User talk:United States Man: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on List of United States tornadoes in June 2023.
Tags: Twinkle Reverted
Line 206: Line 206:
I’m not going to be adding the day of the week to pre-1950 tornado charts. Too much work to Google things like “What day of the week was February 12, 1945” all the time. It seems to add unnecessary steps. When copy/pasting it isn’t that bad. But when you are creating the charts from scratch, it becomes just unnecessary and time-consuming work. In fact, the copy/editor who had the idea for the new tornado chart actually questioned why the header “List of confirmed tornadoes…” was even on the charts. I’m ok with them there, but like, do we seriously need the day of the week in the header? It doesn’t really add anything and it 100% get’s overlooked for most readers since everyone isn’t looking at the day of the week, but rather the date and the tornado intensity. Just a thought, why don’t we just remove the day of the week? [[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]] ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|talk]]) 05:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I’m not going to be adding the day of the week to pre-1950 tornado charts. Too much work to Google things like “What day of the week was February 12, 1945” all the time. It seems to add unnecessary steps. When copy/pasting it isn’t that bad. But when you are creating the charts from scratch, it becomes just unnecessary and time-consuming work. In fact, the copy/editor who had the idea for the new tornado chart actually questioned why the header “List of confirmed tornadoes…” was even on the charts. I’m ok with them there, but like, do we seriously need the day of the week in the header? It doesn’t really add anything and it 100% get’s overlooked for most readers since everyone isn’t looking at the day of the week, but rather the date and the tornado intensity. Just a thought, why don’t we just remove the day of the week? [[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]] ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|talk]]) 05:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:Eh. I don't really support removing it. If you don't want them on the pre-1950s stuff, fine. But, we should keep the rest of it consistent. [[User:United States Man|United States Man]] ([[User talk:United States Man#top|talk]]) 05:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:Eh. I don't really support removing it. If you don't want them on the pre-1950s stuff, fine. But, we should keep the rest of it consistent. [[User:United States Man|United States Man]] ([[User talk:United States Man#top|talk]]) 05:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

== July 2023 ==

[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|stop attacking]] other editors, as you did on [[:List of United States tornadoes in June 2023]]. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_tornadoes_in_June_2023&diff=prev&oldid=1162958188 This], i.e. calling Cyclonebiskit (the author) an idiot, is unacceptable. I subscribe to [[WP:TR]].''<!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> [[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 06:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:45, 2 July 2023

Please click here to leave me a new message.

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
We had a few disagreements yesterday, but one thing we agreed on was that I had found another sock of Andrew5. Thanks for your input on the matter; the one I originally pointed out was quickly blocked as a result. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

happy Valentine day (and yes i know its the 8th but happy holidays)

Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits to the may 21-26 2011 outbreak

Why is there a giant blank template in the article that you reverted back to? IJustLookUpRandomArticlesSometimes (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done

Your reverts of my edits on this article seem dumb to me. There was a discussion at the talk page of Winter Storm Elliot about bolding the name "Winter Storm Elliot" in the lead, and although it was WP:COMMONNAME, it was not bolded. If it was said by Ted Fujita, it at least deserves a mention. I'm taking a half-break to get away from this exact situation. Good job. You really did something. Poodle23 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not taking a break after all, as I edit WP too much to take a break XD
Also, technically this is my 1000th edit on this website! Poodle23 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poodle23: I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think you could just step back a bit and spend a few months learning from others around here. That will help you in the long run, and it's how I learned a long time ago (even though I sometimes don't seem to use that knowledge). United States Man (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If i may interjet here as the editor who found out that Ted Fujita had proposed to call the super outbreak the Jumbo Outbreak, when doing some more research on Winter Storm Naming in the US. My feeling was that it was important to note that it was called that in the Winter Storm Naming article as it maybe moved to a global article about weather system naming in the future. However, I really wasnt sure how it would go down in the Outbreak article and decided against putting it in.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be bolded in the lead. It seems out of place and wrong. It could be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but not bolded. United States Man (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You keep saying from time to time that you dont like the way the project is going. As a result, I was wondering in what direction would you like the broder weather projects on Wikipedia to go while being compliant with Wikipedias rules? Jason Rees (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
  • Germany FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
  • United States TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
  • Byzantine Empire Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included Berkelland LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, New England Trainsandotherthings, England Lee Vilenski, Indonesia Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, Washington (state) SounderBruce, Wales Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and Chicago PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bold ratings

I just wanted to confirm this because I asked this before, but I hadn't gotten an answer. You have been bolding ratings when modernizing totals as well as when you made the Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020 article a GA. I'm just wondering what you are doing that for so that I understand why you're doing that. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Suing" to restore the original colours

@United States Man: I am interested in finding a way to marshal support for restoring the original storm-track colours. Evidently people with actual disabilities were not consulted prior to the recent, disruptive changes, which were conducted in an autocratic manner and whose "solution" was worse than the original version. If the original colours are not restored, I am seriously considering ending once and for all my contributions on Wikipedia. The latest changes are but the most recent symptoms of an increasingly untenable system of management. Political correctness has gained unfettered rule. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CapeVerdeWave: I would strongly suggest that you read through the discussions carefully, before saying that the colours were done in an autocratic manner and/or threatening to sue, as they were done through several RFCs with consensus built and were generally closed by independent Wikipedia editors. I would also state that the colour discussions were open to all and had people with disabilities comment during them. I would also comment that I am also disabled and had a cataract last year, which significantly restricted my vision. It is also worth noting that "marshal[ing] support" to restore the original colours would probably be against Wiki's rules on canvassing.Jason Rees (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: I understand and am under no circumstances interested in canvassing or legal action. Please feel free to remove this entire section. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 2011 Super Outbreak

2011 Super Outbreak has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you opposed to change?

General question for you. Recently, you told me to "stop doing 180s on your editing habits". Over the last few months, you seem to almost be hell-bent on preventing any sort of change. You seem to have ignored administrator messages and alerts at AN/I. Every change done that affects the "how it has always been", you seem to be extremely determined to push back on it. I don't understand why you seem to always want to provoke other editors. I'm not just talking about myself either because we often do not see eye to eye. But even during the time we aren't fighting each other, I've seen you get into debates with so many other editors. You are a good editor...a really good one. I am honestly worried about your attitude though. Others notice it as well. You gave me some advice, so I wanted to give you some advice as well: Be willing to start discussions more than reverting. I started doing that with all the RfCs I started (which I know you hated). That said, it prevented arguments and edit warring. I honestly don't see many discussions ever started by you, but rather reversions by you. I believe if you start more discussions rather than just constantly reverting everytime you disagree with someone (not just me), you will become a better editor. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not going to start a discussion for the recent reversions. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wynne EF3

I'm confused where you're getting the EF3 for Wynne in DAT from. I'm looking right at it and there's nothing published by MEG. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now. Probably was accidentally QC'ed and became visible in the public viewer. Looking like there's gonna be at least 8 EF3's confirmed by the end in addition to the Iowa EF4. United States Man (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LR tornado

Hello, the tornado that hit lr hit western portions of the downtown by the way. I am a citizen of LR. It did hit western portions of the “central business district” Paducah2019 (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a simple map of the track would show that the tornado passed well west of the downtown area and well north of downtown North Little Rock. The fact that you live in the area holds no weight in the discussion. United States Man (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What map are you looking at? Paducah2019 (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could just look at the DAT bro. ChessEric 06:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Bowling Green tornado

I'm curious as to your reasoning for the second Bowling Green tornado warranting a section. Its impact was of little notability, especially in the context of the outbreak, and the only bit of importance it seems to have is that it hit Bowling Green at the same time as the EF3. If it were not for that coincidence, I don't believe we would have even considered giving it a section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. Bowling Green was significantly impacted by both tornadoes. These articles shouldn't be like robots. There should be some leeway from article to article on what we can do. Might could trim the EF3 section a bit, but I really see no harm in leaving it mostly as is. United States Man (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm working on rewriting the first tornado (User:Cyclonebiskit/BG) and leaving comments to get my thought processes across more clearly and why/how I've been trying to trim these down. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox weather events

Hi! What warrants this agressive tone, If I may ask? --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like USM dislikes the new infobox and tries to subvert it when he can. His edit history at 2011 Joplin tornado suggests that his is opposed to change even though it was actively agreed to and reverts things for "inconsistency", when it just hasn't been fully implemented yet. It's worth noting that this is only on non-TC articles as if you look at the list of pages Infobox weather event links to, it is mostly TC's with only a few non-TC articles, meaning that the inconsistency arguments doesn't work there (the inconsistency argument is also a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST/WP:OTHERCONTENT, a thing to avoid).
@United States Man, please stop reverting things for inconsistency, it a violation of WP:OTHERCONTENT and stops progress, thank you. Infinity (talk - contributions) 00:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, Chicago PCN02WPS, and London AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ron DeSantis on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive template editing

Template:Infobox weather event/meteorology is, as the documentation indicates, a template for meteorological data. Template:Infobox weather event/Effects is for storm effects. I'm surprised that you think adding casualties and affected areas as part of meteorological data is proper use of the template, especially when the two is only used (incorrectly) by Template:Infobox weather event/Tornado family (only used on a single page), and only due to your changes (1, 2). Polluting templates with unnecessary parameters make them unmaintainable and disorganized; this was the exact issue that {{Infobox weather event}} aimed to resolve with previous boxes. As the /Tornado family template has been updated to remove use of the parameters and re-aligned with existing infoboxes and 1974 Super Outbreak has been corrected to use the proper templates, they are essentially obsolete.

In the future, communicate before making changes, especially on a template used on over a thousand of pages and in a highly technical space that you don't seem to be that well-versed in, considering you didn't consider adding the /Effects box to the article in the first place. I'd be more than happy to execute these changes for you in a matter that takes into consideration the entire family of infoboxes, but only if you had at least made the effort to post on the talk page beforehand. Chlod (say hi!) 23:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chlod: Your WP:OWN behavior and edit warring has now broken infoboxes at 1974 Super Outbreak and other pages. I will be forced to take you to WP:AN/I if you do not make constructive corrections. United States Man (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A thanks would be appreciated. Chlod (say hi!) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to know what "other pages" you speak of here. They are also likely using the templates incorrectly and against the documentation. Feed me a list. I'm willing to be the janitor that cleans this up for others. Chlod (say hi!) 23:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod: Why would I thank you for your display of being the template czar. I now have to fix it all myself and use the more clunky box with the extra template because you refuse common sense. United States Man (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the day of the week necessary?

I’m not going to be adding the day of the week to pre-1950 tornado charts. Too much work to Google things like “What day of the week was February 12, 1945” all the time. It seems to add unnecessary steps. When copy/pasting it isn’t that bad. But when you are creating the charts from scratch, it becomes just unnecessary and time-consuming work. In fact, the copy/editor who had the idea for the new tornado chart actually questioned why the header “List of confirmed tornadoes…” was even on the charts. I’m ok with them there, but like, do we seriously need the day of the week in the header? It doesn’t really add anything and it 100% get’s overlooked for most readers since everyone isn’t looking at the day of the week, but rather the date and the tornado intensity. Just a thought, why don’t we just remove the day of the week? WeatherWriter (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I don't really support removing it. If you don't want them on the pre-1950s stuff, fine. But, we should keep the rest of it consistent. United States Man (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on List of United States tornadoes in June 2023. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This, i.e. calling Cyclonebiskit (the author) an idiot, is unacceptable. I subscribe to WP:TR. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:United_States_Man&oldid=1162979859"