User talk:Cgkimpson

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Christian Vandal) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Black Harry 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Edits/deletions to Teach Your Children

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ronbo76 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Me

Thank you for experimenting with the page Me on Wikipedia as you did with this edit. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the revert is that the definition "Windows ME" already exists in the last section of the article (Others). ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries

Why are you still not doing other editors the courtesy of edit summaries for your edits? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people keep blaming me?

Why do you people keep blaming me about this? Are you sure it's not you who keeps doing this?

Mel Etitis Page

That is a nice user page you have created Mel. It is very nice. Resonable too. Good job!

Spam in IncrediMail Premium

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on IncrediMail Premium, by Eusebeus (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because IncrediMail Premium is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting IncrediMail Premium, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate IncrediMail Premium itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Incredimail Premium

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Incredimail Premium, by CultureDrone (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Incredimail Premium is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Incredimail Premium, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Incredimail Premium itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense of Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990, by Gopher backer (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990 provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Gopher backer 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990

To whom it may concern:

The Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990 was a true event that happened on June 11 of that year. For then I do not see why it should be deleted. It did not make national news, but it was a event that had Colorado talking. So if there are any editing suggestions, please let me know. I reckon the article not to be deleted.

Limon, Colorado

I've also put this note at User talk:67.166.58.4 considering you are obviously the same person.

I'm pretty much sure that it did NOT happen according to NWS records and Tornado History Project and works by Grazelis, but if so do you have a reference that proves if there was an F5 in Limon, Colorado on that date. Additionnaly do have a source mentionning that the Holly tornado last March was an EF4.--JForget 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Colorado Tornado

Source for the EF4 that hit Holly, Colorado

In the Wikipedia article Holly, Colorado it says under the caption '2007 Tornado' that a violent EF4 hit Holly. There is my source right from Wikipedia!--Cgkimpson 26:28 9 July 2007

I've noticed some blogs such as this had mentioned that it is an EF4 tornado (actually the blogger use the old scale) also with some other independent sources. Although, most news articles and the NWS in Pueblo had classified as an EF3. [1] I haven't found an article from the NWS or Accuweather or serious sources suggesting that it was an EF4. Maybe, they will changed, since it was a high-end EF3 according to Pueblo but maybe it will only be known in a later article (although it has been over 3 months so I doubt it will changed) or when there will be a compilation of all US and/or Colorado tornadoes from this year. But so far I haven't see a serious reference proving the EF4, so I would suggest to keep the NWS rating of EF3 for now.By the way blogs are strongly discouraged as references, since it is mostly from individuals. --JForget 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limon, Colorado F5

My grandfather went through the EF5 tornado, he died from it. I also watched it on the news and it was an EF5. That is the best source I can give you, my grandpa died from it!!!

Might I suggest using Google to dig up some references? While you have my sympathies for losing your grandfather in this disaster, we really need something more than this. The passage of your grandfather as a result of this is little more than colloquial referencing, and that's not a very reliable source in the slightest. (hint: check that link). Also see this link for notability requirements, and this link for verifiability notes. It is on these three things that data - any data - hinges upon here on Wikipedia. In short, ya gotta do your homework - and without following these sources, things don't survive.

Incidentally, words of advice. first, sign your comments whenever you make them. Second, the best way to respond to somebody is generally going to be on the talk page of the person who posted to you.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To The contrary of what the nom of the Afd of your Colorado article, this is not a complete hoax. However, after researches done with the Tornado History Project e which stores storm archives (unlike Environment Canada) and which virtually picks there data from the National Weather Service, there were mistakes on your article. First, the date (or the closest one) in which in outbreak did hit Colorado, which may be closest then what was put in the article occurred on June 6, 1990 not June 11 (reasons that I mentioned in the Afd. Second of all, you have wrote there something like 20-30 (didn't remember the exact number of it) tornadoes occurred but [2] but based on the June 6 data, there were 9 tornadoes in Colorado that day while the 7 others were from Indiana and Kentucky and most likely from a different storm system (unless the cold front was very long). Second of all, yes a tornado hit Limon, Colorado that day, however it was rated as an F3 and not an F5 and there were no fatalities with this storm although 14 were injured [3]

F3 was the highest rating found that day along with another storm just to the west of Limon, probably from the same storm.

The general criterias for a tornado article were mentioned in the Tornadoes of 2006 discussion page, although likely as well in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather. It must satisfy one of the criterias below:

F2 or larger in the heart of a mid-sized or large city (i.e. 50,000+) - Limon according to Wikipedia had a population of 2,071 in 2000 (although don't know the population in 1990, but certainly not 50,000.
10+ fatalities - Tornado history project data shows 0 fatalities
50+ overall tornadoes - Only 9 tornadoes were confirmed in Colorado + 7 in the Ohio Valley (but likely not counting)
25+ overall tornadoes plus a killer - Again only 9 tornadoes and 0 fatalities
Killer F5 tornado in any circumstance Highest according to THP is an F3.

Unfortunately it does not meet any of the criteria to warrant an article, but if the members of the project are proceeding to do articles about Tornado events per year, then it can be mentioned, considering small events (smaller then the Colorado one) were often posted in Tornadoes of 2006 and 2007.--JForget 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Perry Swanson (January 21, 2008). "Springs on Wikipedia-Info at Your Fingertips, a Lot of It Probably True". The Gazette (Colorado Springs).

Proposed deletion of Hallmark Card Studio

The article Hallmark Card Studio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Cybercobra (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]