User talk:WeatherWriter

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for protecting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_university_and_college_schools_of_music from vandalism. EditingWeather (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the star. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Brazilian floods and mudslides, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Thanks for your efforts in reviving WikiProject Current events. Legend. – Hillelfrei talk 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RedWarn tester! I hate to reitterate, but thank you so much for being willing to test RedWarn, I really appreciate it.

In the past few updates, I have added AIV (admin) reporting, a preferences panel, themes, customisation options and made many, many bug fixes and added many features based on your suggestions and feedback.

Unfortunately, recently feedback has run dry.

Even if you do not use RedWarn at the moment, or you do (tysm), I would greatly appreciate feedback of any kind. While I go round Twinkle users, sounding like that broadband salesperson in the mall that nobody ever wants to speak to, I'd like some updated feedback from recent and current users.

Any sort of feedback below would be greately appreciated!

• Your first impressions when you tried RedWarn?
• How have you used RedWarn as time has gone on?
• Would you value customisation features, such as macros or shortcuts, such as adding your own quick revert reasons so the tool can fit your exact editing practices?
• Any suggestions for how I could promote the tool to a wider audience?
• Would you appreciate a more developed and thorough user guide?
• Any theme suggestions?
• Anything you'd like changing?
• Something you've always wanted to see in an anti-vandal tool? (I might add it!)
• RedWarn app?
• A way to introduce Recent Changes patrol to new users to make using RedWarn or other tools less daunting?
• Any bugs, gripes, or things that just really annoy you about RedWarn?

Click the button below to begin a new section on the talk page

[[User_talk:Ed6767/redwarn|Leave Feedback]]

My goal is to create the most user friendly moderation tool, and that's why I need your feedback to help make this truely the most favorable anti-vandal tool. While we will never elliminate vandalism on this site, we can get closer to fighting it quickly and easily.

Many thanks for your continued support. Ed6767 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish to get these feedback reminders, let me know on my talk page.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lebanon Ohio Fifth Third Bank Robbery 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanon Ohio Fifth Third Bank Robbery until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/chrizap/status/1316446083531198464?s=19 Both FB and Twitter are currently blocking that content. It's likely Russian disinformation. The NY Post is not allowed as a source at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the NY Post reference. Going to leave the information as other national/international news outlets are running stories about it (Including CNN and Fox news).

In what context is CNN reporting about it? That it’s trash? It needs to come out. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla Just a heads up, you are showing bias toward supporting Joe Biden. I have replaced the NY post with a reliable source. I also added a 2nd reliable source to help support Fox News (Per that list), which makes it "half reliable". It is staying. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing nothing of the kind. Do not cast aspersions upon me. NY Post is an unreliable source. The story reeks. soibangla (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand that an article from the NY Post is considered "unreliable". Also Soibangla I wasn't meaning the "Bias" comment as a negative. When you said "In what context is CNN reporting about it? That it’s trash? It needs to come out.", the "It needs to come out." part is what sounded more like a bias toward supporting Joe Biden. My comment was support to be more of a heads up as Wikipedia editors are supposed to edit without bias. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include an 11th hour October Surprise story about unauthenticated emails that were on a laptop dropped off and never collected by an unknown individual at a repair shop in Biden’s home state? Really? soibangla (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ever start a significant discussion about making a major change to a controversial article, find one editor who agrees with you and close the discussion in less than 24 hours and call that a consensus. It's not.

There was no urgency that required you to act so quickly. The existing article will likely be nominated for deletion. This is not how Wikipedia determines consensus. If you read Wikipedia:Consensus dos and don'ts you'll see that the editor who opens a discussion like this, does not close it and determine the outcome. You were not in a position to end this discussion and act on it. Please do not repeat this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I doubt the new article will be nominated for deletion as it has almost doubled in size since the split. Too much new information is being added. At this point it is too large to be converted back to a sub section.Elijahandskip (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it will fit quite nicely right back where it came from. We can include a coupla sentences about the NY Post story being yet another element of the conspiracy theory. soibangla (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I totally agree. There are BLP, NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM issues, plus, at the beginning of this effort, a lack of RS coverage. That's all a very shaky basis for a split or new article. There is no rush.

BOLD is fine until the moment other editors object. Then our policy of collaboration requires caution and stopping the boldness. IMHO, the edit warring by Elijah deserved a warning or block. Uncollaborative editors create trouble.

At this point, with so many RS starting to cover this, I'm leaning toward keeping the split, but still uncertain. If this is a minor blip, it should be merged back, but if this turns out to be another deceptive and scandalous attempt by the Trump/Giuliani team to smear Biden as part of Trump/Russian disinfornation efforts, and many RS expose it for what it appears to be, it might be worth keeping as a stand alone article. -- Valjean (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said earlier, it might be worthy of its own article if Rudy/associates get indicted. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly surprised Valjean even mentioned a "block" for one problem. I am an experienced editor so even though no "official warning" was placed, I fully understood the problem and promised not to make that mistake again. For 1 mistake (Not even that bad), any editor suggesting a "block" should maybe evaluate if they are taking a "personal spin" on the problem, IMHO. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]