" 

 == Richmond, Virginia == 

 ""US cities should have climate info from US-based weather sites, not Hong Kong"". Is this Wikipedia policy? Is this the view of the majority of all other users here? NO. By that argument, many of the cities worldwide that have only World Meteorological Organisation data should have their infoboxes REMOVED; however, this is done because their respective nations' meteorological agencies are at times difficult to navigate. By the same reasoning, the similar data (from WMO) at Miami and San Diego should be REVERTED to NOAA data. Yet no one has objected there. Your logic and reasoning is utter fallacy. HKO runs the WMO site, and its data is directly compiled from national meteorological agencies, in this case NOAA. the HKO data is there because no other source I have found gives daily amount (hours) of sunshine; NOAA at times gives at most percentages, which is MUCH harder to convert into monthly amounts and not optimal for this type of chart.  

 The ""only one source should be used"" argument is equally bullshit-y. Fine, go untangle what you consider the ""mess"" that has been created on many US city articles and see how users react. Weather Channel only provides temperature (normals/records) and precipitation (strict totals, not number of days). Your removal of NOAA, an even more reliable source than TWC, constitutes removal of cited information, just due to this pedantic ""only one source"" reasoning.  

 I'm going to bring this issue on the talk page, and if no third party responds in approval of your actions within 7 days, I will revert to my revision. I may even decide to revert earlier than that should you decide to bulk down or if I lose my patience. ——   

 And I don't think you are genuinely involved with Richmond either (not that I am), as most of your edits within the past 500 edits have been reverts or very minor edits, not actual addition of information. this might constitute mere trolling and not actual productivity. Given your ALARMING revert speed (3 minutes after my edit)... I think you either coincidentally checked your watchlist or the Richmond, VA article at the right time, or patrolled the ""recent changes"" list at the right time. Just saying. -   

 I have a major problem with the opening sentence as well: ""might be classified as modified continental"". Well anyone who has lived in Philadelphia and northward for all his life will think otherwise. It's POV and not simple, relatively straightforward classification such as: ""if July-average > 10, then non-polar"". From what I have seen, the climate section of many city articles tends to begin (or soon after) with a statement on the Koppen climate classification type. -  "