User talk:EditorTimes

Hello, EditorTimes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions

Hello EditorTimes,

I apologize if my recent edits came across as disruptive. That was not my intention.

I have been working to improve the article by: - Making the prose more concise and encyclopedic (Wikipedia prefers neutral, tight writing over repetitive or overly dramatic phrasing). - Standardizing the format of the tornado tables and detailed sections (Three Rivers, Union City, Beggs, etc.) for consistency across days. - Ensuring descriptions match the official NWS damage surveys and reliable sources while removing duplication (e.g., path length and casualty counts were sometimes repeated unnecessarily).

All changes were based on the sources already cited in the article (NWS surveys via DAT, TSAsum, IWXsum, etc.). No sourced information was intentionally removed — only rephrased for clarity and compliance with Wikipedia's WP:CONCISE and WP:TONETONE guidelines.

I will stop further major changes to the main article for now and discuss any remaining issues here on the talk page (or your talk page). Could you please point out the specific sourced content you believe was unjustifiably removed? That will help me understand your concern and restore or reword it appropriately.

Thanks for watching the page and helping maintain quality. I'm happy to collaborate.

Best regards, [Your username] Ilovemeteorolodgyisback (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Your response is quite general and does not address the specific edits in question. Please explain clearly in your own words which sourced content you modified or removed and the reason for each change. At the moment it is difficult to verify your explanation without specific details. Kindly provide a more direct and edit-specific response so this can be properly reviewed. And dont use AI EditorTimes (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello sorry for my ai reply earlier (not ai writing this) so I worked on three rivers,Union city and beggs in each section or part I shortened the long damage description because they repeated the same information multiple times for example, path length and number of injuries were often stated twice in the same paragraph I kept the important facts from the NWS surveys or you could say NWS damage surveys and made references but I made the sentences shorter and clearer i standardilzed the wording so those three sections read consistetly I fixed small errors like text saying March 6 when a tornado really happened on the 5th I did not try to delete any source facts I just rephrased for it to better better to read if there’s a part or information you think I removed please tell it to me or tell me the exact line and I’ll check page history and try to fix it right away I’m okay to discuss or restore anything that looks wrong or I will say out of place (ilovemeteorolodgyisback) also I wanna say I did not use AI for this Ilovemeteorolodgyisback (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Please point out exactly what you changed in the Three Rivers, Union City, and Beggs sections (before/after) so we can ensure no sourced information was lost EditorTimes (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh 😲 you are sockpuppet EditorTimes (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Yup, the second part of their username gave it away! Unfortunately some editors aren't able to understand that they are blocked, not the account - if we only blocked accounts then blocking would be useless! Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how you identify or detect a sockpuppet? I’d like to understand what indicators or methods you use. If there are specific guidelines or evidence you rely on please share. EditorTimes (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

So it's tricky since it depends on recognising patterns - with this one, their username is "Iloveteorolodgyisback".

If someone's being disruptive & has a username like that, I'd do a quick search for "User:Iloveteorolodgy" to see if there's any interesting history. You can also look at the history of any pages they've been working on - if there are lots of reversions (especially with something like "RV sock" as an edit summary) then that's a good clue that we've got a repeat offender.

If you are pretty sure we've got a sockpuppet, you can visit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (SPI's) to see if they've got any prior cases. When someone makes a report, they must provide "diffs" as evidence, and explain their reasons; this is really good if you want to check whether your suspicions are correct.

If you're sure this is a sockpuppet, you can submit a report by using the instructions on the sockpuppet investigations cover page.

If you aren't sure whether to report or need help, you can go to the Teahouse to ask if someone can give you a hand. You can also go to ANI, but you'll have to notify the other person if you take them to a noticeboard.

If it's obvious vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism to find out how to check this) then it's much, much quicker and easier to report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

You can also see if/why someone is blocked by looking at their contribution history - there will be a notice right at the top of the page.

There should also be a notice on their Talk page, but they might remove it so I always check their contributions.

If you think this person has come back, you can leave a message on the Talk page for the admin who's blocked them. I think that's probably the best thing to do whilst you're getting familiar with editing - it also means you've alerted an admin who knows all about that particular editor! SPI's are a bit difficult to log, so try not to log one unless you're sure you understand how it all works. You can always send me a message on my Talk page if you need help. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks 🤍 I didn’t fully understand everything yet, but I’ll learn by looking at other editors contributions step by step. Appreciate your help. (: EditorTimes (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem! They seem to be having a go at your Talk page, if you see anything weird just undo it and ignore it - in most cases someone else will see it before you do, so you probably won't even notice it. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Got it👍thanks for letting me know. I’ll keep an eye on it and undo anything unusual if needed. EditorTimes (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh before I go, I want to recommend The Wikipedia Adventure! It's a great way to learn the basics or just have a refresher if needed. Have fun! Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh really...I’ll definitely check out.(: EditorTimes (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

😅just last a quick question — is there any limit on how many edits we can make in a day? I’ve been quite active recently and wanted to make sure I’m staying within normal expectations. EditorTimes (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Nope, no limit! The only problem in this area with newer/low edit count accounts is something called Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Some editors really want to edit contentious topics or other articles that are restricted to more experienced editors and will try to play the system (e.g. adding a 1 to their sandbox, deleting it, re-adding it, etc.)

As long as you're taking the time to make good edits & checking everything before publishing, it's fine!

You can try out some newcomer tasks, or join a project like the Typo Team if you're looking for relatively easy edits that also build up your skillset. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way based on my recent contributions, do you think my edits are useful and in line with expectations? I’d appreciate any feedback. Any mistakes? EditorTimes (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't actually edit articles that much! Perhaps ask for advice at the Teahouse? Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright ✔️ EditorTimes (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet this to wrong 😭 innocent user without anyone proof block ~2026-24235-05 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, is this you @EditorTimes? Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

CSD G4 does not apply to this page because it wasn't deleted at AfD. Unlike the previously deleted page, I don't think G15 applies, either. Please use AfD or PROD instead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I’ll proceed with PROD/AfD instead of CSD. EditorTimes (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Toadspike [Talk] 14:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe this block may be a mistake. I have not intentionally engaged in sockpuppetry. I am willing to clarify and cooperate. Please review. EditorTimes (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

my old investigations already closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dinesh Soi EditorTimes (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue Sonnet How he declared me ask sock? at i did wrong? I have no connection with anyone EditorTimes (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EditorTimes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I believe this block may be a mistake. I have not intentionally engaged in sockpuppetry or block evasion. All my edits were made in good faith from this account..If any of my actions were misunderstood, I’m willing to clarify and cooperate fully. I will follow all Wikipedia policies going forward. I request a review of this block. EditorTimes (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This account is controlled by Alakmarsaify, as suspected by Toad. Good block, and your appeal is declined. Izno (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) EditorTimes, this appeal will be denied because you used an AI/LLM to write it for you - see WP:LLMAPPEAL. You'll get a much better result if you use your own words, even if your English isn't perfect. Meadowlark (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)