User talk:Stormm001

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Shearonink (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI - Infoboxes are supposed to summarize important information that appears in the main text. Your edits added information that only appears in the infobox, this is against WP:MOS, see Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain? for more info. Also, all the supposed details as the information had appeared in the infobox was unsourced. All that can be stated in the infobox is what appears in the cited sources, that 4 different weapons were used or fired during this spree killings events. The perpetrator used 3 of them and one of the dead victims used the 4th. The gun info as it appeared in the cited sources is now present in the main text - Shearonink (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2017 Mississippi shootings § Recent edits. Shearonink (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to CZ 457. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Josey Wales ^Parley 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason I decided to create the CZ 457 Wikipedia page was because no one else did it yet & I could only find a Czech language Wikipedia page for this .22 rifle despite it being the CZ flagship .22 rifle currently made (https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZ_457). Make sure you guys do a better job at polishing this page & get it updated. All i did was the rough draft. Make sure you finish the job. Stormm001 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the onus is on the creator of the article to provide references to reliable sources when publishing the article (see reliable sources), otherwise the article may be deleted or sent to draft. There are about 9,000 new articles waiting to be reviewed for such problems and the reviewers usually dont have the time to spare to make improvements Josey Wales ^Parley 08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to CZ 457. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Wikishovel (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t want to improve on it myself anymore. Can you do it on my behalf? Stormm001 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

When you are adding cites to articles, like you did at Covina massacre with this edit, the "access-date" parameter is supposed to be the date you, the editor, access the reference. So it wouldn't be the date of the incident or the date of the cited reference, it would be the date you access the reference, the date you placed the reference in the article. So if you edit the article today, and today is September 30, 2024, that would be the actual access-date. - Shearonink (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lockheed Martin shooting § What weapon was actually used in the shooting...let us discuss. Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I've mentioned this to you before. When you cite a reference, the access date is the date you access the reference, not the date the news article, book, etc was written or published. In the references you have been putting into articles - for instance, recently in Lockheed Martin shooting - you are still stating the published date as your access-date... - Shearonink (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Me again. Please make sure you're putting in the date you add the info in a cite as the access date. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

One more time.

access-date in the cite template is the date you, the editor, find the info and you add it to the article, not the date of the event itself and not the date the source was published. - Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I’m new to Wikipedia & still have a lot to learn Stormm001 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Faulty referencing...

So far as I can tell, none of the cited sources in this article mention the specific manufacturers & models of the 2 revolvers used in this school shooting. In the sources, the weapons seem to be only id'ed as a .22 revolver & a .38 revolver.

Also, Wikipedia cannot use an editor's expertise as a source. The "Asa Coons" guns photo does not clearly identify the make & model of the 2 revolvers. You might be able to identify them from the photo, I might be able to identify them from the photo but readers have to be able to verify that information in a reliable published source. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a continuing iasue with your edits. You add specific information to a shooting article's infobox but that information does not exist within the main body of the article. For instance, even though your edits to 2024 Apalachee High School shooting contained reliable sources, you added specific make/model information to the infobox even though that information does not exist within the main article text.
Please take a careful look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. It states "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. ... an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
Adding weapons information to an infobox without integrating that information into the main article text isn't as useful as integrating specific weapons information into the article. Infoboxes are supposed to be a short and succinct summary, the main article text then expands on whatever is presented in the infobox.
I also want you to understand something here...I am trying to help you. I know you are new around here - Wikipedia can be an overwhelming place for a new editor with lots of policies and rules. You are enthusiastic about adding weapons information to infoboxes...consider adding make/model/gauge/manufacturer info from published reliable sources to the actual article instead. - Shearonink (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

To use a picture on Wikipedia, we need permission from whoever owns it/whoever created the image.

• If it is your own picture - you created the image or own the image - then you can just upload it at "Commons", saying "It is entirely my own work" - at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Upload .
• If it is not yours, meaning you did not create it or you do not own the image (maybe it was found somewhere online), then the owner or copyright-holder can give permission in two ways;
• A) They could put it on a website (flickr, or their own site) with an appropriate licence, such as "Public Domain" or "Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike" (that is an option in flickr)
• B) They could email us permission. You could ask them to do that, by sending them an email saying something like "Hi, I've written a page on Wikipedia, and I'd really like to add a picture - but as Wikipedia is FREE, we can only use freely-licensed pictures. If you have any which you can give permission for, please send me an email back with the text below, and the picture(s) attached."

-Then add a copy of this: http://enwp.org/user:chzz/help/myboilerplate (having filled the form out)

-And send the email (attached picture file + completed form) to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Shearonink (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting § Weapons. Shearonink (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Let anyone edit on it. Let me know when you’re ready to remove it from the draft stage. Stormm001 (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If you or anyone else want to edit some more info into the LC carbine page, be my guest. Let me know when you want to send it for approval. Thanks. Stormm001 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Ruger LC Carbine. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and because the only source currently in the article is from the manufacturer so it's not independent of the subject. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Pichpich (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Allow anyone to edit it Stormm001 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

KylieTastic (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Stormm001! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I submitted my article so others can be allowed to edit it so it can have a better chance of being approved. Stormm001 (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The submission process is to flag it as ready for review, it has nothing to do with others being able to edit it. KylieTastic (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Where do I go to flag it for review? Stormm001 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You did submit for review and it was declined. If you want help or advice on it you could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms KylieTastic (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruger LC carbine 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/Ruger LC carbine 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.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I Object. I Do Not Wish For This Page To Be Deleted Without My Consent. Stormm001 (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Cameron Dewe. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of David Kozák. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The external links you added appear to be catalogues for various firearms manufacturers and are not suitable as citations for the article, as the links are not sufficiently specific to describe the firearms owned or used by Kozák. Adding such links is contrary to the guideline WP:NOELBODY. Interestingly, you also added a citation about the firearms that Kozák owned that would be suitable as an additional citation, rather than the external links you did add, although its title is in Czech, not English, as your initial addition implied. The citation template has the ability to provide a translated title, and language of the original, in addition to the title of a citation, so that a full citation can be supplied. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit 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:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a 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. I first noticed this while reviewing your edits to the article about David Kozák and when I looked at your other contributions I noticed that you often do not provide an edit summary, or if you do it is only the default text. Please try to provide a descriptive edit summary with every edit you make, as it helps other users to understand what changes you are making to articles and why you are making them. If other users do not understand your edits, you may find them being undone, or or even have articles you write or contribute to being deleted. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to 1977 Klamath Falls nightclub shooting. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

All I did was start off on creating the rough draft. If you or others wish to finish what I started, you don’t have to ask me for permission. I’m surprised this page wasn’t created sooner. Stormm001 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Trump portrait 2025-2029.png

is it ok to update Danald Trump’s official portrait for 2025? Stormm001 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on 1984 Autzen Stadium shooting requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/aetna-cas-and-sur-888827047. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Peace, G4† (talk, ask questions, dispute a tagging) 17:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you please use more sources in your articles, and use citations. The 1977 Klamath Falls nightclub shooting article is 15 paragraphs long, and nearly all of it has no citations.

Also, please finish your articles before you publish them. This should not be on the site other than as a draft. Thank you. Swinub★ 17:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Stormm001, why are you still churning these out? The 1972 Kettle Valley shooting article has one source, and the only citation used is for one of the rifles. Swinub★ 23:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Articles are very limited to find & some information is inaccessible to me since I live in Canada, where some informations is “not allowed in your country”.

I ask if you to find more sources to attach to the paragraphs as you wish. Stormm001 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but no one is forcing you to publish these. If you can't find enough sources, then the articles shouldn't be on the website. If there are more sources available, those should be found first, then the information on the page should be given citations, and then the article can be published. I can't be bothered to make a stink about it, but if an article has only one source, it's not considered a notable topic and therefore doesn't belong outside of draftspace. It's not up to other people to fix things that you've struggled with and not wanted to finish but decided to publish anyway. Swinub★ 03:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as 1984 Autzen Stadium shooting. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Directly copies https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/aetna-cas-and-sur-888827047. Peace, G4† (talk, ask questions, dispute a tagging) 17:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 Fallon, Nevada shooting 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/2018 Fallon, Nevada shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm MIDI. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hungerford massacre, 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. Thank you. MIDI (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

10 years ago, I saw this page & the exact information I edited in was the exact information that was listed in the Hungerford massacre Wikipedia page. IDK why that information about the Beretta 92FS is now just listed as just “9mm Beretta”. Stormm001 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

We just need a reliable source that can verify the specific model. Paragraph 14 of the Smith Report, which the article cites, lists only "Beretta 9mm Pistol". Until about 2021 (I haven't looked for the specific edit/date) the article did state "Beretta 92FS semi-automatic 9 mm pistol", but this was unsourced. MIDI (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed everything uncited from this article, and then only later found that there was a copyright violation. It's unbelievable that you would add unsourced information to a mass shooting article that is (presumably) covered by BLPCRIME by copying from a podcast transcript. I assume this is why the article was very specific in which exact model of gun was used, but unclear on if the shooter's wife is named "Vicky" or "Vicki".

@MIDI and Fram: courtesy ping as this seems to be a pattern. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Stormm001. Thank you for your work on SIG Sauer P322. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Consistent with other products listed in SIG Sauer#Products, this stub has appropriately been marked as such.

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

Klbrain (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Stormm001. Thank you for your work on FN 545. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Consistent with others in Category:FN Herstal firearms.

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

Klbrain (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Stormm001. Thank you for your work on FN 510. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Consistent with others in Category:FN Herstal firearms.

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

Klbrain (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Stormm001. Thank you for your work on Stevens Model 87. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for helpful production of this page which reachers WP:NPROD; thanks for also combinging this with the similar model 887 - that's efficient given that the page is short.

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

Klbrain (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You’re welcome.

To be honest, I never heard of the Stevens Model 87 until I watched the YouTube video “America's favorite semi-auto 22's”, a great vid from one of my favourite YouTube channels: Desert Dog Outdoors.

i was surprised it was the only one out of the 4 rifles he reviewed that didn’t have a Wikipedia page…so I decided to change that. Stormm001 (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Stormm001. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:W.R. Weaver Co., 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) 15:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if I only gotten started on the right draft of the Wikipedia page of the Wolf family case. I was surprise to discover this cases didn’t have a Wikipedia page despite being the worst case of mass murder in North Dakota. Stormm001 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

You are autoconfirmed, so once you add sources and flesh out the article you can just move it back to mainspace. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I added sources; if you review it & do some proper editing to it before submitting it, that would be great. Stormm001 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I think its valid enough for mainspace now, although you could improve it further. You can probably move it to mainspace now if you want :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m also surprised that the 2025 Anaconda, Montana shooting doesn’t have its own Wikipedia page, despite the suspect beibg on the run triggering one of the largest manhunts in American history. Stormm001 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

If you find sources that establish notability beyond routine press coverage, you should create it! ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, when I press “submit for review, I get “You are using the mobile site. Please switch to the desktop view to use this interactive wizard.” When I do, it is difficult to switch back afterwards Stormm001 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I moved it for you :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop changing all references of AR rifles to pistols. You have cited several references that make zero mention of a pistol, you have linked to images of rifles, or you just made the changes without any source at all. An AR pistol is a distinct class of weapon, not all ARs are pistols. I have reverted a number of your recent edits for this reason, please discontinue this disruptive editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. I will take that into consideration. Thank you. Stormm001 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at 2017 Mississippi shootings, you may be blocked from editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

How many sources do I need to add for you not to take it down again. I did add another source, or do you prefer it to stay the way you want it? And threatening to block someone for reversing your edit (even if they added a new source)? How would you like it if the same threat was made to you? Would you like it? Because I do t appreciate it. Please reverse you edit & leave it alone. Do that I I won’t touch that page again. Stormm001 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

One source that states the AR is a pistol is all we need. You keep changing "rifle" to "pistol", but all the sources you ref also call it a "rifle" or "long gun". It's not a matter of how many sources you need to add, it's a matter of not claiming they say one thing when they say another. I made that very clear in my first message to you above, and you said you would "take that into consideration" before immediately going and doing it again. How would you feel if a new editor lied about what a source stated, when you called them on it they apologized and inferred that they would stop, only to do the exact same thing again their very next edit. How about you just follow the rules around here, and you will quit getting reverted? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

And now seeing that you pulled this exact same stunt word-for-word a year ago, and were told not to do it again, I stand by the final warning. If you continue to cite information not included in the source, you will be blocked. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Annunciation Catholic Church shooting. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not introduce links to draft articles in actual articles, as you did to List of rampage killers (religious, political, or ethnic crimes). Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I will keep that in mind. Stormm001 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The article Radical Firearms RF-15 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable AR variant. Sourcing appears limited to commercial product descriptions and reviews

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: I vote to Keep the page. I oppose Deletion period. Stormm001 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The article Hi-Point HP-15 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable AR-15 variant; only citations provided are to product reviews or retail sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on AKDAS Alcor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. MediaKyle (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not protest. If you wish for a speedy deletion, I will not protest. Stormm001 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 boogaloo murders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on 1970 Fahrdorf massacre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:BLPCRIME violation

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This tragedy was previously deleted from the Fahrdorf Wikipedia page. I vote no to deletion. Stormm001 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1970 Fahrdorf massacre 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/1970 Fahrdorf massacre 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.

shane (talk to me if you want!) 22:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I oppose deletion. This Wikipedia page was established because this case was deleted from the Fahrdorf Wikipedia page. I nominate to keep the page up. Stormm001 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Were you the TA who removed the deletion discussion off of the log? shane (talk to me if you want!) 22:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

TA? Stormm001 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:TA shane (talk to me if you want!) 22:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brunswick, Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed it Stormm001 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Stormm001. Thank you for your work on Walther WMP. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Your contributions are greatly appreciated, have a blessed day!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 03:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@SunDawn: You’re welcome. Usually whenever I see that a certain Wikipedia page doesn’t exist, it gets me impatient waiting for someone else to create it, so I usually say to myself “if no one’s going to do it, I will”. Sometimes, some of the pages I created get an “automatic deletion” and disappears (i.e. the Wikipedia page for the Hi-Point HP-15). Stormm001 (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2026 Salt Lake City church shooting 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/2026 Salt Lake City church shooting 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.

Raskuly (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Stormm001 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You take part in the deletion discussion solely at the AfD. Also, that is WP:JUSTAVOTE, which does not help prevent the article from being deleted or redirected. Raskuly (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

AfD? Stormm001 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

AfD stands for Articles for deletion. Raskuly (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Silvio Izquierdo-Leyva. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Mccapra (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to List of mass shootings in the United States (1900–1999), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Raskuly (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

There was no justification for removing these articles from this Wikipedia page. In fact, I’m actually working on creating several Wikipedia pages on some of these cases. Undo the deletion. Stormm001 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I provided justification: Only shootings that have Wikipedia articles of their own are included in this list. The page also says This is a list of notable mass shootings in the United States in the 20th century. You provided no justification. If you create articles for some of those incidents which establish notability, feel free to add them back, but until then, they shouldn't be there. Raskuly (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to List of mass shootings in the United States (1900–1999). This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Raskuly (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to 1878 Hyderabad shooting. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and needs at least two other sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:1878 Hyderabad shooting and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RangersRus (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The reason I am restoring this article is because it was previously deleted in 2022. Stormm001 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It will likely be deleted again. You should not resubmit without making suggested fixes. You need to find modern era sources by historians with significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m trying to find more sources but could only find three. Stormm001 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

well you should find first before resubmitting. RangersRus (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I added two more sources to the article Stormm001 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Raskuly. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page List of mass shootings in the United States in 2026 have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source, discuss it on the article's talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Raskuly (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do not link to draft articles in the main space. Notability standards do not apply to drafts and that draft you added to the List of mass shootings in the United States (1900–1999) article is currently pending review to see if it is suitable for the main space. Drafts are meant to be hidden away from the average Wikipedia user (the readers). Raskuly (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

This draft has not been approved for over a month. First it was 4 weeks, then it was 5 weeks, and now it says 6 weeks. Stormm001 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

And? That doesn't mean start adding it to things out of impatience. There are thousands of drafts that need to be reviewed. I myself have a draft that was submitted two days before you submitted the Silvio Izquierdo-Leyva draft. It does not appear you've added any categories to the draft either, adding draft categories will likely speed up how quickly an article will be reviewed. I've gone ahead and added them to help you. Raskuly (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Stormm001 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Stormm001. Thank you for your work on Langside Street massacre. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources and footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. Please also establish notability as per WP:NEVENT. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

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

Mariamnei (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Raskuly. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of mass shootings in the United States in 2026, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Raskuly (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. I’ll add it again this time with a source Stormm001 (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, don't because it doesn't meet the requirements of the list. Raskuly (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Quatsino murders. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 22:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to ask a question. Everytime I create a new Wikipedia page, it seems that no one wants to do this part and do some editing to it to improve the page. For example, the last page I created, the Langside Street massacre page, has barely been edited for a while. Why is that? Is there a boycott on all the Wikipedia pages I created for furrier editing by professional Wikipedia editors to improve the pages I created? Stormm001 (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, MolecularPilot, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the event meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for events. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the event in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• show lasting significance: analysis published after the initial breaking news has passed, showing historical impact;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the event, such as press releases, the event or organizers own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all four of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

The current references don't demonstrate WP:LASTING impact of the event, as they were all published around the time it occurred and showing the breaking news.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:1878 Hyderabad shooting to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

MolecularPilot _Talk 11:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you delete it please? It’s going to keep getting declined since it’s as far as I can go with adding sources. Stormm001 (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I've tagged it for an Admin to delete. :) MolecularPilot _Talk 00:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cambridge Bay shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Bay shooting 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

MediaKyle (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep: I nominate to keep this page. Stormm001 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Mass shootings in Nunavut indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, since you deleted the Cambridge Bay shooting Wikipedia page, you might as well delete it Stormm001 (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)