User talk:Wildfireupdateman

I didn’t add the fr24 link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grffffff (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Pyrocumulus BoiseFire.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pyrocumulus BoiseFire.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fire behaviors moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of fire behaviors, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm new to this article creation thing and I was wondering how to save changes without publishing Wildfireupdateman (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of wildfire behaviors has been accepted

List of wildfire behaviors, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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 List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Any tips to make the article better? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WRP 2001 Chisholm-Smoke.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WRP 2001 Chisholm-Smoke.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tornado outbreak of June 8, 1995

I noticed you started a new tornado outbreak article. I wanted to say that I've made a template for a generic template that touches on all the main points of a more in-depth tornado article to speed up the creation of my own (and hopefully other's) creation of outbreak articles. If you decide to use it, see User:GeorgeMemulous/Generic tornado outbreak and copy that into the article. Cheers! GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft moved

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Chisholm fire. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chisholm fire has been accepted

Chisholm fire, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change the title to "Chisholm Fire" to fit WPWILDFIRE conventions? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tornado outbreak of June 8, 1995 has been accepted

Tornado outbreak of June 8, 1995, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Typhoon" Kong-rey

Hello, I saw you changing the Japan Meteorological Agency winds to 75kt, which I don't think is the proper one. As of revision 18z of 2024-10-28, JMA still considers the storm as an "STS", more-so a severe tropical storm. Here is the latest revision found here:

WTPQ51 RJTD 281800
RSMC TROPICAL CYCLONE ADVISORY
NAME STS (here is it, severe tropical storm) 2421 KONG-REY (2421)

If you want to do this in the future, please get the winds from the section "PSTN", which is the present. The other sections are for probable wind evaluations. This is the same with the JTWC (Joint Typhoon Warning Center), within the section "Present Wind Distribution". I'm sorry if you already know this, but I just want to give you a tip you can probably use in the future. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience. I was using the map on https://www.jma.go.jp/bosai/map.html#5/23.665/123.97/&elem=root&typhoon=TC2427&contents=typhoon&lang=en and didn't realize that we could only use advisories. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can use anything by the JMA and the JTWC, though the advisories are more efficient. I didn't know a map was present too, sorry for my inconvenience. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacks on Blender

Rollbacks are a user privelage that you need to apply for, it's not something immediately available to an editor. Twinkle has a lot of similar tools that do effectively the same thing, it's really useful to use if you find yourself needing to revert vandalism or other unconstructive edits. LaffyTaffer (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight! Was reverting vandalism for the first time in a while, and wondered if there was a tool that made it easier to revert multiple edits at a time. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle is my tool of choice, but there's a lot of other ones out there. There's a list over at WP:AVT that you can browse through to pick one you prefer. :) LaffyTaffer (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Binomial nomenclature: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. HirowoWiki (talk | contribs) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Hi, I noticed your edits to Muckraker. Have you ever tried WP:TWINKLE? If you enable that tool, you can revert multiple edits with one click, rather than manually undoing each one. You can also configure it to automatically open the talk page of the editor you reverted so you can leave a message or warning about the edit. Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

test

test ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) 17:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

test v2 ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) [[User talk:Wildfireupdateman|( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) 00:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

test v3 ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) 00:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

test v4 ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

test v5 [[User:Wildfireupdateman|BINGCHILLING]] (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Screenshot 2024-08-29 12.48.12 PM.png

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot 2024-08-29 12.48.12 PM.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 18:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Spottaing.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Spottaing.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 18:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file was taken from https://www.nwcg.gov/publications/pms437/crown-fire/spotting-fire-behavior website as it is a US government diagram. How would I show this and prevent the file from being deleted? ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) 18:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider changing your signature

Per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P—as it says, it is not strictly required, but [a] distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. For example, some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages, or makes working in the edit window more difficult. I ask that you give particular consideration to the considerable accessibility issues it creates: imagine someone trying to read Wikipedia discussions using a screenreader, and then they bump into your signature as presently constructed.

Thanks again—I hate to be a buzzkill, but I feel it's important to at least make sure folks are aware of potential issues. Remsense ‥ 论 04:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will second that. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature has been changed. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my e-mail?

Hi. I answered your e-mail fairly promptly, but haven't heard from you since. I need you to reply to a question before I block you. (Dear talkpage watchers, this concerns a self-requested block!) Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for the late e-mail response. I have sent my reply to your question in a reply in e-mail. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-requested block

This user has been blocked per their own request because they're studying for finals. Back on 20 December. Good luck with the studies! Bishonen | tålk 22:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Signature

Hello, Wildfireupdateman,

I found your signature in your post on ANI very confusing. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures for policy guidance. Your signature should display your actual username, so other editors know who they are talking with, along with a link to your user talk page. Other than these two requirements, you can introduce a limited amount of creativity. But please make your username clear.

If you have questions about policy and signatures, please bring them to the Teahouse to receive advice and support. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado

On 8 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that debris was carried aloft to an altitude of 30,000 feet (9,100 m) after the 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1957 Ruskin Heights tornado. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Appreciation

Hey @Wildfireupdateman!!! I just wanted to say I really appreciate all of the hard work and effort you have been putting into the January 2025 Southern California wildfires article. For a lot of people, Wikipedia is the first and sometimes only site they look when casually researching something. Your attention to detail and help in creating such a strong article do not go unoticed! You're doing the lord's work informing the people!!! I am extraordinarily grateful for people that care and are passionate about topics (like weather and wildfires). It makes the world a much more lively place, so once again thank you!

Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I actually didn't do that much(3% authorship) despite being third in authorship; User:Noble Attempt did most of it. I'm more of a talk page talker trying to solve problems on there, along with you(good job!) and User:Jasper Deng(who is much more experienced than I am). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to @Noble Attempt and @Jasper deng too then!!! Middle Mac CJM (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciated! It's my pleasure to provide updates and do my best to give context to the situation, especially with how impactful the event is in terms of damage and human cost, as well as its greater impact in the US. Thank you too for your work on the article, especially providing details on damages and responses.

Also, thank you as well @Wildfireupdateman for your contributions to the article and significant help with coordinating matters in the talk page! Noble Attempt (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:RuskinHeightsDamage.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RuskinHeightsDamage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

Hi Wildfireupdateman. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1953 Waco tornado (January 24)

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

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, 1953 Waco tornado, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Article is already in existence, kindly improve and add some information from your draft on the page.

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:1953 Waco tornado 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.

Tesleemah (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wildfireupdateman! 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! Tesleemah (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1953 F5 Texas tornado has been accepted

1953 F5 Texas tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tesleemah (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

charlotte ^👸♥ 04:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:June 2008 Northern California Wildfires on July 18.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:June 2008 Northern California Wildfires on July 18.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 23:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Disagreements on the intensity of tornadoes - Interested in helping out?

Last night, I went down the rabbit hole of list of conspiracy theories and I actually got to thinking about a new tornado article: Draft:Disagreements on the intensity of tornadoes. Several tornadoes over the years have actually research that was conducted on them either saying the rating was too low or too high. Honestly, an article like this could probably be extremely useful. I already added a "controversial" template to the talk page since, just like the list of conspiracy theories, it obviously will be controversial between editors (shocking!!). But, it should be fairly easy to make a list since roughly 90% of the tornadoes-to-be-listed, the disagreements are already listed elsewhere on Wikipedia (like F5/EF5/IF5 list or a section in an article like 2021 Western Kentucky tornado#Possible EF5 intensity, and most importantly, that information is already sources by RS (typically an actual meteorologist/engineer, NWS themselves, or some academic paper).

I already have done all but one of the 2020s, so a few examples of what I was envisioning the article to look like is done already. Anyway, I just wanted to drop that here and see if you would be interested in helping out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Barbie Hsu

On 4 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Barbie Hsu, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 02:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:House Draw Fire

Hello, Wildfireupdateman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:House Draw Fire, 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) 18:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield tornado image

I know you mentioned getting in contact with the DOW team for images of the Greenfield tornado. Do you think you could in theory get this image of the DOW8 unit immediately after the tornado struck Greenfield released for free? I don't know if it's used anywhere else on the web, but it's from the same blog that gave us the other image of the tornado approaching Greenfield. Otherwise, I'll see if I can't get it as a non-free image for the section. Photo credit belongs to Maiana Hanshaw/FARM Facility. Departure– (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go. I can't seem to find Maiana's email, but her LinkedIn is public and I'll send her a message and see if she responds. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–Maiana says "I believe you can use them as long as you appropriately cite them" as the photos are property of the FARM facility. Since this is not an unambiguous release under a free license, I would upload as NFF(although I don't see how NFF criteria is met here). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

minor typos

Hi @Wildfireupdateman, glad you're sticking around on Wikipedia and the esports project! I just wanted to let you know that when you added yourself to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Esports, you accidentally introduced two extra characters/typos to two other entries in the list. Presumably unintentional, but I just wanted to let you know to be careful. :) One helpful tip is to click "show changes", to the right of the "publish changes" button, just to see that all of the changes you've made are the ones you intended. Happy editing! Alyo (chat·edits) 16:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Alps Complex Fire edit

Please do not overwrite good faith edits without explanation or replacing them on a subsequent edit. A duplicated "the" is clearly a typo being corrected, "USFS" was not listed by its full name anywhere else in the article, and linking to the pages for the USFS and FAA is consistent with the linking to the National Transportation Safety Board page earlier in the same section. The changes have been reapplied. Orxenhorf (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Was adding page numbers to all the cites and must have accidentally edit conflicted/added them back somehow. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability of individual tornadoes

Hi Wildfire update man! Following a (low-participation) RfC at Wikiproject Weather's talk page on the notability of individual tornadoes two months ago, I've went ahead and started Wikipedia:Notability of individual tornadoes, a policy about the notability of articles on singular tornadoes. How does it look? Is it worded clearly and easy-to-read? I've tried to remain neutral throughout, but seeing as the RfC only got two other participants (but unanimous support!) I'm going around and asking some other members of the Weather project for some more opinions. Thanks, and as always, feel free to open another RfC if you feel a wider discussion is needed. :) — E_F⁵ 16:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I fixed one typo in the second paragraph. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Iron Alps Complex Fire

Hello! Your submission of Iron Alps Complex Fire at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your fine work in improving Weather of 2008. Keep up the good work! ToThAc (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the second presidency of Donald Trump

I just wanted to let you know the article is now in mainspace, since you previously edited it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 North American storm complex

Just to let you know, I've started March 2025 North American storm complex, feel free to help out. — E_F⁵ 19:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LTA edit conflict

On March 2025 North American blizzard, I noticed you reverted a BMB removal of an LTA's work, which then got lost and is now buried in about 25 following edits (specifically this edit - "just saw NWS DFW's tweet"). If you see something like this in the future, I suggest that you either edit a smaller section to avoid a conflict, use the "See changes" feature to see if a conflict has occurred, or check your contributions to see if a large change comes from a minor edit (from your end). Not a big deal in this case, because the edits are seemingly good-faith and at this point are too far removed from the present to remove to the point IAR wins over BMB. Cheers and happy editing! Departure– (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High or Top?

Hey Wildfireupdateman! I wanted to discuss with you about whether NOAA under the second presidency of Donald Trump should be rated as a "High" importance or "Top" importance WikiProject Weather article. I had originally rated it as top, right after the NOAA employee terminations. I then noticed you dropped it down to Mid-importance on March 3. On March 6, I raised it up to High importance since the lease terminations had come out on the 5th.

Now, we have widespread protests and over 100 congressional responses regarding NOAA and the terminations. Would you be opposed to it going back to "Top" importance? I'm wanting to ask before I make the change, since you stated, "gonna challenge this, no way it’s top importance" earlier in the week. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I personally don't think a top-importance is warranted, seeing how this is a very recent series of events and currently the firings haven't caused anything major (lack of warnings, etc.) — E_F⁵ 19:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread protests occurred yesterday. 31 different protests alone across the entire U.S. over the NOAA firings (Reuters), but google "NOAA Protest" for the dozens of articles on the widespread protests). Plus, now Ryan Maue, the former chief scientist for NOAA handpicked by Trump during his first presidency, is calling for the NOAA leadership to be outed for the terminations. Several NOAA offices are closing down (Radar Operations Center) being one, and NWS offices are having to stop weather balloon launches due to staffing issues caused by the terminations.

We just haven't had any major weather events occur since the firings so it hasn't been noticed on a major scale yet. But, there is enough RS covering NOAA-events specifically, hence why I was asking about "Top" vs just "High" importance. I mean, the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado is "Top" importance, alone with a couple of other events. Its recent, but seemingly major and widespread. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1955 Udall tornado has been accepted

1955 Udall tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]