User talk:Palmount45

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Palmount45! Thank you for your contributions. I am Rubbish computer and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Ways to improve Global storm activity of 1997
Hi, I'm Garagepunk66. Palmount45, thanks for creating Global storm activity of 1997!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Needs sources. Needs to be developed and expanded.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Amy Walz


The article Amy Walz has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT -- role in A Beautiful Mind is listed as Blond in Bar in IMDB. No WP:RS establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jersey92 (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No sources: December 6, 1983, Selma, AL tornado
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to December 6, 1983, Selma, AL tornado, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of December 6, 1983, Selma, AL tornado for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article December 6, 1983, Selma, AL tornado is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/December 6, 1983, Selma, AL tornado until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Primefac (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christmas 1982 tornado outbreak
Hello Palmount45,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Christmas 1982 tornado outbreak for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. NeedAGoodUsername (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing pictures
Hi Palmount45. Why did you remove the pictures at pain in animals and Cruelty to animals? Note that Wikipedia is not censored, so the fact that images might be offensive to some is not in itself a reason to remove images. In fact, I would argue it's important to have some pictures; they add to the encyclopedic value of the article by illustrating examples of the subject. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Boot. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

AlrightPalmount45 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Intensive animal farming
Thank you for your recent comprehensive addition. WP:OR is against the rules; you need inline WP:Citations to WP:RS. Unsourced material is subject to WP:Deletion. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Istanbul Atatürk Airport does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your "minor" edits
Deleting long standing images from an article (without discussion) are not minor edits, particularly when the lead image is deleted. The images you replaced them with were decidedly not "better" images. If you think otherwise then you should explain your reasoning on the article talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Tornadoes of 1997, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jdcomix (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to Kernel panic
The syntax was clearer in the original. (Also: watch for spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes.) Thank you! HGilbert (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

New England Patriots seasons
Why the change in the uniform picture? The picture you are adding contains an illegal uniform (the alternate uniform cannot be worn, as it has a white helmet), so it hasn't existed in years. Tarl N. (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm HurricaneGonzalo! I'm not telling you to not make pages, but I really think you should take it one at a time on these articles: Tornadoes of 1961, Tornadoes of 1962, Tornadoes of 1963, Tornadoes of 1964, Tornadoes of 1965, Tornadoes of 1967, and Tornadoes of 1968. It takes forever to correct these edits you have made that are incorrect. However, I have changed them to the correct number from the source itself. This can cause you to get blocked from editing pages. Please use the correct number from the sources. HurricaneGonzalo &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 18:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-free image use
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically 2009 Chicago Bears season, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Palmount45. I'm not sure if you're aware that there are basically two types of image files found on Wikipedia: freely licensed/public domain files and non-free files. Freely licensed and public domain files, such as ones found on Wikipedia Commons, only need to satisfy WP:IUP; non-free image files, however, need to satisfy WP:NFCC in addition to IUP. Since non-free image files are considered to be protected by copyright, their use on Wikipedia is strictly limited and each use must satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. Many of the uniform files you've been adding to NFL team season articles are non-free, which means that you need to justify their use in the article by providing a non-free use rationale which shows how all 10 non-free content criteria are met. So, please check the licensing of any image before adding it to an article. If the file is non-free, then please provide the appropriate justification for the way you want to use. If you're not sure how to verify a file's licensing or how to provide non-free justification, then feel free to ask for help at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Flex (Mad Cobra song)


The article Flex (Mad Cobra song) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NSONG: unsourced with a vague claim of "success".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing to veal
Please don't replace NPOV wording with biased emotional wording like "inhumane" to articles and mark it as minor like you did with veal. While I'm sure you have your own reasons for doing what you did or maybe you even thought this was a clarification, you must understand that Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda, as your edits would be taken to be. Repku (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Big One (NASCAR), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brandon Jones ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Big_One_%28NASCAR%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Big_One_%28NASCAR%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Numbers from Tornado outbreak of April 2–3, 1982 question
I came across the article randomly and thought to do some touching up, but noticed you included a number 77 that didn't seem to match the sources in the article. The only difference in the records I found was a potential 64th tornado listed in discrepancy between SPC and Storm Reports. I know it's been a while since you edited it, but any idea where you got the number 77? Thanks! JeopardyTempest (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit from September 2016
I know it's a while ago but only now there's editors including me noticing the year 1961 that you added to an image in this 2016 edit. Slight Smile 22:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Palmount45. Yes, adding "1961" to saddle shoe, as mentioned above, with no evidence that that is the right date, makes us unable to know why you made that edit. Please add a source or something in the edit summary next time. The thing is, if you just add that fact, we cannot tell if you are guessing, know but did not add the source, or are even vandalizing. We need to know it is not vandalism. Please add a source next time. Thank you very much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of October 1997 North American storm complex


The article October 1997 North American storm complex has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced since 2016, and doesn’t seem to pass notability guidelines - any assertions that seem to support notability (I.e. 13 fatalities, 84 tornadoes) are unsourced."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 108.58.51.130 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of October 1997 North American storm complex for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article October 1997 North American storm complex, 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 Articles for deletion/October 1997 North American storm complex 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, 30 September 2023 (UTC)