SPS for why this is not OK.	❌ Nothing in this claim is supported in the source. The source itself shows nothing except the tornado track. It doesn't say how "briefly" the tornado stayed in Sunset Terrace, nor that is caused damage to buildings on adjacent roads.
"It then crossed Travis Street before tracking through Kell Boulevard, causing an unknown amount of damage. Although the exact path at this moment is unknown, it was believed to have curved sharply upward, running almost parallel to Ohio Avenue and Redwood Street."	Tornado Alley	❌ Not a Reliable Source.	❌ Again, the source is a single line on a map. Everything else has either come from somewhere else or is your own invention. The worst parts of this are the claims of "an unknown amount of damage" and "the exact path at this moment is unknown, it was believed to have..." Just because something is unknown to you doesn't mean that we can say that it's "unknown", and it sounds like the "belief" here is purely your own belief.
It caused heavy damage to the area near or adjacent to Lincoln Park, before tracking through Duncan Street and River Road. It is believed to have curved slightly to the left from here, aligning with Horton Lane. It began to track through relatively unpopulated areas, before crossing FM 1470 and narrowly missing Old Friburg Church Road.	Tornado Alley	❌ Not a Reliable Source.	❌ Again, none of this is even remotely in the source, and more personal belief. Most especially, the source does not show how or where the track crossed FM 1470, or whether or not it missed Old Friburg Church Road.
"It is believed to have then curved leftward, tracking through East McKinley Drive and Armstrong Drive before hitting the tarmac at Sheppard Air Force Base."	Source 1: Tornado Alley	❌ Not a Reliable Source.	❌ Again, none of this is even remotely in this source, and more personal belief. In fact, the source doesn't show the tornado track going anywhere near Sheppard (although we know it did, we just don't know how, and this source doesn't show us).
	Source 2: Channel 6 News	✅ Reliable Source	❌ the source summarises the tornado's path, but says nothing about it "curving" or which streets it crossed after the Red River Expressway.
"The tornado is estimated to have continued moving left, grazing the Tennis Court subdivision and tracking through Avenue K. It then curved sharply rightward, tracking directly back at the Air Force Base's northern portions. It then tracked through the 3 other runways located at the Base, causing an estimated $10 million in damages. The tornado then hit Emmert Road and Napier Road before dissipating near the outskirts of Cashion Community. In all, the tornado tracked 5.6 miles at a maximum width of ~500 yards."	Source 1: National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ this source does not support any of the claims about the path. It only confirms the length and width of the track.
	Source 2: Texoma's homepage	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ this source also does not support any of the claims about the path. It also only confirms the length and width of the track.
	Source 3: Times Record News	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ again, this source also does not support any of the claims about the path. Interestingly, this one confirms the length of the track but it gives a much smaller width, using only the path of total destruction described by the NWS.
"The tornado caused extensive damage to portions of Wichita Falls."	National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	✅ this isn't explicitly in the source, but is a reasonable summary
"225 homes were destroyed, largely in the Lincoln Heights subdivision, and 50 homes suffered major damage to varying degrees."	National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	✅ completely supported by the source
"200 homes were inflicted with minor damage, and 16 other non-residential buildings received major damage or were completely destroyed."	National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ partially supported by the source, but non-residential buildings being "completely destroyed" is your own embellishment that is not in there.
"Sheppard Air Force Base was heavily damaged, with debris strewn on all four runways, rendering them unusable."	Source 1: National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	❌ the source says nothing about the extent or nature of the damage at Sheppard, only a dollar value.
	Source 2: compilation of historical KAUZ TV news footage	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ The source confirms heavy damage at the base, saying "The damage is well, it's just unbelievable." But it doesn't mention the runways or their condition. Nor is this discernable from the video.
"Other buildings near or adjacent to the base were either damaged or destroyed, and losses at Sheppard Air Force Base totaled ~$15 million."	National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	❌ the source says nothing about any building adjacent to the base. And it places the damages at $10 million, not $15 million
"~10 million in losses were recorded in downtown Wichita Falls, giving the tornado a cost estimate of around ~$15 million."	Source 1: National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ the source says that damage to the city amounted to $5 million, not $10 million, and the source doesn't say how much of this was the downtown area or in the additions. It does confirm that the total damage bill was around $15 million, via basic arithmetic (see WP:CALC)
	Source 2: Times Record News	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ Same comments as above
"Seven people were killed by the tornado. Six died when the Lincoln Heights subdivision took a direct hit, all were sheltering in five different houses that were completely obliterated at F5 intensity. One other person was killed when the vehicle that they were driving in was thrown."	Source 1: National Weather Service	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ Source confirms that: seven people were killed, six in five different homes, and one in a vehicle. The source does not say that any of those five homes were "obliterated" (embellishment), that the homes were in Lincoln Heights, or that the vehicle was "driving" at the time.
	Source 2: Times Record News	✅ Reliable Source	⚠️ Same comments as above

@GeorgeMemulous: Sure, I can help out! A little note that this event may not meet WP:NWEATHER, altough it could be classified as "rare" because it hit Chicago. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you meant to respond here? I noticed something like this on the previous discussion as well. I'll take it as just technical issues however. Thanks! GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Charlescityiatornadoaftermath2.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Charlescityiatornadoaftermath2.jpg listed for discussion

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

And a barnstar for you too!

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

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

Signature

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of 1997 Jarrell tornado

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

Source problems with 1942 Aeroflot Tupolev ANT-20bis crash

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of 1997 Jarrell tornado

The article 1997 Jarrell tornado you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:1997 Jarrell tornado for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Riley1012 -- Riley1012 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to create List of IC Objects

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

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

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

List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes Improvement Time!

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

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

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

Arp 239 dab page

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

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

Aero engines?

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

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

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

Women in Red August 2024

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

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

I need some help...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2015 Garland tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

2013 Granbury tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011 Lake Martin tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Re: Illinois tornadoes

Hey there, I'm glad you're ready to move onto another list. I don't think I have the wiki-capacity for that right now. I'm trying to get another biggish project off the ground, the 2005 AHS, and I'm distracted enough as it is. I hope you understand. Have you tried reaching out to people from Illinois, like that state's Wikiproject? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No, but I might reach out to them. Also, It's all good, I was just bringing it up just in case. :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I have a bit more time this weekend. So here's some quick resources:

• 50 tornadoes per year in the state
• Southern Illinois tornado history - looks like this article already exists, which should be included with the broader article.
• this 1855 tornado looks to be the earliest on record in the state.

Hope these bits help. Sorry I couldn't help much more, in the midst of a bunch of different projects. I hope you're doing well Sir MemeGod. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the resources! Again, you're all good! I was just reaching out to see, and it's completely fine if you aren't able to help. I hope you are doing well, you sound a tad bit busy! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's alright, it's good busy. And also, I wanted to encourage you to reach out to other people for the states tornado project. IDK, it's a huge undertaking just to get it started! And I'm not sure the best way to do that. What do you think? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have reached out on the talk pages of WikiProject Illinois and WikiProject Weather (which I don't think I need to link). :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Sir MemeGod, just checking in. I saw you're still working on the Illinois tornadoes, which is great. I just wanted to give a bit of advice. You can save some time by writing less, and not going into detail on every single tornado in an outbreak. If all of them were F0's, for example, then you can say there were five F0 tornadoes across the state, and give broad examples, rather than being hyper specific to the point of it being overly detailed. Just trying to save some time. Hope you're doing well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I'm doing pretty good! Nobody responding to either edit request on both WikiProject talk pages, so in true Sir MemeGod fashion I just decided to truck along. Also, thanks for the advice, it's definitely a long and extremely tedious list, I could probably shorten it a tad bit. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
279		Funnel cloud (talk)	Add sources
849		Supercell (talk)	Add sources
1,248		Sumerian language (talk)	Add sources
1,472		Akkadian language (talk)	Add sources
328		Bushfires in Australia (talk)	Add sources
224		Celtis (talk)	Add sources
33		Climate change in California (talk)	Cleanup
1,429		Air pollution (talk)	Cleanup
3		Bukelwa Mbulawa (talk)	Cleanup
119		Wildfire suppression (talk)	Expand
1,688		Natural disaster (talk)	Expand
4,224		Mahabharata (talk)	Expand
308		Fire retardant (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
25		Severe weather terminology (Canada) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
20		Eighteenth-century Gothic novel (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
536		Online chat (talk)	Merge
10		DXMJ-FM (talk)	Merge
3		Weights and Measures Act (Japan) (talk)	Merge
172		Severe weather (talk)	Wikify
28		Forest conservation in the United States (talk)	Wikify
54		Christian Union (Slovakia) (talk)	Wikify
2		Crystal A. Kolden (talk)	Orphan
3		Ahmed Khenchil (talk)	Orphan
3		Brigida Bianchi (talk)	Orphan
18		Skipping tornado (talk)	Stub
15		129th IOC Session (talk)	Stub
15		100 Summer Street (talk)	Stub
1		Fire deficit (talk)	Stub
4		1768 in Russia (talk)	Stub
2		1876 North Norfolk by-election (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Sir MemeGod! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 02:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

ALERT: possible PD-NWS copyvio

I hope you realize that most of WP: WEATHER (evidently not including you) got warnings sent to their talk pages over possible copyright violations relating to the PD-NWS template. So until the discussion is sorted out (which should be soon) it would be best not to use or upload anything under that template unless it was directly created by the weather service. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed (WeatherWriter never sent me the notice, probably because I was already heavily involved in the original file AfD). Thanks though, I almost forgot about it! Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

They closed as delete. This further underscores the importance that you don’t upload anything under that template that isn’t directly made by NWS. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? Over half of the people within the debate itself specifically said to keep the image. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 06:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am going to append this additional note the message above: the National Weather Service emailed @Rlandmann today and clarified that the upload process does NOT automatically release a photo/video into the public domain. I strongly advise you not to upload anything under a PD-NWS tag unless it is specifically produced by the weather service. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that on my Commons page aswell. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately; I did have to re-nominate the Dead Man Walking tornado image for deletion. For the same reasons as above. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Yinka Djin

Hello, Sir MemeGod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yinka Djin, 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) 10:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"Not in any way ready for mainspace"

This article is a stub. It has twelve sources -- are you challenging their reliability? jp×g🗯️ 04:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the reliability, I moved it because it was one singular sentence with 7+ references in one sentence (which I personally saw as not ready for mainspace, if you read my edit summary I explicitly stated to correct me if I was wrong). I'll go ahead and expand it later today though, so just consider this conversation obsolete as it won't be relevant in a few hours. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ilona Katkics

Hello, Sir MemeGod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ilona Katkics, 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) 04:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

An award for you!

Back scratch star MallardTV (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #1

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an update to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

For starters, no "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred. All that means is the template is not formally deprecated and is still in use. However, Rlandmann, an administrator on English Wikipedia, has begun an undertaking of reviewing and assessing all images (~1,400) that use the PD-NWS copyright template.

What we know:

• Following email communications, the National Weather Service of Sioux Falls has removed their disclaimer, which has been used for the PD-NWS template for decades. This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid: By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others. Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer. However, the live version of the disclaimer no longer contains that phrase.
• See this deletion discussion for this point's information. NWS Paducah (1) failed to give attribution to a photographer of a tornado photograph, (2) placed the photo into the public domain without the photographer explicitly giving them permission to do so (i.e. the photo is not actually in the public domain), (3) and told users to acknowledge NWS as the source for information on the webpage. Oh, to note, this photographer is a magistrate (i.e. a judge). So, the idea of automatically trusting images without clear attribution on weather.gov are free-to-use is in question.
• The Wikimedia Commons has a process known as precautionary principle, where if their is significant doubt that an image is free-to-use, it will be deleted. Note, one PD-NWS file has been deleted under the precautionary principle. The closing administrator remarks for the deletion discussion were: "Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it."
• Several photographs/images using the PD-NWS are currently mid-deletion discussion, all for various reasonings.
• As of this message, 250 PD-NWS images have been checked out of the ~1,400.
• The photograph of the 1974 Xenia tornado (File:Xenia tornado.jpg) was found to not be in the public domain. It is still free-to-use, but under a CC 2.0 license, which requires attribution. From April 2009 to August 2024, Wikipedia/Wikimedia was incorrectly (and by definition, illegally) using the photograph, as it was marked incorrectly as a public domain photograph.

Solutions:
As stated earlier, there is no "formal" rulings, so no "formal" changes have been made. However, there is a general consensus between editors on things which are safe to do:

• Images made directly by NWS employees can be uploaded and used under the new PD-USGov-NWS-employee template (Usage: {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} ). This is what a large number of PD-NWS templated images are being switched to.
• Images from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) can be uploaded and used under the PD-DAT template (Usage: {{PD-DAT}} ). A large number of images are also being switched to this template.

For now, you are still welcome to upload images under the PD-NWS template. However, if possible it is recommended using the two templates above. I will send out another update when new information is found or new "rulings" have been made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, thank you for posting the message here. @Sir MemeGod didn’t get your last notification about it and I had to post a couple messages on this talk page and his commons talk page. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add that there are a couple other safe templates such as PD-NEXRAD for radar images; and also the generic PD-USGov and PD-USGov-NOAA templates. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Heads up

If you see an unfamiliar username start commenting on future discussions. I am in the process of changing my username from WestVirginiaWX to Hurricane Clyde. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's for letting me know! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are all these weird letters and numbers under this?? Is it a committed identity; because if so that isn’t mine (I don’t have one). 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it was an appeal key for something off-wiki that just so happened to be placed under this discussion. I tend to be very forgetful, so I’ll just put something somewhere, especially long strings of stuff, but yeah. It’s not malicious. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Illinois tornadoes has been accepted

List of Illinois tornadoes, 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 List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Great list at List of Illinois tornadoes!! Utopes (talk / cont) 15:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! It was definitely something, I wasn't able to get anyone's help so I just trucked along and finished it up, but I think it turned out pretty good! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:2020 Cookeville tornado has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:2020 Cookeville tornado. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Sir MemeGod. Thank you for your work on Waterman Fire. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Copy-paste errors

Hey there,

Thank you for your contributions. However, it looks like you have copied the etymology section from Atolla reynoldsi word-for-word and pasted it onto Atolla bairdii, Atolla clara, Atolla gigantea, Atolla russelli, Atolla valdiviae, and Atolla verrillii. I would advise you to please be more mindful in the future. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Is doing that a copyvio? If so, I had no idea. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 19:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it just seemed a bit strange to me that these were all named after this Reynolds chap. JTtheOG (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see what I did wrong. I must have copy-pasted it without changing the name. I'll fix that momentarily. Thanks for the heads-up! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Keep up the good work. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled?

Hi Sir MemeGod, I noticed that you like to create large batches of articles at once. Have you considered becoming an autopatroled? user? I think you'd qualify and getting article writers like yourself autopatrolled helps to clear the page patrol backlog. Just an idea- Ryan shell (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ryan shell: In the past I have had some issues with some of my articles though, would I still be eligible? Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:2020 Cookeville tornado has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:2020 Cookeville tornado. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 Cookeville tornado has been accepted

2020 Cookeville tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317 Online events: New: Women writers & their works | Geofocus: Islands A - H Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) | Translation contest 2024 (Jul, Aug, Sep) Announcements from other communities August 30 is the tenth anniversary of WikiProject Women writers! Tip of the month: Try her pen name when searching for sources, and remember to add her to any of these that apply: List of pen names, List of literary initials, and Category:Pseudonymous women writers. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Stub categories and templates

Hi Sir MemeGod,

I notice you have added some of the articles you created recently, such as Photonectes cornutus to a stub category (Category:Stomiiformes stubs). The generally accepted way to accomplish that is to use a template (See WP:TAGSTUB). I have replaced "[[Category:Stomiiformes stubs]]" with "{{Stomiiformes-stub}}" in the relevant articles, but please bear in mind for the future. The template to use is noted at the top of each stub category.

Thanks, William Avery (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the heads up. I just saw “Stomiidae stubs”, and thought that they belong in that category, and had no idea it was linked to a template. Thanks again :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sup

How are you doing since that argument I got involved with?

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hey, long time no see! I’m doing good, as you can tell I’ve been trying to step away from the topic that the entire dispute was about. I’ve moved on, and when (or if) that user comes back, I hope they can move on aswell. I’ve definitely ramped up my contributions here, just to make myself well-versed in the policies and to avoid future arguments from happening. How are you doing? It’s been what, 4 months? Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Species articles

Thank you for all the new articles on species you've been creating. A few things you should keep in mind:

1. Scientific names of families (or any other rank higher than genus) aren't italicized
2. {{Short description}} should be placed before any infoboxes such as {{Speciesbox}}, not after
3. Parentheses around a taxonomic authority have meaning and are not a matter of stylistic preference. When parentheses are present, it indicates that a species is now placed in a different genus than the one in which it was originally described. Just follow FishBase/GBIF/WoRMS for parentheses; if they include the authority in parentheses, put it in parentheses. If any of those databases don't include parentheses, you should omit them as well. Plantdrew (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the tips. Obviously I’m new to the entire topic of species, so I’ve been trying to take as much advice as possible. I did also have one question about “sp.” images, if an image is of a species within a family but the species itself if unknown, can it be used in any of the existing species articles? Sorry if that was a bit confusing to follow. Anyways, thanks again for the tips! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 00:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  If an image isn't identified to species (or is only tentatively identified) you shouldn't use it in the article for a species. It is OK to use it to illustrate an article for a family or genus if it is identified at that level. I would say that even for family/genus articles it is better to use images that are identified to the species level, but if no other images are available (or the only other available images are low resolution/poorly lit/blurry) an image that isn't identified to species would be OK. Plantdrew (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Okay, that makes sense. Thanks! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 00:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

NFF

You don’t need to worry about tornado NFF violations. There seems to be an agreement on the Commons (including from an EN-admin) that they almost certainly quality for NFF as long as there is no free-photos available. For the one you PROD’ed (2024 Barnsdall), to help it meet NFF criteria (which I thought it did before), I added info about its intensity at the time of the photo. But yeah, tornado NFFs almost certainly meet the needed criteria since they physically cannot happen again. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

See your talk page, I've already posted a message there. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Vandalism" in edit summary

I noticed you reverted an edit, claiming it was potential vandalism. The edits in question may have been breaking MOS and wholly uncited, but by no means were vandalism (see WP:NOTVANDALISM). I ask that you please do not bite the newcomers, even if their edits aren't up to Wiki standards (which is to be expected, they're a new IP after all!). Have a great day, and keep up your fantastic editing! GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I was using the source editor on mobile (yes, it sucks), and I just saw a bunch of uncited text at the top of the page and assumed it was vandalism, but I guess I overreacted a tad bit. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Actinote zikani has been accepted

Actinote zikani, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Seychellois earwigs

Hi! Your most recent article Anisolabis seychellensis. I have fixed it a little bit, then pulled back as you may have opened a large can of worms!!

Is the genus name Anisolabis or Antisolabis ??? The genus page already here (which your article doesn't link to, due to your use of |parent in the speciesbox) prefers the former. The IUCN has both :- Antisolabis for seychellensis, but Anisolabis for scotti that live on the same island!! I know IUCN makes mistakes, indeed I have emailed them, and errors I spotted have been corrected.

Happy editing! Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Uhh, I have no idea! That's most likely an oopsie on the IUCN's part. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I have done a bit of research (today, on the internet); and both genera are valid, both do occur on the Seychelles. They do not appear to be synonymous, and lists of species allocated to them do not overlap.

So, it may be your oopsie!

You may have to move the page ....

Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

ll do. i

W Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Will do*, my keyboard just bugged out. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Actinote zikani

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Actinote zikani 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Actinote zikani

The article Actinote zikani you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Actinote zikani and Talk:Actinote zikani/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about World's rarest butterfly

Hello, Sir MemeGod

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Godsy and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect World's rarest butterfly, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3 § World's rarest butterfly.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Godsy}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Draft:2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado

Can you help me out with this draft article I'm working on? I've got the first half of the tornado summary down as well as a short meteorological synopsis, but the article is still short. I last worked on the aftermath section. The tornado summary lacks most of Woodridge and Darien, as well as Burr Ridge and Willow Springs entirely. Either way, I'd just like your opinion on how the article is in its current state. Thank you and happy editing! GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@GeorgeMemulous: Sure, I can help out! A little note that this event may not meet WP:NWEATHER, altough it could be classified as "rare" because it hit Chicago. (Also apologies if my messages are everywhere, I have a script installed that I am currently attempting to uninstall.) :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I consider this just as (if not more) notable than the 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado which not only survived a merge request but also made it all the way to good article status. Note that there is no Tornado outbreak of June 20, 2021 article to merge into and all it has now is a brief section in Tornadoes of 2021. Repairs from the tornado is still ongoing as of June 2024 and I expect it to still hit the 'On this day...' news of the Chicago area for years to come every June 20. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

AfD Close

Your close here [19] is, I think, problematic. It looks like a supervote, and I don't think this AfD is suitable for a non admin close. Respectfully request you self revert your close and leave it to an experienced admin. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Done, that was probably one of the worst AfD's that I couldv'e closed for my first closure. Apologies, that was my bad. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL, yep. Thanks for the self revert. Try some snow keep ones to get started. :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

I'd strongly advise you to self-revert, since your closure statement is likely to be highly controversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Done, that was a really bad closure on my part. Whoops. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd recommend not closing any but the most clear-cut AfDs until you have a lot more experience. That AfD ticked so many boxes for being potentially controversial from the start, and your closure looked too much like a Wikipedia:Supervote to be acceptable, I think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

TBF, I think any close will tick off someone. That AfD is def a ticking time bomb, and only an admin or some really experienced closer would be able to defuse it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

MemeGod, thank you for reverting your close. Please review Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, carefully, it offers guidance for non-admin closures. One thing it advises against is trying to handle close-call discussions and this AFD definitely qualified as one. This AFD would have not been advisable for experienced NACs but for your first NAC would only have gotten this case brought to Wikipedia:Deletion review which is not an experience I would recommend to anyone. You made the right call. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Cookies!

		Cookies!
		GeorgeMemulous has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Wishing the best in getting over COVID-19! Thanks for your help on all those tornado articles! To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm feeling a lot better now! I'll start helping out with Draft:2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado today, since I'm not feeling like I'm going to die. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Austin J. Tobin Plaza has been accepted

Austin J. Tobin Plaza, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

OhHaiMark (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you so much for creating the article on the Austin J. Tobin Plaza that was formerly on the site of the old WTC. I have seen you around here and there, and it is always great interacting with people editing in the NYC/9-11/World Trade Center article-space. Cheers! — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• No problem! The entire complex was truly a marvel, I'm very suprised that the plaza didn't already have an article. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

SD of photo

If a free photo may become available soon, why not wait until then to delete File:Winder high school shooting.jpg? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a point. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I cancelled the SD and I have asked the photographer to release it in a free license. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an new update (2nd update) to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.

What is new?

• The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
• Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
• As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
• A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle.
• One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.

How to deal with new photos?

Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!

• If the photo was made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (excluding NWS), You can upload it under the PD-NOAA template via {{PD-NOAA}}.
• If the photo was made by the National Weather Service (NOT Third Party), you can upload it using the new PD-NWS-employee template via {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}.
  • If the photo originates on the Damage Assessment Toolkit, you can upload it using the PD-DAT template via {{PD-DAT}}.
• If the photo is from a U.S. NEXRAD radar, you can upload it using the PD-NEXRAD template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.

What about third-party photos?

In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.

• KEY: Third party images of tornadoes & weather-related content can potentially be uploaded via Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Guidelines!
• Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
• NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
• The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
• Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
• NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
• NFFs currently on Wikipedia can and should be placed in this category: Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes.

Update Closing

Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the update, but I’m taking a step back from weather space, and is it okay if I can opt out of these messages? I’ve been following the discussion heavily, and already know what’s going on. Thanks! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 11:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Sure thing! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Infobox urban feature" id="mwBTM

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Infobox urban feature" id="mwBTM, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

ESO 148-2

Out of the other interacting galaxies taken by Hubble in 2008, I feel ESO 148-2 deserves its own standalone article on Wikipedia since it has been covered significantly in some articles like [20],[21], [22] and [23]. If you are free, do you mind if you can create this article based on the sources given? Galaxybeing (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)