User talk:International Fujita scale

September 2026

Hi International Fujita scale! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at 2027 FIFA Women's Champions Cup. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! SocietyBox (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought it was not set in the US until I dug deeper. International Fujita scale (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

That's understandable. I'm guessing you had zero interest in the article and came across the edit on a log of edits by unregistered users? That kind of the thing just encourages thoughtless discrimination against unregistered editing. SocietyBox (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The main reason for this is that I saw an admin mistakenly revert the same TA's edit on the page before I got involved, so I mistakenly thought it was vandalism. International Fujita scale (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It may take some time, but it helps us retain new editors. That was not edit warring. An edit war is after 3 reversion, not one. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 21:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, International Fujita scale, 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! – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I see you're into vadalism fighting!! Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:34, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Rick Wharton

Hi International Fujita scale. I just wanted to make you aware that when I deleted Draft:Rick Wharton, I learned from reading WP:AISIGNS that the presence of UTMs in the URLs is not a definitive sign of a page being generated exclusively by AI, as the author could be using ChatGPT only to find sources, and only the three situations described in WP:G15 are the generally accepted definitive signs of AI writing. The references were also not dead, though either way, the page was also promotional so that is what pushed me over the edge into speedy deletion territory. I just wanted to let you know for the future that UTMs are not always a clear cut sign that a page is exclusively AI-generated. I'm a bit new to learning about how to deal with AI-generated pages myself but I just wanted to make sure that you were also aware of this. Fathoms Below (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Rat. 327

Hello International Fujita scale, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Rat. 327, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 11:58, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Udhayakumar S

Hello International Fujita scale, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Udhayakumar S, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 11:59, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I tagged them as G2 instead. thanks. International Fujita scale (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that abandoned drafts are automatically deleted after 6 months; every time someone incorrectly requests speedy deletion (nonsense does not apply to a draft that is one or two words) it resets that counter. There is never any need to nominate an abandoned draft unless it is really serious vandalism or copyright violations. CoconutOctopus talk 12:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok. International Fujita scale (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

They seemed to be test pages to me since they only consist of the page name one or two times, and an AfC submission by the creator, suggesting a test page based on the submission to AfC. International Fujita scale (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Drafts , whilst not technically sandboxes, are an entirely harmless place to test out editing. There is absolutely no reason to waste your own time, or that of patrolling admins, by searching through old declined and rejected drafts. CoconutOctopus talk 12:06, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok. International Fujita scale (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The reason why I tag those nonsense and test drafts is if they are submitted to AfC and got declined or rejected. Since this may waste the AfC reviewers time, I think that it might be best to tag those. I understand it not being necessary to tag non-submitted nonsense or test drafts, but I partially disagree with your stance on the policy. I might start an RfC on the communities stance on this. International Fujita scale (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

What’s your problem

Why’d you remove my message off a talk page that’s literally against Wikipedia policies ~2026-52150-53 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You are obviously a sockpuppet. International Fujita scale (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

No it's not. See WP:WALLOFSHAME. Jako96 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft:William J Kincaid, Retired USAF WSO

This draft had already been declined, and was not about to be reviewed again. It would have expired in early December 2026. Sending it to MFD creates work for the editors at MFD and does not reduce any sort of work for anyone else.

Before nominating useless drafts or stupid sandboxen for deletion at MFD, please consider whether more reviewer time will be required to delete them than will be saved by leaving them alone.

If you start an RFC about nominating useless drafts for deletion, you are likely to be told that both the nominations and the RFC are wastes of community time. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)