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.

Introduction to contributing

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.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

2025 Potomac River mid-air collision

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:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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

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. House Blaster (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:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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]

April 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

I've already cautioned you on Talk:Antifa (United States) to avoid WP:NOTFORUM digressions. Please reserve your "food for thought" for social media. In the meantime, if you want to demonstrate that there is an organization called Antifa and that this organization has been designated a terrorist entity you need a reliable source that actually does those things. It's not Wikipedia deciding that Trump doesn't have that authority. It's the laws of the United States as reflected in reliable sources. So please stay focused on reliable sources and avoid original research going forward. We are not a political discussion forum. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, as soon as the executive order is released, which will surely be covered by AP and CNN, which are fake news sites that are somehow gospel on Wikipedia, I will come back and cite them. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can seek consensus that an executive order is WP:DUE inclusion if you like if such emerges. But, last I checked, the United States was not governed by monarchal decree so such an executive order wouldn't actually create an organization called Antifa nor would it make it legally designated as a terrorist organization. I'd also caution you that your last comment at the article talk page was tiptoeing right up to the line of WP:NLT and you might want to consider de-escalating your tone a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that different aspects of government have different laws? The laws surrounding changing place names are different than those that govern designating terrorist organizations. I get that you guys think Trump is a king guided by Jesus who can do anything he wants along with a rubber stamp Congress and courts, but there are still laws. In any event, I've said too much, but you shouldn't be unblocked without a topic ban from US politics and withdrawal of the legal threat. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AnotherWeatherEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't aware I was making a legal threat. I am not able to nor do I want to pursue legal action, and I am not affiliated with any sort of organization that would be able to do such. I was pointing out differences in how I've seen cases handled with the same sort of legislation, but I digress. As for the block reason being WP:NOTHERE, I argue that I am here to contribute to the project, and I have contributed things to the project, many things outside of politics, and if me having a topic ban for US politics is warranted, so be it;I will accept that and I will avoid U.S. politics. ~ AnotherWeatherEditor (talk)

Decline reason:

I am declining this request for two reasons. The first is that it does not convince me that you understand how your conduct was not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. The other is that technical data has you Technically indistinguishable from PissDrinker069. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What other accounts, if any, have you operated on Wikipedia? --Blablubbs (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]