User talk:MarioProtIV/Archive 4

Hey, I noticed you moved the page to the "...March 17–18, 2021". I always get aggravated when users come in and change the titles, like when it got changed to "Saint Patrick's Day". I deliberately did not name it that and it got moved there anyway. I am glad you moved it back. I tried tagging the original title in CSD to get it moved back to "...March 17, 2021" but the CSD process is backlogged. I didn't proceed with the name change to the 18th because we always go by local time with the tornadoes (UTC confuses the general public – at least in the U.S.). With that in mind, technically this outbreak won't include the 18th until after 05z in a couple more hours. I don't think it'll be a problem though since I'm sure at least a couple tornadoes will occur tomorrow over the Carolinas. But, just a heads up for the future, we go by local time for date splits; this process has worked for years with little difficulty, so it would be best to maintain consistency. Thanks! United States Man (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The content you added violates WP:BLP being an unsourced allegation. Please don't add such content without a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Pirx (planet) ‎ True mass revealed to be far into the brown dwarf category, redirecting Tags: New redirect Reverted

Your edit has two grave problems: YOu did not provide any reference and you killed a well-developed article. The correct way is no rename and modify Pirx. I could have done this myself, but since you gave no refereences, I just reverted you. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello MarioProtIV, you reverted my removal of the infobox entry for the radius of Proxima Centauri b with the edit message that the paper is sourced. I think it's appropriate to include the information in the article's body, but not in the infobox. It is after all a guess from a model of the population of a lot of other planets. There is no evidence regarding the actual radius of Proxima Centauri b. Icek~enwiki (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the objetive reason to revert my content?--Piquito veloz (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Those images are redundant and from what I can see they seem to be not allowed according to what’ve I read on the talk page regarding them. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Images are free and content is public domain or CC-BY-SA. That you think content is redundant is subjetive. The one who broke the rule of the three reversions first was you --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Texture used to wear Kepler-7b in Celestia was downloaded of the server and webpages of the NASA. --Piquito veloz --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Can read there the next text: "NASA content - images, audio, video, and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format - generally are not subject to copyright in the United States. You may use this material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages." --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• MarioProIV, I had to remove your attempt at a report at WP:AN3 as it was a mess. Meanwhile, Piquito veloz has filed a report against you. I suggest you respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

None of your arguments apply there, even the pic of the chief template of Kepler-22b appear without labeled sizes because is a pure artist´s concept. New message in my report --Piquito veloz (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestia is GNU and Celestia is a tool to create images like GIMP or photoshop. This user have created this pic with his tools and the info of sources is poor (only he said that source is public domain in info) and He doesn't mention which tool he used ¿Gimp, photoshop, what? In my image appear exact sources from the NASA and quality is better and my tool is Celestia. I ask again if we don’t know the true size of Kepler-22b (and other planets) why does you back to the next image in Kepler-7b? --Piquito veloz (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Again --Piquito veloz (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

At first glance, the licensing of the Celestia images looks acceptable for Wikipedia --Piquito veloz (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The country in which the hurricane took place should be included to facilitate those that are not in that nation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That seems to imply that the storm is from North America and that wording is usually used to describe people. Tropical cyclones are not people so that doesn’t really work. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I am reverting your addition of a date of birth to the infobox and lead of Andi Matichak. That change needs a citation in the article. Putting "listed on superstarsbio" in the edit summary is not sufficient. Is "superstarsbio" a website, a book, or something else? Please provide a citation if you re-insert the reverted content. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello MarioProtIV! WikiProject Weather is doing a drive during 2022 to get all new 2022 weather articles to at least C class, with the hope of B Class. I thought you might be interested in the WP Weather drive, so I wanted to drop a message about it. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioProtIV I have nodeced you are undoing my edits on Mid January 2022 winter storm section on the 2021-22 North American winter well you need to stop doing it you have alredy redone my edits 5 times. Legensd(talk) 21:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2021–22 North American winter, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring. An additional note: if a section is poorly written, then WP:FIXIT instead of edit warring over it. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:BOLD, the title generally should not be bolded in the lead. In this case, adding the bolded title only makes the opening sentence more cumbersome and is redundant because the dates are already mentioned in the next line. If consistency is the problem, maybe the others should be changed as well. This practice is commonplace among tornado articles. United States Man (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If it is redundant in the sentence simply just remove the date that is mentioned later on. Also, the bolding has not been an issue for the last several years from what it seems with regards to winter storms and is only seemingly a problem now because you’re bringing it up. Winter storms and tornado pages are two different things in this regard (one is a direct system, the other is a general event caused by a parent system) and thus the former has more weight to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The policy still applies, regardless of your feelings. The fact of other articles having it bolded is WP:OTHERSTUFF. United States Man (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

How about you stop edit warring and try to get others on board with a policy change. I see you've been warned recently for edit warring with others. United States Man (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I’m aware, you’re the only one instigating this change and no one else has had an issue with this over the last few years (otherwise it would have been brought up already). Plus, regarding this edit the Texas government officially referred to this as Uri, so the unboldening was not justified there. Also your dialogue here is pretty much encroaching on WP:RUDE with the tone and whatnot. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The Texas government has nothing to do with what we do on Wikipedia. It was decided in some discussions way back that the TWC names could be italized but not bolded. All others are italized. United States Man (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I can’t remember where the discussion is located, but I know that you know we had a discussion that the TWC names would not be bolded. Your latest edit was made out of spite, and if you like consistency as much as you say, you’d want them all to be italized. United States Man (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that edit was because MOS:BOLDALTNAMES states that alternative names can be boldened if there is significant enough attention given to it, which given the fact the Texas government itself referred to the storm as Uri, justifies the bolding. In addition, I do not even recall your point that we have a policy on this and the bolding of titles in general, it’s part of MOS:BOLD and does not triumph project policy. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

When you do a merge, like you did for January 19-23, 2022 North American winter storm, please make sure to change the talk page to a redirect class. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Please make sure to correct talk pages when you do merges. This is the second time you have merged an article without redirecting the talk page nor changing the class to redirect. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Also, please note that I have undone your revert. The exact reasons given for the initial revert go against the reason you created the blizzard article. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! A discussion has opened up on the Talk:January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm, to discuss the content involved in an ongoing edit war. Feel free to leave your opinions here! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello - so you inserted the full proper reference information for a number of references in this article. That is good. I notice that a bunch of the references seem to have been archived, but I could not in a cursory search see who did that step. Do you know if all the references need that step to ensure the pages of the particular websites/organizations are not lost if those pages get taken down? Hope to hear back. Thanks.174.89.120.209 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at the current events noticeboard regarding a topic you may be interested in or an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Russo–Ukrainian crisis and World War III speculation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless you actually merge in the information from the section of the tornado into the general tornado information or the section at Tornadoes of 2018, it is not redundant and therefore should stay. It’s about 1,100 bytes by my calculation of difference from the table. Also, you’re basically advocating it to be removed from every single blizzard article by that logic, since that is typically what they are, such as Winter Storm Uri, Winter Storm Xylia, Winter Storm Gail, March 2019 North American blizzard, and February 2016 North American winter storm.38.125.67.137 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, now that I take a look at your talk page, what I see is a lot of warnings for apparent edit warring and no response. 38.125.67.137 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Module:Storm categories/categories. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. If you believe that consensus was poorly-determined, take it up with the closer of the discussion in accordance with Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. In the meantime, do not force the previous revision of the article back without proving poorly-determined consensus or gaining consensus for a revert. Chlod (say hi!) 03:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
As User:Chlod pointed out, you don't get to revert it just because you consider the consensus "poorly executed". You had a fair chance to state these objections during the RfC so it is already generous of us to entertain your relitigation of this. Knock it off with the reverts. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, MarioProtIV. I wasn't originally going to make a big fuss about this, but after looking at your talk page, I believe a gentle approach would be inappropriate to the situation, as you clearly are not getting other editors' complaints. There is a clear consensus at Talk:February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm#Merger that a merge should take place: I say that it is clear because there are five editors who support the merge in various degrees while you alone opposed it. By Wikipedia's standards (and by any standard, really), that is an overwhelming margin of support. Moreover, given that an editor specifically requested that this discussion be closed, the community clearly feels that discussion has reached an end and that its chosen path should be implemented. However, after merely ten minutes, you reverted my closure, claiming that discussion had fizzled and consensus had never really been reached. There are several issues here. 1) It is never appropriate to unilaterally revert a closure, especially when you yourself were involved in the discussion (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures for correct protocol). 2) That you reverted my closure so quickly after the discussion had been open so long suggests that you were paying attention to the discussion, meaning you could have continued it and further refined the consensus if you wanted; combined with how you have made no effort to do so since then, this gives the appearance that you are stonewalling rather than truly seeking to refine the consensus. 3) You seem to misunderstand the nature of consensus, which does not need to exhaust all possible arguments and objections; rather, it is based on the strength of the arguments presented, as viewed through the lens of policy by an uninvolved editor. The requirement that the editor is uninvolved is crucial: because you have participated in the discussion, you already have an opinion on the subject, which makes it impossible for you to construct an opinion solely on the strength of other participants' arguments in the same way that an uninvolved editor can.

I am going to be frank with you: because you have already been warned numerous times about this behavior, including twice in the past three days, I seriously considered escalating this to a noticeboard directly. However, I also do not know whether anyone has ever attempted to explain these things to you, so I believed I should take the time to do so and give you a chance to correct your mistakes. With rare exceptions (which are listed here), you should not make an edit if you know that another editor opposes it; doing so is called edit warring. (One of the mistakes I made when I was new to Wikipedia was interpreting WP:3RR as permission to revert up to three times: it's not. Rather it, is a red line that is never acceptable to cross. An edit war can happen even if editors are making only a single revert or fewer per day, if multiple total reverts happen.) When you know somebody disagrees with you, you should stop editing and discuss it on the talk page until everyone is in agreement about the correct course of action, or an uninvolved editor comes and determines what the consensus is. That means no editing to introduce compromises, either; get support for your compromise from the editors supporting the status quo ante before implementing it. There are several reasons why editors insist on talk page discussion over editing; apart from the obvious instability it causes, edit summaries have limited room and are therefore not conducive to good discussion and thus to consensus-forming. Moreover, the tone conveyed by reverts (especially multiple reverts) is aggressive (it sorta implies that another editor's edit was so stupid, it's not worth talking with them about it first), which can be upsetting and exhausting and therefore discourage participation, which harms the consensus-building process as well as the project as a whole. (This can be seen in how Hurricane Noah subsequently "withdrew" his proposed merge because he doesn't want to deal with any more of your crap, if you would pardon my bluntness.) For all of these reasons, edit warring is one of the biggest behavioral no-nos on Wikipedia, moreso even than outright incivility except in the most egregious cases.

In sum, I ask that you please self-revert your reversion of my closure. I would also seriously rethink your conduct on Module:Storm categories/categories, as well as in general the manner you go about resolving disputes with others. It is clear from all the warnings you have received that this is a significant, long-term problem and, while I hate threatening people with noticeboard discussions, that seems to be an inevitable next step if you cannot get along better with others. If you have any questions about the consensus-building process, etiquette, or anything else, please do ask; I am more than happy to help you. Best wishes, —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

My only reasoning for undoing the closure was because I and several others off-wiki had agreed on a different kind of process we’d do with the article (which was why there was a bunch of sources in the section below the discussion. There was not a clear consensus to merge from that discussion off-wiki which was why I undid your edit in good faith (at least in my view). I will admit I have a bad record of trying to solve disputes with others and the conduct a few days ago was my fault and it shouldn’t have gotten that far. Another factor is probably I sometimes priories off-wiki consensus over on-wiki which can lead to this kind of behavior. I apologise for any damage that I may have brought to the community by this and surely I will engage in more appropriate behavior with consensus. The whole color saga shouldn’t have gotten to where it did but I was at least trying to take other people’s opinions that I received and at least we were able to come to a consensus (or at least a good proposal) that supports both sides. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Mario, it does not matter whether you believe you had a valid reason to revert a close by an uninvolved editor. As explained above, doing so is NEVER acceptable. Also, I very strongly dislike that you are making these decisions based on what you perceive from off-wiki discussions. You can chat about it on Discord but the only consensus that has any force on Wikipedia is that achieved and documented on-wiki. See also WP:Canvassing.—Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I should add that you have a history of not replying to talk page posts of this sort, and then continuing this behavior. This suggests to me that you intend to ignore or not take seriously others’ concerns, and thus that you’re wasting Compassionate727 (talk · contribs)’s time. This attitude is not acceptable, and if continued, will definitely result in your getting sanctioned. I expect that you will prove me wrong and address the concerns brought up here, because 5KB+ is a lot of text to write, and would only be written if they seriously believe you’ll read it.—Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it’s worth I have a bad habit of reading the talk messages here, taking it into consideration but then forgetting to reply (as well as archiving once it gets long enough - I’m a bit lazy to be fair). I take all criticism fairly but I will admit I should be responding to these more so as to not give off a bad impression. Apologies if this made it seem otherwise.--MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 21:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime beat me to the notice. You're not in trouble or anything; I just felt that issue of how the merger should ultimately be closed has grown beyond my capacity to handle on my own, so I brought it up a noticeboard where it will get more attention. We're required to use this specific template to notify you; otherwise, I would have just leave a normal message. You are, of course, welcome to help clarify the situation and give your own opinion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah sorry Compassionate727 🙂 ~TNT (talk • she/her) 21:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I know that most editors don't realize they're required to give the notices at all. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WPTC Discord off-wiki canvassing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ~TNT (talk • she/her) 00:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 13, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 08:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi MarioProtIV, in the open WikiProject Tropical Cyclones arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 20:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Y Seen it, thanks for heads up. FYI was wondering for a while when today it would come up since it didn’t seem like it’d get delayed again haha. Patience is key then. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
• Chlod (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
• Elijahandskip (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
• LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• A set of best practices for leaders and/or moderators of off-wiki chat platforms to consider adopting

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

Hi Mario; thanks for upholding the current consensus on Ziegler's article regarding infoboxes. However, please do be aware that an infobox is currently being discussed at at this thread here. As such, based on how the discussion is going as of writing, I'm inclined to inform you that consensus is likely to change. Just thought I'd point that out. Happy editing! InvadingInvader (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Halloween Ends. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

So then why do all of the other films of the series like Kills and 2018 were written the way I had it? Very confusing. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It is always possible for other articles to get it wrong. We need to follow what reliable sources say the trends are, not try to identify these trends ourselves in the individual reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the additions, but as it stands now, the synopsis reads a bit clunky and seems too long. My intention was to keep it as short as possible, and I thought the "crossing paths" with Michael would already be covered by the "series of events [...]"; the "final (?) confrontation" between Corey and Laurie could also be left out in my opinion as we're really only trying to cover the very basics in the lead. Any idea how we could condense the material? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

At the very least leave the Myers bit in there since that’s still a central theme despite less screen time. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 07:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The redirect Draft:El Muerto (2024 film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 23 § El Muerto (2024 film) until a consensus is reached. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Trailblazer101. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Deadpool 3, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Even though an actors' strike has been called, it does not begin until midnight on July 14. Even with that, we still need a source confirming when production halts, and we don't just add material pre-maturely and hide it because a source doesn't exist yet. Please be patient, as there is WP:NODEADLINE in adding information to Wikipedia. Once a source on the situation eventuates, it will be added. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey there. I notice that you invoked WP:MCUFILMCAST the other day when you added several cast members to Multiverse of Madness. Please note that — as noted at WP:MCUFILMCAST — we are ignoring the "grouped" names at the end of the MOE title sequence, i.e. the ones you added to MoM. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Blue Beetle (film), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Kindly add an inline citation when updating gross figures of films. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Jasper Deng (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What thing do they violate? Im pretty confused on that Insendieum ALT (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Basically, we can’t use the “track” files on new storms since those are the old colors - we have to wait until someone uploads the path version. With older storms they are grandfathered in for now until we can upload new tracks. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ohhh alright cant you just enter in |color=new though because I have seen that in other articles before Insendieum ALT (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Insendieum: As the creator of that parameter, I can say it won't. That parameter controls only the color legend below the caption, not the colors in the image itself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This special advisory is being issued to update the current and forecast intensity of Otis. Satellite images show that the very rapid intensification observed earlier today has continued, and the latest data support an initial intensity of 125 kt. The intensity forecast peak is updated to 140 kt, category 5 strength, since the environment isn't forecast to change much before landfall, and there are no signs of this explosive intensification stopping. This is an extremely dangerous situation, and all preparations for Otis should be rushed to completion.

Mother of God... Noah, AA^Talk 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s really bad. Hurricane Otis - taken care of and it’s now BOLDly the main title. Have at it as I’ve just copied the framework over and it needs a LOT of polishing because of the major threat to land. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I wrote up a bit on the precursor through the formation of the TS. I dont have time for more rn unfortunately. College... Noah, AA^Talk 00:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MarioProtIV. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Superman (DC Universe), 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) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello MarioProtIV, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)