User talk:Columbia719

It's not always the need to expand significantly. Sometimes, articles just need to be fleshed out a bit more. Like Georges for example, fleshing out the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico articles would be hugely beneficial, since Georges was the most recent major hurricane in either location. As for Hugo, the new article is definitely not too short. Check out Bristow Helicopters Flight 56C, Flightline Flight 101, or any of the articles on Airliner accidents and incidents caused by weather. I'm going to try and further explain why the split is useful. The main Hugo article shouldn't spend 100 words focusing on the incident. Given the large number of articles on weather-related aviation incidents, the split fits in line with many other articles, and the main article can give it a brief mention. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Splitting off more effects (such as Hugo's effects in the US) would be more of a content fork due to the large redundancy between the main Hugo article (still having to cover the same information) with a hypothetical different split. If something gets reverted and you don't like it, then you need to start a discussion. What you call silly might be important to someone else, and unilaterally removing something might annoy someone else who happened to add that very thing, and they think their reasons are just as valid as yours. For example, I saw you remove more articles from the see also section on Typhoon Molave, despite me suggesting to you in the past to not worry to much about the see also section. The few minutes you spent on that article to remove those additional articles could have been spent elsewhere. You only have so 1,440 minutes in a day, and a very small portion of them available for editing. You have to decide if you want to waste your time on bullshit (like infoboxes and see also sections) or things that are more important and IMO more worth your time. But then it reminds me of one of the rules of Wikipedia: telling others how not to waste their time is a good waste of your own time. I can't stop you from wasting time arguing with IP addresses, even though you very well might be right in what you're doing. But is it worth it? Meanwhile I'm just chilling editing an article that feels like it was barely touched in 20 years. It's less pressure lol ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I should stop worrying about this project and focus on real life. Someone is going to fix the problems for me in the future anyways, so what difference does it make if I quit? The project will be fine without me. I got a career to fulfill and I'm not letting a stubborn project get in the way. You're probably not going to read the rest or respond to it because quitters don't look back, but if you believe I'm a lost cause, then so be it. Good luck with your editing though, I wish you the best. 👍 Columbia719 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is causing that much stress, I think it is a good idea. But, I never said or thought you were a lost cause. The greatest evidence for the contrary is the fact you cared so much in the first place. I just wanted to call out your editing tendencies. I didn’t necessarily disagree with your edits, more so your style.If you choose to leave, then I wish you the absolute best of luck in whatever you decide to do, especially whatever sparks that enthusiasm you have. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]