User talk:EF5

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Adoption

[edit]

Hello! Would you be open to discussing possible adoption? I also have a (big) interest in tornadoes (especially after going through a tornado outbreak myself :P) and I think overall you are a cool person who could provide valuable mentorship. Thank you, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure!! It's almost tornado season, so perfect time to ask. Do you have any off-the-bat questions? :) EF5 00:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, what would the best way to communicate be? FarmerUpbeat (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer on-wiki, if that's fine. It's nothing personal, it's just that Wikipedia is the website I have access the most to throughout the day (and I've had at least one questionable experience with talking off-wiki). :D — EF5 01:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Historynerd361 (12:46, 6 May 2025)

[edit]

Dear Mentor

I have a question regarding the age of sources. How ”old” can a source be in order to be adequate for an article?

King regards --Historynerd361 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Historynerd361: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! As long as sources are reliable, they can be of any age. EF5 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
follow-up question -- I’m currently sitting on a source from the early 20th century. In the book, a part of the chapter still has academic support while another part of it no longer seems to be accurate because of archaeological finds. I know exactly what paragraphs are no longer deemed as ’’accurate.
Can I still use the part of that chapter that is still accurate while ignoring the other part that is not?
King regards Historynerd361 (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ef5: Historynerd361 (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Historynerd361, sorry for not getting back. If some paragraphs are inaccurate, I'd say the entire book is inaccurate, as the inaccurate part kind of compromises the book's reliability. — EF5 01:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Random question

[edit]

Hey EF5, just wondering why your user page was deleted. Did you delete it because you wanted to, or was it something different? StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 01:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StormHunterBryante5467, hi! I just deleted it because I realize I don't need one. A copy was likely saved on Internet Archive anyways; you can find the deleted contents there. — EF5 12:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't plan on adding your user page again basically? StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 19:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
StormHunterBryante5467, maybe, but for now I'll do without one. I also edit it way too much, so simply deleting it is a good way to mitigate that. — EF5 19:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Lawn tornado

[edit]

Hey, are you still going to be working on Draft:1967 Oak Lawn tornado? I'm just wondering, because it's been a minute. Departure– (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, now that you've brought it up, I've just forgot. I assume you want to get a good topic out of the Oak Lawn outbreak? I'd be happy to finish it up and GAN it If that's what you're shooting for. — EF5 16:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Fun fact, the article 1967 Oak Lawn tornado outbreak doesn't have a common name, but as it turns out, much like the Tri-State outbreak article, it started off as an article titled Belvidere Tornado and covered an awful lot of uncited information, before being moved to Belvidere Tornadoes, then to Oak Lawn tornadoes, and finally to Oak Lawn tornado outbreak, which I've started an RM to change. Departure– (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Should the same be done to 1991 Andover tornado outbreak? — EF5 16:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources to call it the Andover outbreak or some variant of "Andover, Kansas tornadoes"? If so, yeah, move it to a date-based title. Departure– (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, I don't believe so. — EF5 18:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Osama bin Laden and climate change (May 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KeepItGoingForward was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Osama bin Laden. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The article does not seem extensive and notable enough to warrant a separate article. Consider merging the article into the existing Osama bin Laden article.
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.
KeepItGoingForward (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, EF5! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KeepItGoingForward (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]