User talk:174.4.42.149

November 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Kamloops are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Meters (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Ashcroft, British Columbia for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Meters (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Kamloops, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. ''Bump to final. You have had multiple warnings on more than one IP about your climate edits to articles and talk pages.'' Meters (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Weather Network. David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:The Weather Network, you may be blocked from editing. DB1729 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:The Weather Network, you may be blocked from editing. DB1729 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Hello, I'm Fragrant Peony. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Weather Network, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Weather Network, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Fragrant Peony. First of all, I'd just like to say that for the vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is exemplary, and most folks on here have noble and rational objective goals in their minds and hearts! Unfortunately in this postmodern world today, there are some institutions who use trickery (and often implicit) strategies to push agendas that undermine science and truth. When some other competing institutions on the other hand who use honorable and critical analysis, with benevolent intentions, I will always try diligently to -stand up- for them. Without going into much detail here, the 'Weather Network' of Canada, has shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted as a proper source of information because they use 'hard dichotomies' to attempt to push their deconstructive goals. Contrarily here, Accuweather are very good, as they are not only scientifically 'centrist' (which is an optimal practice), but they also include spectrum based models, as well as multifaceted and critical analyses of the global weather. Finally as well, they furthermore respect traditional climatology axioms and (non-binary) approaches that incorporate micro-climatology as a contributing factor to aggregate outcomes. I've said quite a bit here today, but this is why I sometimes alter the Weather Network of Canada's pages, both talk and main, to show good astute people some respect by making them aware of such fallacies. The Accuweather folks =are exemplary= and it's good to reveal to you as well, that they have roughly thirty times the 'following' globally, that these other truth bashers and diminishers have. So, I guess everything is not always bad in the world of information protection (over misinformation) even if subtley manipulated. Cheers, I'm Dave, and if you reply to me that's wonderful Fragrant Peony; if not, I've said my piece here this evening. Have a lovely night. 174.4.42.149 (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Talk:Kamloops ‎, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Don't change other users' posts Meters (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)