User talk:MarioProtIV/Archive 5

Hello, you deleted a page that I created about the as of now current winter storm in North America and redirected it to the broader page for winter in North America this season. I realize now that I was wrong about when it started, but why did you delete it? There is a page for the January 8-10, 2024 North American storm complex, shouldn’t there be one for this storm too? MountainDew20 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just now seen your newest edit. So, all I have to do is not call it a blizzard, right? MountainDew20 (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this OK or is something still wrong?

January 12-19, 2024 North American winter storm MountainDew20 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a draft in progress for the earlier winter storm (which was responsible for the majority of the deaths currently especially in the South. I may likely create a new one for this current storm, which would likely be at Draft:January 16–19, 2024 North American winter storm. The title you made was factually inaccurate as the current winter storm had no blizzard conditions or warnings aside from the mountains, which, in the article name POV, is not sufficient enough to leave at the current title. That would likely be the storm I redirected it to, although a better title would be January 10–13, 2024 North American blizzard since we’ve had many winter storms in a short period of time (similar to the February storms from the 2020–21 North American winter page. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s best we create a disambiguate page for all of these storms at January 2024 North American winter storm. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, I saw you editing the aforementioned article. I was glad you removed the global warming "juiced up" bit, but was there a reason you removed the part about Hilary's remnants moving across the western US into Canada? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Mario, I have undone all your edits to the article for reasons I explained in the edit summary. I have told you numerous times now that you should be using edit summaries, yet your edit summary usage rate remains unacceptably low. Your edits frequently become controversial in part due to this, so instead of a request, this is now a demand.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I honestly forgot to add the summary for the edit and it was meant to explain why I removed the last bit about Hilary’s operational track since it got shortened (now I just reworded it), and I admit I was maybe a little biased in removing Maue’s claims because he can make wild claims in regards to the hurricane season, so that was my fault. I will include edit summaries more often now though so thanks for the demand. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both Mario and Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) for chatting rather than getting to an edit war. Now that we've brought up the storm, I'm wondering both of your thoughts on the global warming bit? For what it's worth, I agree with Mario's original edit, removing the global warming bit, which, to their (his?) credit, had an edit summary that said "while likely true, I don’t think we should elevate his takes given he makes quite outlandish weather claims. Also not really appropriate for the section either." I honestly think this is true for most storm articles with the global warming connection. Hilary just happened to be one of many storms in recent years to have some sort of connection with global warming, even though climate change refers to much longer term patterns in the Earth's climate, not solely connected to one individual storm. Before bringing up the discussion on Hilary's page (or the project), I wondered if I could ask both Mario and Jasper's thoughts on the global warming section in general for storm articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the linkage to global warming should be relevant and mentioned in the storm articles that generate widespread news coverage and mentions of these kind of events. I.e Harvey, Patricia, the big anomalies. Hilary is kind of borderline because while it did get close in the technical sense to a California landfall, there have been numerous instances in the years and decades past of similar close call events or their remnants affecting California in a big way. That’s different from extreme intensity in Patricia’s case or dumping feet of rain over a major metropolitan area in Harvey’s case, of which both have very clear global warming discussions centered around them. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense I suppose. Hilary was just another Nora or Doreen, a once in 25 year event for that part of the world. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioProtIV, I personally don't agree with your addition of Template:Multiple image on the Barnsdall, OK tornado section, which you added here. It adds too much whitespace to the section and makes it look empty, while before, the prose seemed to fill in the section in a more effective manner, even if there was still some whitespace present. I believe that it should be reverted and the extra image should be placed elsewhere until more information comes in for the tornado that would better fill in the section with the double image. Just wanted to let you know so that we could discuss the issue, and for me to hear what you have to say about it so we can come to an agreement. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @ChessEric: as he has removed the section from the article due to it not containing enough information. What do you think about reincluding it with just the one image in the infobox, or do you believe it's still too short to include regardless? ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 14:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The section removal had more to do with the section not having enough information than it having to do with the pictures. However, I do agree that having two photos in the infobox is too much. Only one is needed. ChessEric 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to clarify what the requirements for a "Daily Statistics" table is, since it seems @MarioProtIV removed it; I also started discussing this topic on the current outbreak. I just wanted to know if there was a standard for this element or if it should be removed from existing articles, since it appears to be be infrequently used overall. 2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If the outbreak is like 3-4 or so days long then it can be added - I removed it because I moved the page to be the 26th-28th instead since the 25th was essentially an isolated incident not really grouped in with it. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, there really is no requirement from what I know. I added a daily statistics chart to the March 31 - April 1, 2023 outbreak article last year because...I thought it would look cool. LOL! I guess it's up to the discretion of how editors of the article want it. ChessEric 18:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 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/Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 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.

Walsh90210 (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your revert here, your explanation would violate WP:SYNTHESIS. We can't just assume these names will automatically apply just because it is the same actors playing similar, if not the same, roles (especially since we've seen cases where this is not always the case). We also should not use the wait-and-see approach as justification to leave unsupported material in an article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

But if they do have the same names in the movie and said explicitly then I could re-add it back right? Guessing the MoM tactic applies here too since it’s credited differently in the credits. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You would still need a source for anything you add or talk page consensus to do so (which I presume may be needed in this case if the credits differ from what many sources state). Yes, similar to Multiverse of Madness, if their real names are not used in the credits, we should not use them in the article unless multiple reliable sources (particularly citing those involved) use them to refer to the characters. Unlike the many MCU articles where many characters return with the same names, these are different characters who could be from different universes and as such, they could have different names. Given none of those names were sourced for this film specifically, we can't just assume what was done in prior films applies to this one, which is SYNTH. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Huh? I am moving it to mainspace. Delectable1 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Clear your cookies/data. It’s a cached display so it loads faster. Noah, BSBA^Talk 20:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Didn’t work. I use Google chrome on my phone so I cleared cookies and cache from the last week and it didn’t fix anything. It appears fine when I put the file in a thumbnail though, so it’s something with the infobox. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Avery just reuploaded it and it works now. I guess it was something due to the fact I was the uploader of the image. Not sure how that would cause the issue. All resolved though. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious, are there any accurate sources on how much damage Beryl has done in terms of cost? I was unable to find a source for the 6 billion figure listed on the Wiki page. NesserWiki (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hurricane Beryl, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Mario, you know better than to try to sneak in unsourced claims without an edit summary. . The latitude claim is not justified. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Deadpool & Wolverine‎. 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. Your incorrect synthesis (or WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE if you will) was reverted. Per WP:BRD, you should take it to the talk page. ภץאคгöร 17:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MarioProtIV. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:January 2024 North American cold wave, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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) 16:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an alert being sent to all active editors on the WikiProject of Weather and any editor who has recently editors weather-related articles.

Editors on the Commons have received communication from the National Weather Service that the Template:PD-NWS, which is often used to upload weather-related images, is incorrect. There will be a discussion starting on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard within the next few days to determine how to manage this issue. Under the current PD-NWS copyright template, images on any NWS webpage was considered to be in the public domain unless it had a direct copyright symbol and/or copyright watermark.

One National Weather Service office has confirmed this is not the case. For the next few days, it may be best to not upload any image from an NWS webpage that was not made or taken directly by the National Weather Service themselves. Once the Commons determine how to move forward, editors will recent a new alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. I already warned you before for WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. This may just be the last time. ภץאคгöร 07:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MarioProtIV. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "January 2024 North American cold wave".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here, you could probably restate it without the "commercial success" and it would be fine, but one thing to keep in mind. The film will likely hit $1.1 billion and beyond, so the change will be short-lived. It looks repetitive now because two parts say "$1 billion", but eventually there will be different numbers there. Might not be worth the effort to change it, but if you want to add the part about "Joker (2019)", I wouldn't be opposed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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) 03:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm André, a member of Wikiproject:Tropical Cyclones. I had added links from the NHC itself that near the coast of the territories of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, Ernesto reached category 2 with 150 km/h of sustained winds. You classified it as false and reverted my edit. The topic is true, because even in the discussion made by the entity's meteorologists, they mention sustained winds. Because I'm using the Wikipedia application, I can't format the links automatically due to errors in it. The information I provided is true.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2024/al05/al052024.discus.033.shtml?

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2024/al05/al052024.discus.034.shtml? André L P Souza (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither discussions were when Ernesto was at Category 2, which starts at 85 knots or 100 mph. Ernesto was only 80 and 75 kt respectively, which is only a category 1, not a Category 2. That’s why your edit was reverted. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of multiverse worlds (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiverse worlds (Marvel Cinematic Universe) 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.

Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m working on an article and I need the track map for it. Please help me! :) HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! What makes you say that there was no consensus at Talk:2024 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1#Image for Hurricane Oscar? I see 5 users (not including myself) supporting peak pressure image and no one in favor of the current image. INeedSupport ^:3 16:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

As of right now though, Wikipedia usually uses peak wind image. Unless peak wind looked horrendous (see Delta 2020), that is usually how we have done so. I thought there was no consensus because I only saw discussion about it. But on my previous point, right now the peak wind was on the day it formed (at least until TCR could make changes to the Cuba landfall). MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. Even though it was a discussion, it was about reaching a consensus on which image to use. I was thinking about Hurricane Delta as a point for choosing peak pressure, but I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. We will see if TCR will change anything about Oscar. INeedSupport ^:3 19:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Howdy. We don't need to use "Incumbent" for Harris. Just calling her "vice president", is enough for us to know she was the incumbent veep, during the campaign. GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It might be prudent to have a section on the lake effect snowfall in the Ohio region. I started one but I dont really have the time to add much to it due to work. This event is expected to produce 4-6 feet of lake effect snow so I figured it would be significant enough for inclusion. Noah, BSBA^Talk 21:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I figured that’d be added eventually. Would’ve been weird to not include it but thanks. I’ll update what I can. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell EF5 tornado.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

you can just remove the parameter value in the future. Alternatively, you can always use the form on the main page instead of copy-pasting as it seems you did here. Izno (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. Wasn’t quite sure where that auto form was so I just copy pasted. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Hurricane Ida (August 2021) 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/2025 January 17 § Hurricane Ida (August 2021) until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I knew his high school was on vacation, but I didn't know he would come to my god damn hometown! (The IP geolocates to the government of Chatham County, Georgia - I was born and raised in the Savannah area). Now time to track down and block those public IPs (sigh) wizzito | say hello! 00:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably nothing more than a coincidence, although you kind of wonder if the choice of city was a particular dig at me... wizzito | say hello! 00:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Ad Orientem has blocked the IP as a proxy. Could this be our first case of Andrew using proxies? wizzito | say hello! 00:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Another IP, geolocating to a Dunkin' Donuts in Albany, is doing the usual pattern of RFPP trolling... 50.75.28.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ... makes me wonder if he is visiting SUNY Albany, which actually has a pretty strong meteorology program (it's the trend that connects most of the unis he is visiting...). wizzito | say hello! 00:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The Dunkin' is located RIGHT NEXT to SUNY Albany. At least he's not in Savannah, right? right? wizzito | say hello! 00:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Another smoking gun: SUNY Albany's Atmospheric Sciences program is having a visit day on Monday. https://admissions.albany.edu/portal/ualbany_customvisit (click Feb. 17 on the calendar) wizzito | say hello! 00:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado impacting Hackleburg.png, 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. — E_F⁵ 13:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado impacting Hackleburg.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello MarioProtIV, WeatherWriter has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• The past week has been a difficult week for those involved in the weather community, with all the changes and firings in NOAA and the National Weather Service; and everything involved with NOAA under the second presidency of Donald Trump (new article for all of these events). Hopefully your day can get a little better from this smile! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Awh. I’ve been severely stressed from the news considering I graduate in May with my meteorology degree and seeing how bad things are going right now so I’ve been very angry about it. I appreciate that I really do :) MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You may not have noticed that there is an ongoing formal move request on the talk page of this article. If you would like to participate, here's the link. Please do not rename pages that are still under an open, formal requested move. Thank you for your consideration in this. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why you insist on keeping {{Infobox weather event}} on the Tylertown tornado section of Tornado outbreak of March 14–15, 2025? You said that "We don’t use that template in these articles" which isn't very good reasoning. Just because previous pages use that template doesn't mean they all need to.

The {{Infobox tornado small}} template is better suited for the intended use and is much easier for editors to use as it's just one template rather than multiple mashed together. I mentioned this earlier at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Tornado infobox for sections and was thinking I could go through old articles and replace the infoboxes with the new one since it is more suitable.

I really don't see how using the weather event template is better, especially since its intended use is in the lead like a normal infobox, not for sections like in this case. I thought I'd leave a message before putting back the other template to avoid an edit war. Thanks, harrz ^talk 17:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The project has used infobox weather event for the tornado sections ever since it was implemented. As such, WP:SILENTCONSENSUS applies here, and you have to get a new consensus on the project talk page if you’re going to be making such a huge change. So please do not keep reverting just because you think you don’t see a consensus. Additionally, the whole point of infobox weather event was for this exact reason which the old one failed to do, as described here in the extensive discussion. Additionally, these tornado sections do not have the counties added, just as we don’t have that for the hurricane templates as well on the season articles nor the RSI storms on North American winter articles. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I personally like the new template. It's always good to try something new once in a while. — E_F⁵ 22:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

One of the other issues though is that several pages still use the now-deprecated Template:Infobox tornado and have not been updated. Changing to yet another Infobox on dozens of pages is time-consuming, and not everyone can be on Wikipedia 24/7. So I strongly suggest waiting to add the infobox unless a consensus is reached at the project talk page, which has not occurred yet, and will take a while as well. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of tornadoes at that discussion, and change is not a bad thing. Also, I don't understand your point about counties, could you explain that further please? Whilst I understand your point about other articles and the change to {{Infobox weather event}}, I still don't see why this article needs to use that template: change has to start somewhere. I have already started a discussion on the project, and I guess we will see where that goes, but for now there isn't really a reason why we shouldn't use the new template - WP:SILENTCONSENSUS literally states "Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident". Well, this is that disagreement.

As a side note, I would advise archiving some of the sections on this page as it's size makes it a lot harder to edit easily. Thanks, harrz ^talk 23:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Harrz: We obtained consensus to deprecate Infobox storms in that discussion which was what was originally used for the tornado sections. The onus is on you to obtain consensus for your infobox before its deployment. Simply deploying it when a consensus already exists is not the way to go about this. In cases like this, the status quo should apply whilst a discussion is ongoing. Noah, BSBA^Talk 23:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have the time for a long, probably weeks-long discussion over this. Forget I said anything. Sorry, harrz ^talk 23:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Harrz: I understand your frustration. Some changes take weeks, months, or even years of discussion to reach a consensus and be implemented. It's just a matter of having patience. I spent over a year trying to some changes implemented through several discussions. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I am acutely aware of that but like I said I simply do not have the time for something which I honestly don't care about enough to put that much effort into. I've requested my template be deleted anyway as there's not really any point of it. harrz ^talk 00:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Is a list of tornadoes split really needed? There weren't even 100. I'd propose a merge but I want your opinion before I do that. E_F⁵ 12:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There are still more surveys being done and usually once we get high enough past 80 it starts becoming too long to navigate through, plus the prose is getting too big (the list takes up more then 75% of the article) Especially if it’s over several days. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, tornado lists usually take up most of an article. I'm just concerned we're making an unnecessary split when 80 tornadoes really isn't that many (December 26 being an example). E_F⁵ 13:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

In that case there aren’t many individual sections for notable tornadoes or non tornadic effects, so we just leave it there. When we have several notable ones, that’s when the split comes in handy. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

No...? The article was shorter than Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1–3, 2024 (a GA) before the split. — E_F⁵ 14:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That’s not a good argument either since that only has one notable tornado section. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. How do tornado sections play a part here? The April 1 article was literally longer than the March 14 article before the split. E_F⁵ 14:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

You can't override an RM without consensus and it creates disconnect with the main article. — E_F⁵ 21:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The closed RM is located at Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025/Archive 1#Requested move 15 March 2025, while it technically doesn't apply I really don't want to keep filing RMs for no reason. — E_F⁵ 21:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I filed a technical move request to correct the dates, and this was a WP:BOLD move as there is a near-36 hour difference between the California tornado and when the main outbreak began, as well as surface analysis showing the main low form which the rest of the tornadoes came from did not form until the 14th to the east of the Rockies. At the time the RM was made, I was not aware of the time difference, so I was under the guise the 13th was fine, but now I found that it is not. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

You can't "BOLDly" disregard an RM; consensus needs to change. — E_F⁵ 21:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for so many talk page messages. Timothy P. Marshall finalized the Diaz rating, so it got the Vilonia treatment. I know NOTFORUM applies, but I'm telling you since you had a draft up on the tornado and if not being upgraded probably will have a significant impact on the draft's future notability. :) E_F⁵ 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This was an issue brought to ANI by an anonymous user. Departure– (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MarioProtIV is violating his topic ban. Thank you. Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a new ongoing request for comment discussion, with the goal to solve the various disputes on weather-related articles (such as tornadoes or hurricanees) on how to best utilize damage estimates in the infobox. Your comments are highly-requested, as the result of this discussion will affect all weather-related articles. This notice is being sent to all editors who have recently edited weather event articles.

You can view and participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RFC - Weather Infobox Damages. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This and this are violations on your topic ban against closing discussions imposed at WP:ARBWPTC. I'd strongly suggest you self-revert promptly or you will be facing a block for the violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done - ugh, forgot about that considering its been three years since that mess happened. Genuinely forgot about that and I was trying to consolidate discussion on date ranges because it was all over the place instead of one section (WP:GOODFAITH basically), but my bad for that and it won't happen again. Btw, I'm not sure, but that new user might be a sock considering they were a new account with ANI knowledge, though I don't know if its Andrew or someone else. But I'm not gonna file that yet I guess. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It happens sometimes when it's been awhile. Just take a {{minnow}}, don't do it again, and go forth and edit! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just to let you know that you're risking getting blocked for edit warring. I know from experience that Admins will often block everyone who violated 3RR when responding to edit wars, regardless of context, which you're at risk of now. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Is Andrew5 sojourning in Tennessee? I notice a lot of Tennessee-based IPs in the last few days adding classic Andrew5 slop to weather articles, and as a bonus, this /32 (2600:387:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) has been blocked from an admin's talk for a week. I thought maybe it had something to do with UTK, but they don't have a meteorology program. wizzito | say hello! 18:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the IP geolocations are just incorrect... wizzito | say hello! 18:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You added sfn refs to this article last month with this edit. The problem is that there is no "Agee" citation for these sfns to link to. I have no idea who or what source ''{{sfn|Agee et al.|1976|p=553–554}}" refers to. Please add this reference to the Sources section so the last remaining Harv errors in this article can be fixed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Shearonink, I assume it's this May 1976 publication. — E_F⁵ 16:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

EF5 Thanks, but it would be great if someone with more familiarity with the subject than myself could absolutely confirm that this is the correct reference source *and* confirm the info that this "Agee et al" ref backs up at the individual cites *and* fix the remaining (Agee at al) "Harv errors". - Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Will do. — E_F⁵ 17:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

EF5 Nevermind, I went ahead and fixed the Agee refs, thanks again for that journal URL. The remaining problem is that almost all or all of the Grazulis refs do not have page numbers. I cannot wade through that text and find them...please fix a few or all? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Why did you redirect Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 27-29, 2025? The outbreak is still ongoing, and soon we will have many tornado reports. Just asking, don't mean any offense. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 11:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

StormHunterBryante5467, we had two tornado reports. Two. This is easily the biggest bust I've ever seen in my time editing. — EF5 ^(questions?) 12:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

If many more tornado reports, say 50-60+ come out, can we redratify it, write all needed information then post it into mainspace? StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 19:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:LINEAR for guidance on putting coordinates on linear objects, and consider that tornadoes are events. Abductive (reasoning) 18:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I have provided explanations for my recent edits at 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado at its talk page. See Talk:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado#"Strongest" and "worldwide" claims and discuss there instead of here. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

So, turns out that a majority of places don't recognize outbreaks as being continuous in the same way Wikipedia does. I want to keep May 15 and 16 as separate under the same "outbreak sequence" umbrella for now. Note also that most non-Wikipedia places have March 14 and 15 as separate, even when they were under 24 hours apart and from the same "system" - perhaps the same "event". The terminology is messy. This likely requires a bigger discussion, but now's not the best time. Departure– (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Huh, I wonder what this page view spike is! Should a "not to be confused with" section be added, given the traffic? ^EF⁵ 13:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting a discussion if we need to re-add the 2007 moniker to disambiguate it from 2025, but considering it missed town just barely I don’t know if that’s needed. I’m probably gonna wait until we get damage surveys out to make that decision though. I think a hat note probably is fine for now. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I am restarting the creation of a big list of RS and non-RS sources used or discussed related to weather events. Since this will be extremely useful going forward, if you have any sources that you want to add, please add them. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm going to WP:IAR publish Draft:2025 Whittle-Somerset tornado today, any and all help wIll be greatly appreciated. — ^EF⁵ 15:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the length the section was getting, I figured that and Chess even admitted in an edit summary. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

An admin will round-robin it shortly since it's in decent shape. Again, all help appreciated. :) — ^EF⁵ 17:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Has been published. ORES shows FA quality. 2025 London tornado — ^EF⁵ 20:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I really think you need to talk to arbitration for clarification on whether or not this and this is allowed within your arbitration sanctions. I gave you a heads-up before, but to my knowledge you never did end up following through and made those edits anyway. I ask you get this matter dealt with / ironed out within the next 24 hours or I'll contact ArbCom myself (neutrally, of course; the alternative is letting a sock put in a bad-faith request). Pinging also @Ponyo: main administrator involved in the SPI this concerns. Departure– (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Also going to note that the two edits you made were towards IPs not under active blocks for sockpuppetry, and are therefore not covered automatically under BMB, even though they were DUCKs. I'm using this as a heads-up in case this ends up at Arbitration, and also as a call of "we-need-more-administration". Departure– (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Filed, and I decided to just request a full lift of the restriction as it’s been long enough and I just never felt like asking because I didn’t see it as a priority. Let’s see how things go. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The image you reverted seems to be a picture of a poster, hence why the text is wrapped and uneven. Please don’t do that. SuperFunHouse1 (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The square image from Gunn’s Instagram post looks to have been enhanced by AI to extend it to fit its proportions (evident by the blurryness of the cape on the left edge of the image outside the white line). I would not count that as the legitimate poster, hence why it was reverted. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find it hard to believe that the poster shared by Gunn would not be legitimate. Yes, it is not the proper dimensions, but it is better quality than the earlier poster uploaded which was more of a blurry picture of the poster. The blurriness may be intentional as it has been used in other posters for this film. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I should also note that any time a file is changed, the source for it needs to also be updated. I believe IMP Awards will release a version of the poster with the adequate dimensions, but we should not try forcing it to be those dimensions, which it appears the present version of the file is. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I was waiting for IMP Rewards too, but then everyone had to jump in with the screen grab of a bus ad, so I had to come in before it got lost in the shuffle. Wait for IMP’s 2024x3000 poster. SuperFunHouse1 (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I just saw the bus ad that the photographed one was originally from. I have also done two separate reverse image searches for the present version of the file and found none, leading me to believe the poster from Gunn's socials were edited to fit the exact same adequate dimensions, which is not ideal as not every image file is 100% the same with their metadata and pixels. IMP Awards is sometimes slow in updating with new poster releases, but once the most recent one is available, that should be used, rather than a poor quality photography or a cropped version of the official poster online. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The redirect The Storm of 2012 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/2025 June 24 § The Storm of 2012 until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

​For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Congrats! ^EF⁵ 13:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Haha thank you! MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding MarioProtIV's editing restriction

Check here before edit : https://science.nrlmry.navy.mil/geoips/tcdat/tc2025/WP/WP052025/txt/trackfile.txt Vệ Thần ^{- Talk} 11:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I came here to post a warning template, but then I saw that you were an experienced editor. You should really know that you cannot perform original research, like this, or add entirely unsourced info, like here, here or here. Some of your edits even contradict one another, like saying the recording a Justice took place from May 2019 to February 2021 (here) only to instead say it took place in only 2020 (here). Tkbrett (✉) 19:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey MarioProtIV! I've been working through a new broad-article topic which will eventually be "Influence of severe weather on American politics" (to go along the series of articles like Politics and sports or Politics of climate change). Right now, it is a red link and I have a really small draft right now. But, I plan to have it be a "parent" page [summary page] to yearly/decade-articles (so probably a Influence of severe weather on American politics in the 2020s may exist in the future).

For example, I have published the 2020-specific article, which included issues with COVID-19 and tornado disaster relief, along with the big wildfire controversies and new legislation from it.

I started the 2021-specific article in draftspace today...which includes the 2021 Texas power crisis. Well, I wanted to see if you had any interest in helping out with the creation of these articles? I'm 100% planning for 2020–2025, with 2020 already in mainspace (still stuff to add to it) and 2021 in draftspace. I know you have edited several of the severe weather articles that related to politics, so I wanted to let you know about these new articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

https://store.taylorswift.com/products/the-life-of-a-showgirl-vinyl can you stop editing the date for no reason? 2001:861:5605:9DD0:E949:4C93:704A:FEEE (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Typhoon Durian related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane Beryl related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.3 element 13:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane Georges related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Template:Hurricane Harvey related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. element 14:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane Irma related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. element 15:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane Maria related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. element 15:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane Milton related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Template:Hurricane Mitch related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Template:Hurricane Wilma related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Template:Typhoon Haiyan related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. element 15:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sending this to a few of y'all who got it working. I'm trying to get the track generator at WP:WPTC/Tracks working but it doesn't seem to have storm data after 2010 — I did get the tracks for multiple storms before then however. I want to generate a few storm tracks so how do I go about this? Can I plot individual points myself? To be specific I'm trying to test tracks for Kiko, Lorena, and 13-E (all in Pacific 2025). I'm on MacOS but I believe it's the same command line everywhere. HurricaneZeta (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you renamed the Mario 2 movie draft article due to the title announcement. FYI, this article should remain in the draftspace as per WP:NF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. Thanks. - Bananza76 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The teaser trailer alone satisfies WP:NFF. That was also why I moved the draft to mainspace. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

All the Nintendo Direct had was a title announcement. There was no proof of the film being in pre-production, or clips from the film. Also, even if there was, it should have been directed to The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, (film) was not needed. - Bananza76 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is regarding the following question: Should WikiProject Weather encourage the use of infobox collages for weather with standalone articles? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV do you know how to find atcf files for TCRs or somehow put them into the track map program in another way? I would appreciate it so I could update summary maps after the TCR HurricaneZeta (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Not at the moment unfortunately, I’ve tried finding some way to convert it but the BT files themselves aren’t updated until I think after HURDAT updates with a downloadable file. So for now you just have to do it manually which is a pain but it is what it is. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV Can you explain how you do them manually? Would help a lot since I want to update summary maps HurricaneZeta (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, how can i put the file into the track map program? I usually do --format atcf so is there a command like --format HURDAT for this? HurricaneZeta (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Mario, you haven't been responding to my discussions. Since I began a discussion at Talk:Typhoon Hagibis, you have made six edits over an eight hour period, more than enough time to make your case. I understand that you have a real life job, but come on. This isn't even the first time this has happened. You need to start responding to these discussions, as your lack of further input is delaying resolutions. I have a compromise ready for you. Please respond. Columbia719 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey I noticed you reverted my edit on the strongest US hurricanes template but your comment with the edit seemed to have nothing to do with my reasoning for the changes. Also there's a discussion on the talk page you might be interested in. No rush or anything if you've got a bunch of other stuff to do. MCRPY22 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, MarioProtIV. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "January 2024 North American cold wave".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks!

(I'm specifically addressing your edits to The Life of a Showgirl, which did not include edit summaries.) Jwilli39 (talk) ⚡ 05:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You are at three reverts at Draft:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025. Unless you can show that that user is evading a block for misconduct (i.e., not just that their previous IPs have been blocked as proxies), any subsequent next revert will be a 3RR violation, and may lead to a block. I've left the IP a message to try to resolve the parallel-draft issue, and will protect the draft or block the IP if needed, but I really want to make it clear that 3RR only has limited exceptions, and if you want to claim the sockpuppetry exception, you need to 1) clearly say who you think they're a sock of in your reverts and 2) be right that what they're doing is sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve opened up an ANI case anyway to solve this given they do not seem to be stopping, so they should be hopefully helpful in ending this. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Where exactly did this personal attack happen? I don't see it... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This user keeps accusing another IP of ban evasion, and edit warring with them, hence this is why I have given them this warning. That is why I am referring to it as a "personal attack". 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

To keep it short, I was noticing very WP:DUCK behavior on a series of pages and, having seen previous conversations over that IP (which got blocked) and how it was handled with potential socks, was almost certain this new IP was the same person or account. I’m just frustrated this is turning into such a quagmire where I was hoping this would’ve been a little more smooth sailing resolving this because it involves a consensus of date formatting. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but in the future when you are dealing with someone in a situation like this, please try to do it in a good faith and civil way, and try not to personally attack the person you are dealing with. Have a nice day! 98.235.155.81 (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I tried doing your method for plotting the EX points for Karen. I'm not sure if there's a way to get the exact coordinates of the low without making a rough estimate, could you check to make sure I did it right? Thanks :) OreoStar-fait (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Check the OPC high seas forecast and go back to the last version that mentions Karen. After that follow the low with the identical coordinates since it doesn’t name them in the product after NHC discontinues advisories. Thats how they’re done usually. At a glance it looks okay but I would check just in case. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks a lot. I'll update with this method for 18z OreoStar-fait (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, from every forecast since the 7th newest, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the low that was Karen. OreoStar-fait (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ll take a look later when I have the program in front of me. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty! OreoStar-fait (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If I were to try to do the same thing for Jerry, would I use the coordinates shown in the forecast where it says "ATLC REMNANTS OF JERRY"? I've noticed they don't usually put decimals for the coordinates there. OreoStar-fait (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

No because Jerry lost its circulation when it dissipated so it would not be added there. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay. That makes sense OreoStar-fait (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey there MarioProIV, I saw you happened to be the last editor for the Karen 13 article. The original editor for that article has retired, but since Karen is not a good article, the season is at risk of being removed as a good topic. Are you willing to nominate it for GAN if you think it's up to standards? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Honestly I’m not sure - the article seems to have a lot of fluff at a first glance and more content seems to be related to the resultant nor'easter/system that absorbed Karen which the NHC does not mention in the TCR. I might move that stuff to the October 2013 North American storm complex page which is the system that absorbed Karen and the resultant impacts seem better fit for there. As Karen didn’t cause any damage directly I think it may be better just to merge it altogether sans the nor'easter. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering that possibility. I just didn't want to propose merging like I usually do, but yea, the storm complex was the more important event, not the weak TS that dissipated over water. Plus, 2013 was a fairly quiet season. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I think there’s enough solid ground to just BOLD merge that, to be fair so I think I’ll just do that instead. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No complaints here. I was updating the project assessment tables and it stood out to me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh yea, if you could just link the nor'easter in Karen's section in the season article (instead of it having a link to the winter storm article), then that more than justifies the merger. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink:  Done, should be all good now. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This will be very interesting for you: WP:HKGW

Even more so considering this LTAer has been involved with me over different topics on ANI and was blocked multiple times.

SigillumVert (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like to notify you that I have removed the clear template that you put on Tropical Storm Melissa (2025) as it caused the table of contents and infobox to be displayed without overlap. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz: I was testing out a different method where I put "TOC" before the clear template which fixes the issue. I forgot to apply it here. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. I was wondering why it was fine on Barry and not Melissa. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, MarioProtIV. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 17–20, 2025, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)