Hello, AutisticLoser, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 03:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am restarting the creation of a big list of RS and non-RS sources used or discussed related to weather events. Since this will be extremely useful going forward, if you have any sources that you want to add, please add them. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the heads up, I'm still new-ish to wikipedia (been here since around August last year but am inconsistent with how often I edit) so I dunno what is officially considered reliable or not tbh. I mostly base it off of if I've seen multiple different sources say the same or similar things, or if the NWS has put out an official statement or tweet. AutisticLoser (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, welcome to Wikipedia! You don't need to worry about adding sources to the list. But, you can use it as a good guide! Over time, some of the long-time editors (like myself) have discussed several sources. If/when you decide to create an article, that list can possibly help tell you which sources are good ones to use (like the National Weather Service) and which sources should not be used!

Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions at all, especially about any weather-related topics, you are more than welcome to ask me! Have a wonderful day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed in a lot of your edits that you're citing sources manually instead of using templates. Citation templates make it a lot easier to cite sources because you just input the information and it automatically creates the citation with proper formatting, and it also makes it easier for other people to make changes. You should check out WP:Citation templates for more info. Take care and lmk if you need any help!! (even tho I'm still pretty new here haha) Yobatna (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I actually mainly use citation generators, but good to know, thanks! AutisticLoser (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

will add that I find it kinda complicated some of the stuff on Wikipedia, not very good at citations as an example, or with creating tables as another example. Maybe I'm just dumb, or maybe it's just that I'm new, but still, I find it complicated tbh AutisticLoser (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I know how you feel, it was the same for me when I started editing on here. Tables are still a bit of a mystery to me, but for citations it's pretty much just picking out info from the page and putting it into the categories. I'll also add that for some types of citations, manually inputting the information can be more accurate than what citation generators scrape from it. On another note, you can learn a lot from how other people do these complicated things, and there's no harm in trying/experimenting with it! Yobatna (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

true, I guess I'll just do my best. Thanks for reaching out! AutisticLoser (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		I really want to commend you for your work at Tropical Storm Barry and remaining calm and helpful even with disruptive users. I hope that you keep contributing for the project in the furture. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

thanks! Glad to be of service :) AutisticLoser (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm OceanLoop. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tornadoes of 2022, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. OceanLoop (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm just correcting tables and stuff from the main articles on outbreaks that have them. Apologies if I'm doing anything wrong AutisticLoser (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Revisions to information in articles are not minor (see WP:MINOR) and require an update to existing references, or the addition of new ones. Thank you. OceanLoop (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

This discussion is regarding the following question: Should WikiProject Weather encourage the use of infobox collages for weather with standalone articles? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your username may be considered offesnive. Hussain Romuzi _{Nothing to see here…} 00:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

it's self deprecation, and no one else has had issue AutisticLoser (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok then Hussain Romuzi _{Nothing to see here…} 23:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Here's someone else who has an issue with that name. Without the context given here, this can be interpreted both as self-deprecation and a slur, and despite your intentions, many will just interpret it as a slur. And not many will take the time to investigate, even on Wikipedia. Intent vs. impact and all that. Paradoctor (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alright fine, I requested a name change to "AutisticYapper", I don't think that's derogatory at all. I myself am Autistic, and I Yap a lot. If it gets rejected, then I'll have to think of a different one cause I'm bad at thinking of names. AutisticLoser (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sounds fine to me, don't think there will be any issues. If I'm wrong about that, I'll help you come up with names as my penance. ;) Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

alrighty, thanks. Do you have any idea how long roughly it will take for it to be changed? I'm pretty sure I did the request right AutisticLoser (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't tell you. Are you sure you actually made a request? I see nothing in special:contributions/AutisticLoser indicating you did. Paradoctor (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

yeah, I just double checked and it's pending. I did it via the global rename request and had to add an email. I figured that would ensure I don't have this issue on the off chance I use other wikis AutisticLoser (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, missed that one. Well, see you around. Paradoctor (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cyclone Ditwah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

the name Fung-wong officially retired. Source: https://www.vietnam.vn/en/ten-bao-tomo-duoc-thay-cho-bao-yagi Daniel boxs (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

ok, thank you for the info AutisticYapper (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tornadoes of 2026, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

-Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 has given you a duck!
Ducks promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day much better.
Spread WikiLove by placing a duck on other user's talk pages by adding {{subst:Duck love}} to their talk page.
Happy editing!

-Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 14:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

thanks, I appreciate it! :) AutisticYapper (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2026 Pacific hurricane season, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • nhc.noaa.gov. 2026-07-20 https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDEP1+shtml/210244.shtml. Retrieved 2026-07-21. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • nhc.noaa.gov. 2026-07-20 https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2026/ep06/ep062026.discus.006.shtml. Retrieved 2026-07-21. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

the 3 may outbreak reachess pass 30 OIS. if we take the akçamezra tornado as its current rating it will score 10 points.The viranşehir tornado will score 5 points and the other 7 IF2s(some of them were low ef3s) will score 2-5 each(14-35 points in total) and with the 1 IF1.5 that will score 2 points.Which makes the total score 31-40 points so it counts as a major outbreak ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, the 7 IF2s would count as 2 points each, for a total of 14. The IF3 would be 5 points, 10 if upgraded. Let's assume for this argument it was (it hasn't been yet). That is 24 points. As for the IF2.5, Grazulis hasn't to my knowledge commented on what they should be, so we're forced to just treat it as a 2 for the purposes of this, meaning it gets 2 points, putting us at 26. Even if it were upgraded to IF3, and the current IF3 were upgraded to IF4, we would only be at 29 points. As for "some of them were low EF3s), what you are missing about the different tornado scales is that a mid-rage IF3 with winds rated at 180 mph doesn't actually have a higher damage rating than a mid-range EF3 with windspeeds of 150-155 mph, they just view the damage as requiring higher windspeeds needed to reach said damage. Hence why we don't list the 2021 South Moravia tornado as being the sole strongest rated tornado of 2021 (as the raw windspeeds of both the IF and F scales would seem to suggest), and instead list it alongside the Newnan, Monette-Samburg, and Western Kentucky tornadoes as all being the highest rated tornadoes of the year. AutisticYapper (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

actually IF3 will score 10 points because akçamezra tornado was 180 mph so it would be 31 points also the viranşehir tornado was a weak low end ef4(5 points) ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also akçamezra is in discussion for a upgrade so it is very possible that this tornado had 200 mph+ even at its current point which is 180 mph, it will score 10 points so it would be 31 points not 26 ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also you cant say EF3 is same as an IF3 in terms of damage.USA has wooden houses and Europe has concrete.This doesnt mean the tornado was weaker so it will have 10 points instead of 5 ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, it's not based on raw windspeeds, but rather what the tornado is rated. Tornadoes with a rating of 2 get 2 points, 3 get 5, 4 get 10, and 5 get 15. Below 2 get 0. So for this, it's 7 times 2 equals 14. Let's assume that the IF2.5 gets upgraded to an IF3 (not seen any mention of this but just to prove a point). That gets 5 points. Then, let's assume the IF3 gets upgraded to IF4, that's 10 points. 10+5+14=29, one short of major status. Also, I would hesitate to call almost any outbreak a "violent" outbreak unless it had multiple violent tornadoes from different supercells, or at a minimum at least one violent-rated tornado along with several high-end intense rated (EF3 or equivalent) rated tornadoes that plausibly could have been violent rated. Examples of events I would call "violent outbreaks" would be last year's mid-march outbreak, or 3/31/2023. One of the exceptions to this where for just one supercell producing EF4 tornado(es) would be 12-10-2021, for obvious reasons, but this outbreak was not a case of being that high-level exceptional.

As for your last point, Europe might have better building codes, but that doesn't change the fact that this is based on what the tornado was rated, not what the rating says the windspeeds were. AutisticYapper (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

this doesnt mean An IF4 and an EF4 should get the same points.That is scientificly wrong.So An IF4 tornado(above 200 mph) shouldnt get the same point as an EF4 ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 16:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also that is for the Enhanced Fujita scale so you should convert the IF tornadoes to the EF rating they would have got if they were in USA ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 16:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also this outbreak should be violent instead of major or significant because 9 of the 14 tornadoes were IF2 or higher(if a tornado outbreak has strong tornadoes consisting above 50 percent of the tornadoes that formed in the outbreak it would get a ''Violent'' tornado outbreak status) ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 16:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I feel like we should move this conversation to the talk page of the outbreak, as then more editors could chime in without having to be pinged into this, having it on my talk page is a little silly when it's a page specific thing tbh AutisticYapper (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The page Tropical Storm Hagupit (Caloy) (2026) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply