User talk:AnotherWeatherEditor

Welcome!

Hello, AnotherWeatherEditor!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.


The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.


The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Nomination of Call a General Election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Call a General Election, 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/Call a General Election 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, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to say...

...I like your chosen user name. It's almost Wikipedia-meta. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this edit? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123 I read about it on X and from Alex Jones AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You follow Alex Jones on X? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yeah AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck editing at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will get better when Elon Musk buys it. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the day most people will quit. So good luck after that too. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC) p.s. not sure it's for sale.[reply]

Speedy tag

I declined your speedy. Neither criteria is met. Attempting to overthrow the authority of Congress is certainly a claim of significance. It's not a negative BLP. A negative BLP is something like "331dot is a loser". A pardon does not vaporize their convictions. It only means that those pardoned can function in society. By accepting a pardon, they are admitting they did what they are being pardoned for. You are free to start an AFD, though I think it unlikely to succeed. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the point above. There is no offensive statement that would make the list qualify for G10, and A7 does not apply to lists(?). You should be more careful next time. Given the disruption that aroused in the past few days, I will most likely endorse a block for disruptive editing. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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:

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

331dot (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If I had seen this two days ago, I'd have blocked you then. Anything further like this and you will lose access to edit. Please troll elsewhere. Star Mississippi 02:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I am tempted to block after the disruptive attempt to mark the article List of cases of the January 6 United States Capitol attack for speedy deletion as an attack page. It is stale at this point, but we definitely have a pattern of behavior here. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yep. And grateful to @331dot for the CT given the trolling further above Star Mississippi 15:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also sensing a similar pattern. Yesterday, they removed the U.S. presidential inauguration events from all year articles after seeing that their input on 2025 was removed without discussion and a discussion that was started on Talk:2025 without anyone participating. I heavily suspect that if the user is autopromoted to extended confirmed status, they will most likely start editing contentious articles like that of Donald Trump, and therefore it may lead to problems unless the user decides to back off from the American politics section. ToadetteEdit (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inaugurations not included in year lists from what I have been told, so I am just making sure they are not included in the lists. --AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the marking of the article for speedy deletion was because they were pardoned, and it seemed to me that keeping a list of the defendants would do more harm than good. As for the edit mentioned in the top of this section, that was dumb of me to do. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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:

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

Serial (speculates here) 11:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inaugurations in year articles

I agree with you that the Trump inauguration on January 20 was a significant event and should be included in the 2025 year article. I have commented on the talk page to that effect, and unless they is some strong objection, will make that change later today unless someone else does so first.

However, for the same reasons that this year's presidential inauguration is significant enough to include in the 2025 article, the same is true regarding prior years' articles in which the inaugurations have been posted for some time. Your removal of many of the inaugurations from those articles smacks of disruptive point making, and accordingly, I am reverting those changes and restoring the previous stable versions. I have been using the rollback function to do so, simply because of the volume of these edits. I understand the reason you may believe the edits were warranted for consistency, but the better practice would have been to resolve the disagreement on 2025, rather than make a change, which you yourself do not agree with on numerous other articles. Please do not do this again in the future. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 

Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia