User talk:47.16.96.33

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions to July–August 2022 United States floods&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! jps (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Want to help with the List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes?
Hello! Through your edits, you seem to have an interest in weather. Myself and other editors have been working on a huge article series for ever tornado ever rated F4, EF4, or equivalent. Yesterday, the parent article, List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (not fully completed) and one of the child articles, List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2020–present) (fully completed) was moved into mainspace, which is good, but there is a whole lot of work still to do for numerous other decades. I wanted to ask if you would like to help with the article series? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do.--47.16.96.33 (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok! Well here are the links (as a short cut on your talk page) to the articles in draftspace:  Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1950–1959), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1970–1979), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1980–1989), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1990–1999), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2000–2009), and Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019). The parent article is also being worked on for pre-1950 F4 tornadoes. Honestly, this project is probably going to take many months to fully get the series completed and in mainspace (since between the parent and child articles, there is easily over 1,000 entries), so don’t freak about the huge size of the articles. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. --47.16.96.33 (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
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 User:LightandDark2000/December 2010 North American Superstorm, 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. Thank you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when was it disruptive to redirect a sandbox article to it's mainspace counterpart, especially when the subject creator was topic banned in that area? 47.16.96.33 (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You should not redirect something in userspace to mainspace as that is not an appropriate redirect. Additionally, the user may be working on the article in userspace. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Said user is topic banned.--47.16.96.33 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well the point still stands that a redirect from userspace to mainspace is innapropriate. Also, could you show me where it states the user is topic banned? I'm not seeing anything on their talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per .--47.16.96.33 (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was not aware of their topic ban. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cyclone Julia has been accepted
 Cyclone Julia, 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.

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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Cyclone_Julia 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! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 12:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

 * ( Talk page stalker - non-admin comment )I have been watching this take place and I am also confused., what edits constituted ‘disruptive editing’? The appeal declining admin,  said possible WP:SOCK, but is there a way you can confirm what exact violation (disruptive editing, SOCK, or something else) 47 did? Based on 47’s latest appeal, I am thinking it is SOCK, but they also seemed to bring up a point (I am not fully aware of Check User’s rules), but I don’t know what edits they did that would have been disruptive? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry and block evasion, in my experience, are considered per se disruptive, as they violate the terms of use. As to the substance of the block, well, certainly is free to come by and explain this in more detail if they want, but they do not have to, and again in my experience Checkusers usually comment very little, if at all, on blocks like this due both to confidentiality requirements and the need to maintain the integrity of the checkuser process. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. This IP wasn't blocked for disruptive editing.  This is CheckUser block – it's for block evasion.  That's all that I'm allowed to say, so please don't ping me about this any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cyclone Dovi (2022) (September 18)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

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:Cyclone Dovi (2022) 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cyclone_Dovi_(2022) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cyclone_Dovi_(2022) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that in this edit to Be'eri massacre, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ... disco spinster   talk  23:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)