User talk:47.16.96.33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello! I noticed your contributions to July–August 2022 United States floods and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! jps (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Want to help with the List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes?[edit]

Hello! Through your edits, you seem to have an interest in weather. Myself and other editors have been working on a huge article series for ever tornado ever rated F4, EF4, or equivalent. Yesterday, the parent article, List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (not fully completed) and one of the child articles, List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2020–present) (fully completed) was moved into mainspace, which is good, but there is a whole lot of work still to do for numerous other decades. I wanted to ask if you would like to help with the article series? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do.--47.16.96.33 (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Well here are the links (as a short cut on your talk page) to the articles in draftspace: Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1950–1959), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1970–1979), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1980–1989), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1990–1999), Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2000–2009), and Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019). The parent article is also being worked on for pre-1950 F4 tornadoes. Honestly, this project is probably going to take many months to fully get the series completed and in mainspace (since between the parent and child articles, there is easily over 1,000 entries), so don’t freak about the huge size of the articles. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. --47.16.96.33 (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to User:LightandDark2000/December 2010 North American Superstorm, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: Since when was it disruptive to redirect a sandbox article to it's mainspace counterpart, especially when the subject creator was topic banned in that area? 47.16.96.33 (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should not redirect something in userspace to mainspace as that is not an appropriate redirect. Additionally, the user may be working on the article in userspace. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Said user is topic banned.--47.16.96.33 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well the point still stands that a redirect from userspace to mainspace is innapropriate. Also, could you show me where it states the user is topic banned? I'm not seeing anything on their talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per [1].--47.16.96.33 (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was not aware of their topic ban. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cyclone Julia has been accepted[edit]

Cyclone Julia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 12:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this IP address or network has been used to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.
If you are not the intended target of this block, please read the information below in order to receive assistance.
Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block IP addresses to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These blocks can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. To request an account, simply click here and follow the directions provided on the page. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. When filling out the account request form, please refer to this block in the "comments" input field. If you've been instructed to request an account via email, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): Please make sure you are logged in to your account. If you are unable to edit while logged in, you may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

How was this IP used abusively? Besides some minor quibbles I got into, this IP address was used for mostly productive purposes. This includes nearly getting Weather of 2021 to GA status, fighting unsourced edits, proposing ways to allow Tornado outbreak of December 10-11, 2021 to follow WP:SIZERULE, improving other articles, and other typo fixes. How is any of this abusive? --47.16.96.33 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since it was a Checkuser block, it probably means the blocking admin had access to that tool and believes you are some other user evading a block or engaging in sockpuppetry. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2022 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Per WP:CHK, there must be a legitimate case of disruption in order for CU to be allowed. None of my contributions are abusive, therefore there aren;t grounds for a check.--47.16.96.33 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed block evasion by a globally locked editor. Talk page access revoked. UTRS is available for appeals. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:10, 16 September 2022 (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.

(Talk page stalker - non-admin comment)I have been watching this take place and I am also confused. NinjaRobotPirate, what edits constituted ‘disruptive editing’? The appeal declining admin, Daniel Case said possible WP:SOCK, but is there a way you can confirm what exact violation (disruptive editing, SOCK, or something else) 47 did? Based on 47’s latest appeal, I am thinking it is SOCK, but they also seemed to bring up a point (I am not fully aware of Check User’s rules), but I don’t know what edits they did that would have been disruptive? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: Sockpuppetry and block evasion, in my experience, are considered per se disruptive, as they violate the terms of use. As to the substance of the block, well, certainly NinjaRobotPirate is free to come by and explain this in more detail if they want, but they do not have to, and again in my experience Checkusers usually comment very little, if at all, on blocks like this due both to confidentiality requirements and the need to maintain the integrity of the checkuser process. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: I don't know what you're talking about. This IP wasn't blocked for disruptive editing. This is CheckUser block – it's for block evasion. That's all that I'm allowed to say, so please don't ping me about this any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cyclone Dovi (2022) (September 18)[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 Robert McClenon was:
Invalid submission, by sockpuppet IP. Will review when submitted for review by bona fide editor.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, 47.16.96.33! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that in this edit to Be'eri massacre, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ... discospinster talk 23:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:47.16.96.33&oldid=1179411347"