User talk:Will y theweatherguy473737

Hello! This space can be used for commentary or suggestions.

January 2022 North American Blizzard
Hello - I see that you posted an additional photograph in the Impact section of this article. I just wonder if the lense through which the photo was taken is so dirty (or snowy, wet) that it provides a false representation of the actual visibility conditions at the time the photo was taken. You can really see the massive amount of snow, wetness on the lense of the camera. Are there any other photos that are more suitable/accurate that you can find? It would be good to have some other photos, particularly of other areas hit by the blizzard. 184.146.106.80 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there! The camera was not dirty when I captured that photo. I made sure to clean the camera before taking it. It's an accurate representation of how much snow there was and how low the visibility was, and I've made sure of that. I don't really have any other good photos of the storm unfortunately. Take care and have a nice day! Will y theweatherguy473737 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Will y theweatherguy473737 -- Will y theweatherguy473737 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Will y theweatherguy473737, it appears that you opened this review of your GA nomination, which is not allowed: an independent reviewer will be needed. I am marking the review page for deletion. Further, the comment from your FAC by one of the reviewers, which read, largely unsourced and not close to the FA criteria, is also true for the GA criteria—it is largely unsourced, which will result in a quickfail of a GA nomination. The GA nomination itself has disappeared as part of the confusion around the FA review—FA and GA nominations are not allowed at the same time. I would strongly recommend that you do a great deal more work on the article, especially in the realm of verifiability, since large stretches of text are unsourced and therefore not verifiable. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The GA nomination has reappeared, but I do recommend that you remove it; the article really is far from the GA level at the present time. You may wish to review the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory
The article Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

September 1 1969 Berkshire UFO Incident moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, September 1 1969 Berkshire UFO Incident, 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 " " 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. DIVINE  📪  14:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)