Columbia719

It's not always the need to expand significantly. Sometimes, articles just need to be fleshed out a bit more. Like Georges for example, fleshing out the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico articles would be hugely beneficial, since Georges was the most recent major hurricane in either location. As for Hugo, the new article is definitely not too short. Check out Bristow Helicopters Flight 56C, Flightline Flight 101, or any of the articles on Airliner accidents and incidents caused by weather. I'm going to try and further explain why the split is useful. The main Hugo article shouldn't spend 100 words focusing on the incident. Given the large number of articles on weather-related aviation incidents, the split fits in line with many other articles, and the main article can give it a brief mention. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Splitting off more effects (such as Hugo's effects in the US) would be more of a content fork due to the large redundancy between the main Hugo article (still having to cover the same information) with a hypothetical different split. If something gets reverted and you don't like it, then you need to start a discussion. What you call silly might be important to someone else, and unilaterally removing something might annoy someone else who happened to add that very thing, and they think their reasons are just as valid as yours. For example, I saw you remove more articles from the see also section on Typhoon Molave, despite me suggesting to you in the past to not worry to much about the see also section. The few minutes you spent on that article to remove those additional articles could have been spent elsewhere. You only have so 1,440 minutes in a day, and a very small portion of them available for editing. You have to decide if you want to waste your time on bullshit (like infoboxes and see also sections) or things that are more important and IMO more worth your time. But then it reminds me of one of the rules of Wikipedia: telling others how not to waste their time is a good waste of your own time. I can't stop you from wasting time arguing with IP addresses, even though you very well might be right in what you're doing. But is it worth it? Meanwhile I'm just chilling editing an article that feels like it was barely touched in 20 years. It's less pressure lol ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You know what? I should stop worrying about this project and focus on real life. Someone is going to fix the problems for me in the future anyways, so what difference does it make if I quit? The project will be fine without me. I got a career to fulfill and I'm not letting a stubborn project get in the way. You're probably not going to read the rest or respond to it because quitters don't look back, but if you believe I'm a lost cause, then so be it. Good luck with your editing though, I wish you the best. 👍 Columbia719 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is causing that much stress, I think it is a good idea. But, I never said or thought you were a lost cause. The greatest evidence for the contrary is the fact you cared so much in the first place. I just wanted to call out your editing tendencies. I didn’t necessarily disagree with your edits, more so your style.If you choose to leave, then I wish you the absolute best of luck in whatever you decide to do, especially whatever sparks that enthusiasm you have. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

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) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Effects of hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in Florida

Hello, Columbia719. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Effects of hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in Florida, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Effects of hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in Florida

Hello, Columbia719. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Effects of hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in Florida".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)