User talk:69.118.232.58
whether
[edit]when is the change oleasenotifiyPhilip Guthals please p Philip Guthals 25 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Past Tense and a thank you
[edit]Hello! I saw your edits on the "Weather of (year)" timelines and I wanted to ask if you could make sure to stay in the past tense when adding events to the timelines. Thank you so much for your contributions! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
User name
[edit]Hi there! Your edits have been productive, and it's clear you have knowledge about weather. Have you considered creating a user name? There are benefits, such as having a unique identity (rather than identifying as your IP address), and participating in discussions with other users. Plus, we always could use more writers and researchers, even if they're just fixing small mistakes (like correcting the year, my bad!) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Iowa tornado outbreak of July 2018 has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Wgullyn (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 Dalton, Minnesota tornado has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: 2014 Smithfield, New York tornado has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)February 2022
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 16:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
Nomination of 2020 Dalton, Minnesota tornado for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Dalton, Minnesota tornado 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.
United States Man (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Iowa tornado outbreak of July 2018 for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa tornado outbreak of July 2018 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.
United States Man (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of 2014 Smithfield, New York tornado for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Smithfield, New York tornado, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Smithfield, New York tornado until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Tornado outbreak of February 24, 2018 has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Nomination of Tornado outbreak of February 24, 2018 for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornado outbreak of February 24, 2018 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.
United States Man (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
September 2022
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
69.118.232.58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
this belongs to a McDonalds, or a public IP address. Please don’t totally disable editing for a year.69.118.232.58 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I see no indication this IP has been used by more than one person. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
November 2023
[edit]I have blocked this IP for two months for disruptive editing, namely this and this. These are your last two edits, made 24 hours apart. Neither are acceptable. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
69.118.232.58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is totally outrageous and unacceptable. The second edit was justified because Star Mississippi totally did not assume good faith and assumed I was a sockpuppet without any evidence (or even blocks, the DE block came in 20 hours later.) As such, a reversion of the edit is justified; it is administrative abuse to close a discussion in such a manner just because they think it is a waste of time. While the battle of re’im edit was disruptive, it was done with a helpful intention to hope to gain attention to the fact that the AFD was not WP:EC protected in accordance with WP:ARBPIA. I feel that 39r3i93 was helping the encyclopedia by doing their disruption to gain attention to this issue. And while this IP was at SPI for two weeks, innocence is presumed until guilt is proven, which officially it never was. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Good block. Yamla (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
69.118.232.58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What do you mean good block? We seem to thing that now people can make sock accusations and admins can block socks whenever with minimal evidence! This is outrageous! In complete violation of WP:ADMINACCT, which requires administrators to be willing to look over there actions. Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew5/Archive, IPs were banned with 2 edits as the diff. Literally more evidence was provided for the ChessEric SPI, which got immediately dismissed. And now I have a SPI against myself, ongoing since November 4 but with no comments since November 9, that I am unable to defend from should anyone else make a comment. Unacceptable. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've examined this action, and I concur this was a good block. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
69.118.232.58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Can any real evidence be provided for this being a good block? In Yamla’s first response, she responded in 6 minutes, signifying she likely didn’t read the request because it was 986 characters. Two diffs is not sufficient evidence for a 2-month block, in most cases a block would only be 31 hours or 72 hours, so why is Daniel allowed to make a 2 month block? I cannot even defend myself from the SPI where new evidence against me was provided. And all I can do is sit chained up here and wait for the judge to rule on my fate without me even having a potential say in the manner! The AFD blanking even had a good faith intention to hopefully get the page 30/500 protected, and the other edit was to revolt against a close that would otherwise have to go to XRV which started this mess in the first place. So please free this IP from the injustice. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Good block. I'm surprised it's so short, considering the nature of the previous two blocks. Including personal attacks against reviewing admins is a really questionable approach, considering that other reviewing admins are entirely likely to simply ignore the entire request. Your blanking was disruptive, and this block protects Wikipedia against further disruptive edits by you. It's not the IP, it's you personally. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This request is 1,053 bytes so I expected the reviewing administrator to comment at the start and end to confirm that they actually read the whole thing which Yamla didn’t. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) — I am not an admin, but that ban appeal is not a good one. In it, you (1) accused the block-upholding admin of not doing their job/responsibility and (2) you call your block injustice. Another thing, you keep saying the page blanking was in good faith. You should read and acknowledge that you have read and understand WP:POINT, which is the behavioral guideline on why you Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If I was a blocking or block-upholding administrator, that should be an immediate key thing that should be required prior to any unblock, mainly because you think disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point is good, when it isn’t. While you are blocked/waiting for an administrator to look at your ban appeal, you may want to take a look at WP:POINT as well as WP:PG. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |