Jump to content

User talk:TornadoInformation12

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kingsmasher678 (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 4 May 2024 (→Wish you all the best: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!


Hello, Sharkguy05, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 05:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TornadoInformation12. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 05:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hey I’m a huge weather enthusiast and I wanna talk to you about how Wikipedia editing works where can I contact you? Charlie604 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TornadoInformation12. You have new messages at Rutebega's talk page.
Message added 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Rutebega (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited January 29–30, 2013 tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Higdon tornado

I know why you think it deserves a section, but we can't keep adding all of those tornadoes into the main page. The path was only 47 miles (76 km), which is one reason it shouldn't be included (the other reasons being that it wasn't EF5 and it didn't hit a big town). The only reason I added Cordova and Uniontown was because they had path lengths of over 100 miles (160 km). Both the Higdon and Fackler tornadoes could have sections, but I would be against it due to the fact that the page is getting too long. United States Man (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Enough is enough

First of all, you have once again failed WP:ASG and WP:NPA with that hateful message. But, I am probably guilty of ASG myself. The revert this time was because the car was already stated further down the paragraph. Before you accuse me of not reading, you need to read yourself. I don't delete sourced information for the fun of it, I delete it if I deem the information unnecessary. Don't pin this all on me, we are both at fault here. United States Man (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry much about lack of information at this point. Not to brag, but in my two years of editing, I have extensively improved consistency in the monthly and outbreak pages. And when NCDC comes out, I make sure I keep everything updated. Our only problem is that we have completely different views on what we think is "useful". United States Man (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so compromise needs to be an option here. Sharkguy05 (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

WP:3RR

Please do not continue your constant reverting. You've already violated WP:3RR and continued action will be considered intentionally disruptive. Talk it out with the other editor before continuing to edit the January 29–30, 2013 tornado outbreak. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor tornado

I would be very happy to go with what you're saying about the home, but the problem is that breaches WP:OR. You're deriving your own conclusions from an image with no text from the source to back it up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Sharkguy05 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

Grazulis F5-F6 Tornadoes

I've noticed that you cited Grazulis' F5-F6 Tornadoes in some of your edits. I was wondering if you knew where I might obtain a copy for my own editing and research. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got mine as a gift. Wish I could help you out, I can't really find a good online source to buy it from. It is out of print as far as I know. Sharkguy05 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

July 2013

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. No more of this. Although Grazulis is reliable, if there are other sources (which there are) it would be best to go by them (the NCDC pdf) since the Grazulis info isn't entirely available online. Anymore reverting and I will start a discussion here. One of the main WP guidelines is the statement: If you do not want your work to be edited, used, and redistributed by others, then do not submit it here. Good day. United States Man (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC) United States Man (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please be aware of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and especially WP:OWN. You are a consistent violator of those policies. United States Man (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will compromise and mention Lacon in the notes column Sharkguy05 (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

To answer your question, remember that this tornado was in 1942. Not as many sources as in 1998 and 2011. If there was no other ref, then it would be fine to use Grazulis. But since Grazulis info isn't available online, it would be better to use the actual article. On the side, I actually agree with you about rdfox. In no way was that completely unsourced. Thanks for the compromise. United States Man (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tri-State Tornado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heinz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

I know what you add is generally sourced, but please use {{cite web}} for the references instead of just pasting a link and making it look tacky. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT:SEVERE#RfC

Just a note since I didn't get you notified with the WikiProject Severe weather participants; you don't seem to be listed as a member of the project. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tanner/Guin (and Xenia) sources

I am glad that you asked to verify my sources. While I do not own the books cited and have not read all the information found in those sources, I have heard from credible people (on other Web sites) who have, and while their information seemed to corroborate most of the accounts from J. B. Elliott, they also seemed to indicate that the accounts were, in whole or in part, independently available from the said books. I will explain further. First: the information on the Xenia tornado's removal of sidewalk pavers is actually taken from someone who knew a relative in his family who was present in the aftermath at Xenia and recalled seeing the damage described. While I am not sure that the information is stated in the Xenia sources that I added, those sources include numerous photos of the damage, and I recall having seen a photocopy of one of the photos that showed the damage to the sidewalks and the ground scouring. The data on the Guin tornado's forward movement was actually stated on the back of the book by C. F. Boone, where a radar operator at Centreville recalled seeing the Guin supercell moving at 113 miles per hour (182 km/h). Since J. B. Elliott mentioned this information along with the other stuff in his accounts, he was probably alluding to data that he culled from a body of sources. Since he once recommended, to my recollection, the sources that I listed for further information on the Tanner and Guin tornadoes, I am assuming that his claims came from the sources that I listed. Also, I am absolutely certain that I have seen Guin photocopies from the Jordan (1987) book showing ground scouring from the air--this was an actual aerial photograph of Guin, not the satellite photo that appears in the green book. In summation, while I am not absolutely, 100% certain that my sources contain all the claims cited herein, I am quite confident that the data came from those sources. I have only seen some photocopies from these sources that have served as support for this hunch. I would recommend trying to locate the sources and reading them in whole. Again, as I am not 100% confident, feel free to remove the data if need be. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1980 Grand Island tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ridgedale, West Virginia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1984 Soviet Union tornado outbreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sormovo
List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1984 Carolinas tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairview, North Carolina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

May 1989 tornado outbreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Fairview, North Carolina and Vale, North Carolina
1984 Carolinas tornado outbreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fairview, North Carolina
1989 Northeastern United States tornado outbreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Greenville, New York

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding in tables

The most appropriate formatting for tornado tables against WP:MOS was already determined earlier this year. I went through an ugly FLC with the List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak just for this purpose. There are no places where bold is necessary across the table. Please use this as an example for all future tables as well. There's an enormous amount of work that needs to be done to fix up older ones as well in order to comply with WP:MOS, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the info. Sharkguy05 (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

Re: Birmingham 1977 Ground Scouring

Look at the upper left-hand corner in this image. Note the streak of lighter shading and compare that area to the rest of the damage at the center and right. Also, a reminder: please sign your posts next time. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited November 17, 2013 tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hegeler, Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited June 1990 Lower Ohio Valley tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamburg, Indiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Isle and Fridley Commons Park ground scouring

I am curious as to why you removed my picture-based references to ground scouring in Early-May 1965 tornado outbreak sequence. For the reference to ground scouring on the April 1977 Birmingham tornado, I referred to a picture that showed, or appeared to show, a broad area of ground scouring, and when I gave the photographic source to you, you never said I could not use it. Also, several of the tornadoes on the F5 list, including the Udall tornado (for which the ground scouring detail was your addition, not mine, if I recall correctly), mention ground scouring that is not explicitly stated in sources but is visible in photographs. Please try to be a little consistent, or explain why I am wrong here. If I am not supposed to use pictures, then I am not sure why you have, or at least did not object to my using them at first. And I am not sure why my interpretations, as opposed to yours, are somehow less or more accurate. I am not a tornado expert, and I am not sure what your qualifications are, but I would at least give some reason as to why my interpretations on what constitutes ground scouring are wrong, while yours are apparently more accurate. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 24 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited November 17, 2013 tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hegeler, Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to April 6-9, 1998 tornado outbreak may have broken the syntax by modifying 9 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to April 20, 2004 tornado outbreak may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |'''E of [[Wyoming, Illinois|Wyoming] to W of [[Whitefield, Illinois|Whitefield]]'''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Late-May 1998 tornado outbreak and derecho, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deposit, New York, Laurens, New York and Silver Lake, New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited September 24, 2001 tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterloo, Virginia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

August 2005 Wisconsin tornado outbreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Liberty, Wisconsin
List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Georgia
Mid-November 2005 tornado outbreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Shiloh, Tennessee

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

April 2, 2006 tornado outbreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Village Creek State Park
March 2006 tornado outbreak sequence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bremen, Illinois

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Easter Week 2006 tornado outbreak sequence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to New River
Tornadoes of 2013 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mt. Olive, Arkansas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Late-September 2006 tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loyola University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mid-November 2006 tornado outbreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kent, Alabama
Tornadoes of 2007 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mt. Olive, Arkansas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of recent edits to F5/EF5 tornado list

I have noticed that you have removed several of my changes to the F5/EF5 list. I disagree with some of them, and I will explain why (and provide proof as to why). First, you removed the part about the foundation being blown away in Wheatland, Pennsylvania. That detail came directly from the Storm Data publication, which is now available online for years between 1959 and 2013. Just select the issue (month/year) you want to view and click next; you will get a link to the PDF file. Just select 1985-05 and then click next. The May 1985 publication is also available on the NWS Cleveland page. On p. 15, a caption just below the second row of photographs mentions "a Wheatland home that was blown loose from its foundation (left), and one where one person died and all that remains is the cellar and part of the foundation" (emphasis added). It seems self-evident that at least part of the foundation was blown away—otherwise, the NWS would not have mentioned this detail. Also, "part" of the foundation, rather than all of the foundation, being missing seems more realistic and is consistent with damage from more recent events like the Hackleburg tornado (cracked Mt. Hope foundation) on April 27, 2011. If part of the foundation were missing, then it was rather self-evidently swept away/broken off.

Re: the lot in Guin, aerial photography from the book April 3, 1974: The Alabama Tornadoes by C. F. Boone give a broad view of Guin, and the largest lot in Guin (and that appears to be mostly swept clean of debris) is the lot on which the industrial building stood. For instance, this image shows the site at top left. This photo, combined with the footage from the ABC/AlabamaWx video, rather clearly shows that the industrial building was flattened and had much of the surrounding area swept clean of visible debris. Another image offers an even better view of the phenomenon. If Grazulis were referring to a smaller lot, he probably would have not mentioned its being swept clean of all debris in the green book. After all, a smaller lot could be closer to trees and other objects, providing more debris with which to hammer/sweep away structures, while the industrial building was exposed, on large lot, and was not surrounded by large objects or vegetation. So I think all the evidence points to the industrial building site and the lot in Grazulis being one and the same.

As for Fergus Falls, perhaps you didn't read the NWS source very closely, for the second paragraph contains a sentence that very clearly states, "There were numerous reports of extreme damage, such as train tracks being pulled out of the ground." That is a clear citation of a damage example that occurred in the tornado and was representative of its extreme intensity generally. The way the sentence is worded makes clear that the "train tracks being pulled out of the ground" were one of the extreme phenomena reported or photographed in this tornado. I don't see why that detail should be removed, especially as it is a NWS source and, therefore, is presumably more reliable than some first-hand, exaggerated accounts of damage in a local newspaper.

Finally, double-check the Barneveld link and scroll down to a section entitled "Tornado Damage in Barneveld." Look at the fifth image and note that, on the right hand, there is a low shrub/small tree that rather clearly shows debarking. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 27–30, 2014 tornado outbreak

Hello. Your move summary was truncated, so perhaps you could reiterate the rationale.

Based on a sample of our other tornado outbreak articles, the naming seems inconsistent. Some titles specify only the month and year, while others include date ranges or the prefixes "early-"/"mid-"/"late-". Still others combine the month and year with the location.

I have a vague recollection of a decision to include only the month and year unless additional disambiguation is needed (because more than one tornado outbreak occurred in that period). But I'm not 100% certain of that, and either way, it doesn't appear that any fully consistent naming scheme has been implemented. —David Levy 22:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The non-specific month only titling was an old policy for tornado articles that has not been used since 2011. It was agreed sometime after 2010 that dates were to always be included. This can be confirmed by looking at the articles. You are going to have to trust me on this.
Sharkguy05 (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]
Can you please retype the end of the explanation that you included in your move summary? Because of the character limit, this is what made it through: "This isn't how we title tornado articles. In the spring, we usually see more than one significant outbreak per month. We stay specific by default because..."
Also, do you happen to know where the relevant discussion occurred (and where it's archived)? Thanks! —David Levy 00:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning behind it is that we could have for example an outbreak from the 5th to the 7th, and another from the the 20th to the 21st in the same month (June lets say). Obviously, we can't title both of those as "June 2014 tornado outbreak". Also, the NWS pretty much always lists the dates in their outbreak summaries. I can't think of one where they don't except for when the outbreak is infamous enough to get a title (1974 Super Outbreak, 1965 Palm Sunday Outbreak, 2012 Leap Day outbreak ect.)
Sharkguy05 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]
The reasoning behind it is that we could have for example an outbreak from the 5th to the 7th, and another from the the 20th to the 21st in the same month (June lets say). Obviously, we can't title both of those as "June 2014 tornado outbreak".
That much is clear. I'm inquiring about instances in which there wasn't more than one tornado outbreak in a given month.
Also, the NWS pretty much always lists the dates in their outbreak summaries.
I would hope so. And we certainly should include the dates in our articles. But our titles generally don't contain that level of detail unless it's necessary for disambiguation. The relevant policy, WP:PRECISION, has some exceptions. Can you point me to the discussion(s) in which one was established for tornado outbreaks? —David Levy 04:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I await your response. —David Levy 04:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to April 2007 nor'easter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |[[Lee County, Georgia|Lee]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • mainly downed trees until beginning a path of destruction began just east of County Road 26 (around the 3000 Shoal Creek Road address block; northeast of [[Odenville, Alabama|Odenville]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 18 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I can't believe that I was so stupid. I never bothered to read the part where it was talking about Thursday and Friday (instead of Tue. and Wed.). That just screws everything up; to think, all the work and no one noticed. I don't know who put those on here, but they must've been on a desperate survey hunt. Anyway, we are actually down to 355 because the Berrian Springs, MI tornado was also in the survey. I always wondered why they weren't on NCDC. I guess times like these are the reasons you can't always trust Wikipedia, but at least we try. Thanks again, United States Man (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. -- Could you please look in as many places as you can think of a write-up about this to correct the total. I will do so as well. United States Man (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States tornadoes from June to July 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of tornadoes in the May 21–26, 2011 tornado outbreak sequence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woodlawn, Illinois. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tornadoes of 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Guard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Tornadoes of 2015. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 21:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. tornado pages

Hey, I was just wondering how you're updating these pages. Are you completely redoing the pages or just finding the storm events that exist for the tornadoes already on the page? I ask because there's a huge discrepancy between the stats on Wiki and the SPC stats. Wiki lists 113 tornadoes for April, SPC lists 128. Wiki lists 61 for May, SPC lists 130, and so on. I was going to completely redo these pages as I just did for the August-September page (which matches SPC's count perfectly now), but I don't know what to do since I didn't realize how much time you've spent on the other pages. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get the memo not to use the "area" tag. If it's that much of an issue, I won't use it in the future. However, I don't appreciate the disparaging edit summaries. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tornadoes of 2007, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mid-October 2007 tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Hope, Alabama. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Late-May 2008 tornado outbreak sequence tornadoes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 215. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy

I've declined the speedy for Mid-May 2010 tornado outbreak. The problem is that mainspace articles are not eligible for WP:G13, which can only be used on draftspace articles. The page doesn't really fit under any of the speedy deletion criteria so if you want to pursue deletion then AfD would be the best course of action here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Substitution

I think you should add "subst:" before the word "delete" in the template. Dustin (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done (not sure if I did it right though)

Sharkguy05 (talk)
You did do it correctly. However, it turns out that it might not be necessary to substitute for all deletion templates; just some of them. As a result, I guess you have to go to the template pages to see whether the template should be substituted. Regardless, your template has been replaced by a proposed deletion template by another user. Dustin (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited January 2008 tornado outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheatland, Wisconsin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheatland, Wisconsin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tornadoes of 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kings, Illinois. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Central Oklahoma tornado ratings

I noticed that when you added the tornado tables at Draft:May 5–6, 2015 tornado outbreak, you also included ratings for the Central Oklahoma tornadoes. The problem is that the reference you used (here) does not show any ratings. Maybe I'm missing something, but please explain? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste page move

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:May 5–7, 2015 tornado outbreak a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into May 5-7, 2015 tornado outbreak. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. (I added this template per the advice at the copy-paste move repair page) Dustin (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I usually never mess with drafts so I didn't really know what to do with it. I'll make sure not to do this in the future.

Sharkguy05 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

It's not a problem. The template I tagged the article with ({{Histmerge}}) said it might be a good idea to "Please consider placing {{subst:Uw-c&pmove|Draft:May 5–7, 2015 tornado outbreak|to=May 5-7, 2015 tornado outbreak}} ~~~~ on the talk page of the editor who performed the cut-and-paste move." so I did. :) Dustin (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "area"

No need to bite me. I just follow the pattern that has been in place for years. No one has ever made a fuss about "area" before in the years I've been working with the tables and it's been used to represent tornadoes passing close to (generally within a mile) of towns/cities. No one brought it up during the massive overhaul I did a few years back to bring the tables to proper standards with various parts of WP:MOS (yet people still ignore a few things...but that's a gripe for another day). The distance markers are determined from the town/city center, so outer parts of the population center can still be directly impacted while the center remains unscathed. Thus, "area" is used to indicate that places in the immediate vicinity of the town/city center were impacted. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Area"

There has never been a project-wide discussion on the usage of area, so claiming that it's established practice to not use it "since 2014" is inherently false. I've been with project since 2007, something like that wouldn't go unnoticed. Secondly, you're the only person to not use "area" within the tornado tables...which means it's not a consensus, it's your assumption/conjecture that it's to be removed. Feel free to start up a discussion on WP:SEVERE, but be sure to ping all major members of the project. However...other editors continue to use "area" and have already backed me up on reverting your senseless changes. I don't want to slap a warning template for disruptive editing on you since you've been editing for a little while...but I'll be forced to if you continue this silly game. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite each of the examples really only being your own edits (checked through the histories and each time "area" was removed it was either you or an IP which I assume is also you)...I'll admit my stance was incorrect based on the actual reasoning provided. Apologies for being so standoffish. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TornadoInformation12. You have new messages at HurricaneGonzalo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


EF4 tornado in Mississippi

Dude, the source is right in the edit message, it's by the NWS in Memphis... Jdcomix (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page Split

Nearly 175 tornadoes in April and nearly 400 tornadoes in May is too high of a count to have on the same page. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Information icon I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh for a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Jdcomix (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 7-10 tornado outbreak article

I don't feel that the deletion of this article was justified. It may have been in need of work, but there's no denying that the May 7-10 event was a significant outbreak - 41 confirmed tornadoes including four confirmed EF3 tornadoes and one confirmed EF4 tornado over a period of four days - meanwhile the May 15-17, 2013 tornado outbreak has an article despite being shorter in duration, having fewer confirmed tornadoes, and having fewer confirmed EF3+ tornadoes. It's true that the 2013 outbreak was deadlier than last week's outbreak, but then the June 5-6, 2010 tornado outbreak has an article despite only having caused one (non-tornadic) fatality. In a nutshell I don't see a reason why the May 15-17, 2013 and June 5-6, 2010 tornado outbreaks should have articles, but not the May 7-10, 2016 outbreak. Just something to think about. --Anonymous Macaw (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: May 7-10 tornado outbreak article

No problem, I just assumed you were the one who deleted the article because you removed the main page template from the "tornadoes of 2016" article. It seems that it's been decided that the article stays anyway.

Also, just in case you haven't been watching the streams, there has been a major tornado in Dickinson County, Kansas this evening. Houses leveled, trees debarked, a good sized tree tossed through the air, a front end loader crumpled/collapsed, and reports of railroad tracks being ripped out of the ground. No reported fatalities yet, thankfully, but since there have been almost 80 tornadoes reported this week and the fact that there's now at least one that will probably be rated EF4+, this system may need an article soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous Macaw (talk • contribs) 03:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 6 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sharkguy05. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Ks0stm (T•C•G•E)  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Do me a favor and shoot me an email, please. Special:EmailUser/Ks0stm. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E)  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  07:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sharkguy05. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TornadoInformation12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes in Ottawa

I may have had a small typing error that I corrected immediatly. But your editon was uncalled for:

  • There is no need to use the past tense here : "was a severe weather event that affected the region...", the present tense is used in descripting events (it IS and will always BE a severe event) when the date is specified.
  • "downburst winds" is repeating the same thing: a downburst is a strong ground-level wind system that emanates from a point source above and blows radially.
  • Etc...

That is why I say your editon was bad.

Pierre cb (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I haven’t been around much in a while so you probably don’t know me, but I have noticed you have been rather hostile on talk pages and in edit summaries. Please remember that everyone is doing their best and there isn’t any place for being a wise ass or trying to claim ownership of something. I know it wasn’t anything I did so I’m not trying to defend anything I’ve done, but there was another editor that has been working around here for over 8 years that I saw some hostility toward. I’m not wanting to seem hateful, just giving a little advice. United States Man (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I know who you are lol. You messed me up with the name change. So I assume you do know better and what is and has been going on. United States Man (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about erasing your dat edits

The same thing happened to me too, I lost about 40 minutes of work because I didn't realize I was putting in the tornadoes on the wrong article. I probably should have checked that article for updates before blanket copy-pasting over your edits as well, sorry. The monthly article should probably be the main one and should be pasted to the outbreak articles to avoid confusion, but I guess the other editors don't want it that way. Tornadotom666 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes

There's still seems to be some talk over at Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. You might want to look at the two newest sections. Thank You.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‎Chatsworth–Fashion–Sumac–Cisco, Georgia summary

Thank you for helping me with my summary. I did the best I could. I see why now you take such pride in doing them! LOL! I'm about to upload a summary for the EF3 Seneca tornado so if you do some fixes on that, I would appreciate it! ChessEric (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Happy to help out.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Estill–Nixville EF4 tornado

I'm about to upload a section for the Hampton County, South Carolina EF4, but I know I did a poor job with it. You have been WAY better with the summaries than I am so I'm requesting your help again. You make my summaries look like rough drafts! LOL! ChessEric (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough info for that one yet. Don't add it.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Do you mind if I send you what's in my sandbox for it? I may be away from Wikipedia for a little while. ChessEric (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Would love to see what you've got so far.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Thanks! Here you go!

List of confirmed tornadoes – Sunday, April 13, 2020[note 1]
EF# Location County / Parish State Start Coord. Time (UTC) Path length Max width Summary
EF4 WNW of Scotia to NNE of Fechtig Hampton SC 32°42′12″N 81°17′23″W / 32.7034°N 81.2896°W / 32.7034; -81.2896 (Scotia (Apr 13, EF4)) 10:10–10:37 24.04 mi (38.69 km) 1,300 yd (1,200 m) 5 deaths – See section on this tornado[1]

Hampton County, South Carolina

Hampton County, South Carolina
EF4 tornado
Highest winds
  • 175 mph (282 km/h)
Max. rating1EF4 tornado
Fatalities5 fatalities, 60 injuries
1Most severe tornado damage; see Enhanced Fujita scale

This large, violent multiple-vortex tornado first touched down west-northwest of Scotia along Collie Road, producing EF1 tree damage. It quickly became strong as it moved northeast, crossed Old Orangeburg Road, and impacted a correctional institution, which was significantly damaged. The damage to medium-security prison was so severe that occupying inmates were relocated to Pennsylvania. [2]. The tornado than strengthened even more shortly after crossing over Steep Bottom Road and US 321 south of Estill, with EF2 to EF3 damage inflicted to residences along Sprayfield Road. The tornado than crossed over the Lena Expressway and destroyed another residence at EF3 intensity before mowing down a large swath of trees and destroying a cell tower. The tornado than crossed over SC 3 and US 601 to the northwest of the rural town of Nixville before impacting a group of homes to north of town on the Turner Expressway, heavily damaging or destroying them. The tornado than moved directly through the rural community of Speak Mills, crossing over SC 50 before reaching its peak intensity along Lento Road. Here, a two story home was leveled with some of its debris thrown into the yard. Several vehicles were thrown and mangled in the area as well. Damage to the residence was rated EF4. Another home across the street sustained EF3 damage as well. The tornado than began a weakening trend as it continued to move northeastward toward US 278. Damage was mainly limited to trees and outbuildings and the scope of it began to narrow and become less severe as the tornado crossed US 278 and the Coosawhatchie River and paralleled the Camp Branch. It than moved away from the tributary and entered the actual community of Camp Branch, producing only minor damage to trees and residences as it crossed Miles Road and SC 68. The tornado continued to inflict minor tree damage to the northeast of here before dissipating just after crossing SC 13 and just west of Horse Bay.

The tornado was on the ground for 27 minutes, reached a maximum width of about 0.75 mile, and traveled 24.03 miles. The tornado killed five people in the hardest hit areas just south of Estill and in Nixville while 60 others were injured. This was the first EF4 in the state since 1995 and the first in the South Carolina Lowcountry on record which led to the National Weather Service in Charleston, South Carolina calling this an "unusually long track and wide tornado."[3]

ChessEric (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, this is honestly pretty good. There wasn't a lot info to go on, but you've managed to put together a pretty detailed summary. I didn't think I'd say this, but go ahead and publish it. I'll make a few additions if that's ok though?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Of course! I'll publish it in a moment.ChessEric (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Easter tornado outbreak

I really should revert you back and force you to start discussion on the talk page. You made to initial change and that change was disagreed with and reverted. The burden is on you to gather support and consensus for a disputed change. I am increasingly tired of your "my way or the highway" mentality and excessive rewriting of everyone's work and gatekeeping of tornado tables. Hampton County is big is not a valid excuse; neither is "we've always done it this way." As TropicalAnalystwx13 said a few days ago, it is very hypocritical of you to accuse anyone of wanting something their way because you frequently rewrite summaries originally written by other users to the way you see fit and vehemently oppose anyone who disagrees. That isn't collaborative work in my opinion. Thank you, United States Man (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit ironic, as you frequently dish out exactly what you can't take yourself, but yes, I have to respect consensus, so I will. With that said, I am always going to reword the clunky, awkward, and painful to read style of the aforementioned user's contributions (yours are typically fine, btw). Reading his summaries are are akin to having a stroke, and have no flow to them when read. In fact, some of them don't even use complete sentences. I'm not letting tornado outbreak articles turn into semicolon outbreak articles, with bizarre wording and placement of punctuation. That isn't subjective, it's just basic writing skills. But yeah, consensus from now on besides that.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Example-"A two-story outbuilding was completely destroyed, with debris tossed several hundred yards away, at a farm. Several mobile homes sustained significant damage, including one that was demolished and saw its frame wrapped around a tree." Note the highlighted parts. By nobody's definition, is that good writing. Compare it to my revision. It's night and day. Read Significant Tornadoes by Grazulis. That is how you do it. Everyone here has skill sets that are necessary, and TropicalAnalystwx13 is the go to guy when it comes to meteorological synopsis information. Damage summary info is not his strong suit though, and in addition to his odd wording, he frequently leaves out or misinterprets survey info. That's where I come in. What I do is 100% necessary, even if it looks like nit-picking.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

You do have good writing skills. Not to brag, but my grammar and writing is usually pretty good too (thanks for noticing). I'm just never gonna be a supporter of crowded section headers, so that is where my issue comes in. I'm not sure why having a county listed if so wrong if a major town hasn't been directly impacted. The county being too big isn't a reason. It still occurred inside the county. For including cities in the section headers, I think they generally need to at least be notable enough to have Wikipedia pages, and some of these don't. United States Man (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think your writing style is better, that's your prerogative, I'm sure most people do. But stop masquerading your edits as something noble when the truth is that you just like to do things your way. As I said previously, I don't need a grammar lesson from you, and clearly your gatekeeping as of late is a source of frustration for an increasing number of editors. Your time would be much better spent improving incomplete articles or creating new ones, provided that's not too hard for you. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TropicalAnalystwx13: In the same vein as my cautionary note below, I'd like to remind you to comment on content, not contributors. Let's work on cultivating a healthy environment for collaborative editing, please. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The header issue is not something I'll lose sleep over, it's just that based on past articles, we always include town/community information to show event location. In fact, I can only remember one summary that mentions a county in the header (One of the TN tornadoes from April 27-28, 2014 irrc). So to clarify, if no towns or communities are directly hit, we now default to the county? I'm fine with that, but I just don't remember it being discussed.
Now when it comes to re-wording, I just can't back down on that. You contribute a ton, and you are vital here and I don't deny that. However, if I can make your contributions easier to read for people, I always will do just that. It's not a grammar lesson, it's just about making sure that a summary reads easy, flows, and summarizes the info in a concise manner. With the exception of unneeded road/street info (which is reserved for full, bottom of the page summaries), I will never get rid of the info you contribute, but just reorganize it if necessary. Also, if the summary title simply lists a town name, implying a direct hit when it wasn't, I have to change that too. Plus, if there's anything you missed from the DAT, I'll throw that in there too. Please don't take that personally, because I just want high quality, accurate, easily-readable information on here. And yes I have created outbreak articles, but it has been a while. You usually beat me to the punch and have a better grasp on the synopsis of the event. My niche is details and survey info, and that doesn't make my contributions any less important than yours. You are usually the first to make the page, and I put a lot of work into making sure we have detailed, point by point summaries of historic tornado events, including info that isn't typically easily accessible to the average person. We're both vital for different reasons. Are we good now?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

A warning

Your comments regarding TropicalAnalystwx13's contributions have strayed far beyond constructive criticism, and are now entering the realm of abuse. Please review WP:NPA – regardless of how strongly you feel about something or someone, you must always maintain a civil tone when expressing your concerns. Reading his summaries are are [sic] akin to having a stroke is inexcusable in a professional setting; any further remarks to that effect will result in loss of editing privileges. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Won't happen again.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Final 2 tornado sections for the Easter Outbreak

These are the final 2 sections I've made for the Easter Outbreak.


April 13 event

List of confirmed tornadoes – Monday, April 13, 2020[note 1]
EF# Location County / Parish State Start Coord. Time (UTC) Path length Max width Summary
EF3 W of Savannah River Site to WNW of Neeses Aiken, Barnwell, Orangeburg SC 33°16′30″N 81°42′17″W / 33.2751°N 81.7048°W / 33.2751; -81.7048 (Savannah River Site (Apr 13, EF3)) 09:21–10:03 38.28 mi (61.61 km) 800 yd (730 m) See Section on this tornado 7 people were injured.[4]
EF3 S of Elko to WSW of St. Matthews Barnwell, Orangeburg, Calhoun SC 33°18′57″N 81°23′40″W / 33.3158°N 81.3944°W / 33.3158; -81.3944 (Elko (Apr 13, EF3)) 09:43–10:17 36.9 mi (59.4 km) 770 yd (700 m) 2 deaths – See Section on this tornado[5]

Savannah River Site–White Pond–Springfield–Neeses, South Carolina

Savannah River Site–White Pond–Springfield–Neeses, South Carolina
EF3 tornado
Highest winds
  • 140 mph (230 km/h)
Max. rating1EF3 tornado
Fatalities0 fatalities, 0 injuries
1Most severe tornado damage; see Enhanced Fujita scale

This intense, long-tracked tornado first touched down at 5:21 am EDT in Aiken County near the Savannah River Site southeast of Jackson. It moved northeast and quickly reached low-end EF3 intensity within the site as many trees were heavily damaged. The tornado then exited the site and moved into rural areas southwest of Williston, crossing US 278 and Jaywood Road while still at low-end EF3 intensity. A brick house was significantly damaged, a cinder-block workshop building and a vacant cinder-block store were completely destroyed, and a metal automotive service building had its roof and multiple exterior walls ripped off. Every tree in this area was snapped, with some being partially debarked, and a mobile home along Cherry Tree Road was shifted 6-10 feet of its foundation. The tornado then moved northeast along SC 781 approaching US 78, destroying a brick shed and ripping most of the roof off a house, leveling a manufactured home, and mowing down another large swath of trees. The tornado weakened slightly, but remained strong as it crossed US 78 while moving directly through White Pond at EF2 intensity. A business in the area had most of its roof ripped off as well as an exterior wall collapse. The tornado weakened, but continued to snap or uproot countless amounts of trees as it moved into Barnwell County at EF1 intensity before crossing Davis Bridge Road and Edisto Church Road. The tornado briefly weakened to EF0 intensity as it moved into Orangeburg County before restrengthening and moving directly into Springfield at EF1 strength. Many large trees in the town were uprooted, some of which landed on homes as well as a church. Structures along SC 4 and SC 39 in the downtown area were damaged as well. The tornado began to weaken for good as it crossed SC 3 northeast of town and turned east-northeast, but then it moved into the vicinity of Fire Tower Road and Starwood Drive, which had just been hit by the 0943 UTC Livingston EF3 tornado two to three minutes earlier. Extensive roof and front porch damage occured to several homes along Fire Tower Road as a result despite the fact that the tornado was only at EF1 strength at the time. The tornado then blew down several more trees along SC 389, including one that fell on a house, before dissipating east of the highway just outside the town of Neeses at 6:03 am EDT. Damage in that area was rated EF0.

The tornado was on the ground 42 minutes, tracked 38.28 miles, had a maximum width of 800 yards and was given a rating of low-end EF3. Despite blowing down thousands of trees and occuring in the middle of of night, there were no fatalities or injuries from this tornado.[4]

Elko–Neeses-Livingston–St. Matthews, South Carolina

Elko–Neeses-Livingston–St. Matthews, South Carolina
EF3 tornado
Highest winds
  • 140 mph (230 km/h)
Max. rating1EF3 tornado
Fatalities2 fatalities, 7 injuries
1Most severe tornado damage; see Enhanced Fujita scale

This strong, long-tracked tornado first touched down at 5:41 am EDT in Barnwell County south of Elko along Orchard Road and SC 37. It quickly strengthened as it moved northeast and struck Long Branch at EF2 strength, causing widespread tree damage. Tree damage continued west of Farells Mills before the tornado snapped seven wooden power poles while crossing US 78 and Turkey Creek in between Reynold and Elko. The tornado weakened to EF1 strength, snapping more trees in small community of Walker before reintensifying and striking Walker while still at EF2 strength. In this area, a brick home lost most of its roof, a pivot irrigation system was knocked over, and an anchored wood frame house and fifth wheel camper were destroyed with the destroyed home being tossed off its foundation. The tornado then crossed over SC 3 and Gardania Road, causing EF2-level tree damage. It then moved into Orangeburg County snapped multiple power poles as it crossed SC 332. The tornado briefly weakened to EF1 strength as it crossed SC 4. A house suffered a partial wall collapse here as well as roof damage and dozens of trees were snapped as the tornado turned north-northeast due to the influence of the 0921 UTC Savannah River Site EF3 tornado.

As the tornado crossed Fire Tower Road west of Neeses, it rapidly intensified and reached its peak intensity as it crossed SC 389 and impacted three anchored manufactured homes on Preserver Road as it moved through the west side of Livingston. All three were obliterated and swept away with their frames found hundred of yards away. Both fatalities occured at this location when their double-wide manufactured home was destroyed. Other manufactured homes were completely obliterated and swept away in this area and hundreds of trees were snapped, uprooted, and debarked. Damage here was rated low–end EF3. The tornado weakened slightly, but remained strong as it abruptly turned due–east and struck the north side of Livingston at EF2 strength. Numerous homes, barns, and outbuildings were heavily damaged or destroyed as the tornado crossed US 321 and Dragstrip Road. Power poles were snapped and dozens of trees were blown down as well. The tornado began to steadily weaken after that, crossing US 178 and passing near Wolfton into Calhoun County before lifting at 6:17 am EDT near Interstate 26, well west-southwest of St. Matthews.

The tornado was on the ground for 34 minutes, tracked 36.9 miles, reached a peak width of 770 yards, and was rated low-end EF3. As with the other EF3+ tornadoes in South Carolina, thousands of trees were snapped or blown down. Along with the two fatalities, at least seven people were injured. This tornado was also notable in the fact that it absorbed the circulations of the 0921 and 0933 UTC EF3 tornadoes near Elko and Livingston respectfully.[5]

I'm uploading them now. Please help me with edits here. Thanks for everything! ChessEric (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of April 22–23, 2020 sections

Finished the 2 tornado sections for the Tornado outbreak of April 22–23, 2020.

April 22 event

List of confirmed tornadoes – Wednesday, April 22, 2020[note 1]
EF# Location County / Parish State Start Coord. Time (UTC) Path length Max width Summary
EF2 SSW of Oakland to SE of Madill Marshall OK 34°04′N 96°49′W / 34.07°N 96.81°W / 34.07; -96.81 (Madill (Apr. 22, EF2)) 21:53–22:05 4.25 mi (6.84 km) — 2 deaths – See Section on this tornado[6][7][8]
EF3 NW of Onalaska to WSW of Chester Polk TX 30°49′42″N 95°14′30″W / 30.8283°N 95.2418°W / 30.8283; -95.2418 (Polk (Apr. 22, EF2)) 22:35–23:15 32.31 mi (52.00 km) 1,100 yd (1,000 m) 3 deaths – See Section on this tornado – 33 people were injured.[9][8]

Southern Madill, Oklahoma

Southern Madill, Oklahoma
EF2 tornado
Highest winds
  • 130–135 mph (209–217 km/h)
Max. rating1EF2 tornado
Fatalities2 fatalities, unknown injuries
1Most severe tornado damage; see Enhanced Fujita scale

This high-end EF2 tornado first touched down at 4:53 pm CDT in Marshall County south-southwest of Oakland along SH-99C and west of Breezy Hill Road. The tornado immediately became strong upon touching down, inflicting EF2 damage to multiple steel, electrical poles. The tornado then moved east-northeast, damaging multiple barns, trees, and warehouses at EF0–EF1 strength. It then entered the southwest side of Madill, producing EF2 damage to multiple barns and outbuildings as well as wooden and steel power poles as it crossed the concurrent US 377 and SH-99 and into more populated areas of Madill. EF0–EF1–level tree damage occured as the tornado crossed Brush Creek Lane before the Holy Cross Catholic Church and a home along South Fifth Avenue were heavily damaged at EF2 strength. More trees were damaged at EF2 strength north of Smiley Road as the tornado tracked due-east toward US 70 south of Madill. Just before crossing the highway, it ripped a satellite dish off a cell tower and damaged multiple homes along Oak Hollow Road, as well as vehicles and power lines. Damage here was rated EF0–EF1. It then crossed the US 70, kicking up a huge amount of dust before striking the Oklahoma Steel & Wire manufacturing facility, which was severely damaged. The tornado then turned east-southeast and struck the southern portion of the neighboring Mid American Steel & Wire manufacturing facility, which was also heavily damaged. Wooden power poles were damaged as well. Damage throughout the facilities was rated EF1–EF2. The tornado then crossed Smiley Road southeast of Madill, and struck a small community near its intersection Whiskey Creek Road. Homes were damaged, a mobile home was obliterated, and the M & R Wire Works was damaged in this area with damage here rated EF0–EF2 strength. The tornado then quickly weakened and roped out shortly after that at 5:05 pm CDT.

The tornado was on the ground for 12 minutes, tracked 4.25 miles, and was rated high-end EF2. Two people were killed and an unknown number of people were injured. This tornado was also very photogenic and a rainbow was seen near it by multiple storm chasers as it dissipated.[6][7][8]

Onalaska–Seven Oaks–Barnes, Texas

Onalaska–Seven Oaks–Barnes, Texas
EF3 tornado
Highest winds
  • 140 mph (230 km/h)
Max. rating1EF3 tornado
Fatalities3 fatalities, 33 injuries
1Most severe tornado damage; see Enhanced Fujita scale

This large, intense wedge tornado first touched down at 5:35 pm CDT in Polk County along the north shore of Lake Livingston northwest of Onalaska south of FM 356. It then moved along the north shore of the lake, blowing down several trees while throwing several others into the lake. The tornado then rapidly strengthened as it briefly moved over the north part of the lake before causing major damage in Onalaska. Reaching low-end EF3 intensity, it first struck the Paradise Acres community on a small peninsula northwest of town. Multiple homes and manufactured homes were heavily damaged or destroyed in this area and trees were damaged as well. It then moved back over Lake Livingston before moving ashore on the north side of Onalaska. It was slightly weaker here, but still was able to produce widespread damage as more homes in neighborhoods south of FM 356 were damaged or destroyed at EF2 intensity. Dozens of trees were snapped or uprooted as the tornado crossed FM 356 before it entered another neighborhood on the northeast side of town. Several well-built frame homes had their roofs torn off and exterior walls collapsed in neighborhoods along and east of FM 3459 while other manufactured homes were completely destroyed. All three deaths and 33 injuries from the tornado occured in Onalaska. The tornado weakened as it moved east-northeast out of Onalaska and crossed over the extreme northeastern part of Lake Livingston. Trees and homes along the shore were damaged at EF1 strength before the tornado moved into rural areas of Polk County and crossing FM 3152. Mostly snapping or uprooting countless hardwood and softwood trees, although one house along FM 350 suffered roof damage. The tornado then reached its peak width of .5 miles wide as it tore through the north side of Seven Oaks while restrengthening to EF2 intensity. Two mobile homes were completely destroyed as the tornado crossed the concurrent US 59 and Future Interstate 69 and hardwood trees in the area were snapped, denuded, and partially debarked. The tornado then weakened back to EF1 strength as it continued to the east-northeast, damaging more trees, including one large tree that fell on a mobile home, destroying it while barely missing a man sitting at his computer. The tornado than dissapated near FM 942 southwest of Barnes at 6:15 pm CDT.

The tornado was on the ground for 40 minutes, tracked 32.31 miles, had a peak width of 1100 yards, and was rated low-end EF3. A total of 291 homes were affected by the tornado in Onalaska alone, 46 of which were destroyed. All three fatalities and 33 injures were also in Onalaska. This was the first of multiple strong tornadoes from this long–tracked supercell.[9][8]

I'm sending this to you to proofread. Thanks for everything! ChessEric (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So these are both fine, but the thing is, I'm not sure this is totally totally necessary? The point of these sections is to summarize tornadoes that cannot be thoroughly summarized via the table (usually long-tracked tornadoes, ones that occurred in very populated metro areas, if they were major players a historic outbreak). This was a pretty average springtime outbreak. I mean I'm not gonna tell you not to post them, but the general idea is, don't make things more complicated/detailed if a brief summary already tells people what they need to know. If you decide you want to anyway, I'd only post the Onalaska tornado, as it was the strongest and deadliest of the outbreak. The Madill tornado was fairly brief and there's no reason to drag out the summary that long. That's just my opinion though. Maybe ask a few others for their input.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformatoin12[reply]

Also I got rid of the two new full summaries you posted for the Easter Outbreak. Sorry to revert your hard work, but you're going a little overboard with the summaries at this point.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

1st part: Thanks for feedback! I understand what you mean. Onalaska needed a section, while Madill was a rather unique tornado and killed 2 people. I had to limit myself with how many sections I did though. LOL! 2nd part: Terribly sorry. I have a habit of becoming overly obsessed with things and it showed up here. I had put it on the talk page that I was doing this and when no one answered, I just did it. Please make the tornado summaries line up though because some of was incorrect or has changed. ChessEric (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good dude. You're good at what you do though, and you've learned really really fast. Also, I'm chomping at the bit to publish new info too during this tornado lull we're in, but don't worry, once late May rolls around, we'll have plenty to publish. It's quiet now, but we're about to go into a weather pattern change. But if you want to post the Onalaska summary, don't let me stop you. Was honestly thinking of doing so myself but thought it fell just short of necessity.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 Man! You're too nice! LOL! In any case, I live in Oklahoma with my family after just under 4 years ago. I'm a meteorology student at OU and credit my writing skills to my mom. I'm grateful to be have found a niche on here after looking from the sidelines for 6+ years but as a newbie, I understand that I still have alot to learn. I'm grateful for your help and hope I'm not being a burden to you, especially with me continually sending you these sections. Also, lets hope that pattern change isn't to bad here! LOL! ChessEric (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add May 18 to May 15-17 outbreak? Also, old tornado pages updates.

May 18 produced an EF0 tornado in Ohio that was associated with the tornadoes from the day before. Should that tornado be included in the section?

Also, I have been working on fixing the main pages for previous years. I've done massive edits for 1960-1961 & 1964-2005. Can you check them please?ChessEric (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah go ahead and add it, as it was part of the same system. Also EXCELLENT job on the older pages. That was very much needed.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Thanks! Glad I could help! ChessEric (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update here:

Since I last messaged you, I have not only continued to fix the older tornado pages, but have also made pages for the 1950s. Due to the sheer volume of tornado outbreaks from that year, Tornadoes of 1953 is the first page to be near completion. I even made another outbreak page for it so feel free to check it out! ChessEric (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of November 27–28, 2005

I have a HUGE problem. See if you can follow it:

The outbreak listed above seemed to have a problem. It listed 55 tornadoes. The SPC and Tornado History Project says there were 73. 18 tornadoes missing from one outbreak! So what do I decide to do and am still doing now? Add the missing tornadoes! However, there was something weird about this data. Every tornado only goes through one county and every tornado seems to break up right at the county line. That's when I realized that the data from the SPC was incorrectly entered in! However, I don't know if there is anything I can do. I just wanted to let you know because if you see the outbreak yourself and wonder about why the heck it looks like that, you already know why. Please make sure you consult the SPC or something before you change it because I'm working REALLY hard on it!ChessEric (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so Tornado History Project is completely unreliable. Terrible website, don't bother with it. And by SPC do you mean NCDC? SPC does not catalog tornado information, just storm reports. If it's obvious that separately listed tornadoes in the database are one in the same, do not list them as separate tornadoes. The 55 count is probably accurate.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I would agree with you on that except for 2 things. First, the Tornado History Project, NCDC, and SPC COMPLETELY line up here! The SPC does keep a log of ALL tornadoes on its website from 1950-2017 at https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/#data. That's where the Tornado History Projects gets its data and the NCDC completely backs it up! So, while 55 may be accurate, 73 is backed up by 3 separate website, including 2 official websites! Everything else from that site has lined up so far! The other thing is this: so this morning I thought, "The NWS Little Rock will be the deciding factor in all this. SURELY they will. There is NO WAY they did this too." So I checked them: SAME DANG THING!! It was unbelievable! It was like tornadoes on that day couldn't cross county lines! So 73 is the most accurate number! I can't see how this happen, but it did! So this is the number I have to go with. We've used the Tornado History Project for almost all the other old articles so I don't see why we should stop now. ChessEric (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would just leave the 55 count and not overthink it. This is one of those rare cases where the "official" word is obviously not accurate. There was clearly some serious miscommunication among agencies following this event. If we "fix" it to match the official info, we will be publishing inaccurate info, and that is the last thing we want to do.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Okay. The old chart is in the history so we can have a discussion about it. The last thing we want to do is be inaccurate, but I also don't want to just use my judgement since I'm very particular about making sure things are right on here. It's why I signed up to do this. ChessEric (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Pensacola Tornado page

I am currently revamping and fixing the 2016 Pensacola Tornado page while also putting it back into the main article of the Tornado outbreak of February 23–24, 2016. Can you tell me how it looks please?ChessEric (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I've found a few pictures of the tornado online, including one from the NWS. However, I don't know the proper procedure to upload them. Can you help with that as well?ChessEric (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I figured it out.ChessEric (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the page yet?ChessEric (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rewrite the Tornado outbreak of February 23–24, 2016#Pensacola, Florida section? The summary for the tornado was just copy-pasted from the now merged 2016 Pensacola Tornado article and I think it would look better with a summary from you rather than from me (especially since that summary was written 2.5 years ago). ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Long Track Tornado in Hampton County, SC (Report). Iowa Environmental Mesonet. April 24, 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2020. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Lou Bezjak; Stephen Fastenau (April 15, 2020). "Tornado damage forces federal prison in SC to move inmates out of state". The State. Retrieved April 15, 2020.
  3. ^ National Weather Service Forecast Office in Charleston, South Carolina [@NWSCharlestonSC] (April 24, 2020). "The Hampton County, SC tornado from 4/13 has been upgraded to an EF-4 tornado. It becomes the first F/EF-4 on record in the Lowcountry region of SC and the first F/EF-4 tornado in SC since 11/7/1995 (Marion County). Details here https://bit.ly/2xadSm4. #scwx" (Tweet). Retrieved April 24, 2020 – via Twitter.
  4. ^ a b Update and correction to some tornadoes from the April 13, 2020 tornado event (Report). Iowa Environmental Mesonet. April 28, 2020. Retrieved April 28, 2020. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference CAE_0413 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Mark Osborne (April 22, 2020). "At least 3 dead as tornadoes touch down in Oklahoma, Texas". ABC News. Retrieved April 23, 2020.
  7. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference 0422OUN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b c d https://apps.dat.noaa.gov/stormdamage/damageviewer/
  9. ^ a b "NWS Damage Survey for April 22 2020 Polk County Tornado Event". Iowa Environmental Mesonet. National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Houston, Texas. April 24, 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2020.

Tornado entries yesterday

Hey. That was me that entered all that info yesterday. Sorry about the way it looked. It all came from the damage viewer + for some reason, I just don't like skipping small rural communities even if they don't have pages. Additionally, there was A LOT of updating yesterday and I didn't have much time to do it, hence the incomplete sentences. Thanks for fixing it and please forgive me.ChessEric (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of them except the Ashland, Alabama one. I don't know who did that. LOL!ChessEric (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa tornado

I undid the edit you made to at Tornadoes of 2020 for the December 10 tornado in South Africa. The link you gave a a source was to an old Imgur post. I was wondering if maybe you had the wrong link on your clipboard by mistake or something like that. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 18 Mississippi tornado

Where are finding the June 18 Mississippi tornado? I can't find it.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. My mistake, I misread. I'll take it back down.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Oh. Its alright; it happens. LOL!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More tornadoes confirmed on June 20-22

Several tornadoes have been confirmed by the NWS and I added them into the charts on the Tornadoes of 2021 page. However, I don't have time to add them into the summaries or the list page right now. Can you help me with that?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah totally! Just I need specific dates/events and where to find the info. Is it in the NCDC database? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Stable sources

I know you may have been in a hurry, but it is better to avoid using the NWS PNS pages such as this, as refs (or archive them if you do) since they are not stable sources. The statements they link to change as soon as a new one is issued. We usually use IEM for that reason. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that. Pardon my ignorance, but what is IEM and how do I access recent survey information using that source? I didn't know how else to source them.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Oh, sorry. I thought I'd seen you use it before. It's the Iowa Environmental Mesonet, which has this archive of NWS text products listed by issuing center and date. Most have no bearing on tornadoes, but survey results are usually in the PNS listings. You can also find the full text of preliminary reports under LSR products. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This will be a good resource to have.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Weather 2022 C/B Class Drive

Hello TornadoInformation12! WikiProject Weather is doing a drive during 2022 to get all new 2022 weather articles to at least C class, with the hope of B Class. I thought you might be interested in the WP Weather drive, so I wanted to drop a message about it. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hello TornadoInformation12. I took a moment to consider my actions and I wanted to say I am sorry that I did not read the synopsis section. I saw the event was still ongoing and assumed it would have been ok to add the tornado to the article. I am sorry for that. I also thought about your comment about reverting without constructive criticism. I hope I can make up for today and my past to ensure it never comes to that. Finally, I am sorry for asking for your accusations to be recanted. They were fully justified. I just recently got forgiveness from my actions back in late 2020-early 2021, so hopefully, I can work toward forgiveness for my recent actions in the WikiProject. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good man. I'm a hot-head and I'll be the first to admit that, and it's something I've been trying to work on lately. My frustration came to a head due to the fact that there have been multiple talk sections made about taking a slower, more cautious and fact-based approach to editing during an outbreak. This made me feel like the expressed concerns made recently were just being flagrantly ignored, but since I see you're willing to slow down and wait for the facts moving forward, no hard feelings.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformatoin12[reply]

Proof the Mongolian tornado in 2014 was rated EF4?

In this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_of_2014 you wrote that an EF4 was confirmed in Mongolia, and there was a confirmed tornado, but do you have an article saying it was an EF4? If so that would be very helpful. Thanks Syryquil1 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new tornadoes to 2022.

sup bro. I suck at wiki editing but i do a ton of research on tornadoes. So i was thinking i could relay some info to you that i have. IndyPlaneSpot (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.weather.gov/gld/July26Tornadoes Here are 3 EFUs that need to be added. https://twitter.com/NWSTwinCities/status/1555338594956431360 And here is an EFU in Minnesota on the 31st. IndyPlaneSpot (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoInformation12 IndyPlaneSpot (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/terrifying-moments-as-waterspout-touches-down-on-smith-island-massive-recovery-effort-ahead/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h&ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=176202308 Here is another. IndyPlaneSpot (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you want to help with a draft

Hey TornadoInformation12! A few months ago, I started the Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes, which has turned into a huge project. Myself and 9 other editors have worked on it and we probably are about 15% of the way done. I wanted to ask if you would want to help work on the draft? I have asked a few other others who work with weather-related articles, and I posted a message to WP:Weather's talk page back when the draft first started, but that was since archived, so now I have just been asking editors to see if they would want/could help with the draft. It's a huge project, but one that will be extremely beneficial in the end. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re:tornado list mixup

I think I know what might have happened. It looks like the list got mostly reverted to an earlier version, sometime before the NCDC sources were added. That can happen if you edit an earlier version of a page. Were you retrieving a source that was in a previous version? Also, you had me worried for a minute the first time. I'd thought your account had been hacked or something. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I used an old version to retrieve the Seminole tornado info that was reverted. That has to be what caused it.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Sorry about that

Whoops. I didn't realize you were updating the Clarksville-Idabel tornado. My bad. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good!

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Discussion about the possible List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes

Hey, TornadoInformation12! So you might have seen this discussion before, but there the Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower list was having each tornado discussed. Recently (since yesterday), a few specific tornadoes have been debated like the 2013 El Reno tornado and 2021 Western Kentucky tornado for inclusion on the list. I wanted to ask if you would be willing to read some of the comments presented and give an opinion. Here is a link for the 2021 WK tornado's discussion and here is a link for the 2013 El Reno tornado's discussion. Myself, ChessEric, and TornadoLGS had discussions for basically all of the tornadoes on the long list, so if you wish to spend a little extra time, feel free to comment on any of the other tornadoes in the discussion list...though...it is 55 tornadoes in the discussion. Have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New York 2010 tornado

New York Tornado - September 19th, 2010

Hi!

I happened to be in Manhattan when the 2010 tornado happened, and someone mentioned I could probably make your day by sharing the material I shot from the ferry. So here you are. :) Ciell (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool photo! Definitely consider adding the photo with the dark clouds and Statue of Liberty to the 2010 Brooklyn-Queens tornadoes article.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12![reply]
Thanks! The link above actually goes to the category on Commons. My 2 video's from tornado aren't that great -we had to go below deck because we were on the ferry in the midst of the tornado-, but maybe some snippets are worth a place in an article. Ciell (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to tell you...

We're creating a draft for the tornado outbreak that's been happening today and tomorrow at Draft:Tornado outbreak of December 13–14, 2022. I forgot to tell you about it so here you go. Poodle23 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created another draft here. If the outbreak is not notable enough, i will delete it, but for now, we can work on it. Poodle23 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High-end EF1 Thing

Hello, I’m really sorry about the confusion I caused yesterday. For some reason, I thought the PNS from NWS Fort Worth listed the northeastern Grapevine tornado as an EF1 with 105 mph winds, which is usually the start of the designation of a high-end EF1. I notice now that the tornado was rated EF1 (100 mph). Completely my mistake, sorry again. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem! I've been doing this for years and still occasionally do stuff like that still once in a while myself lol.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I consider high-end EF1 to be 110 mph, which is just below EF2 status. I'm not an expert on this of course, but I thought I'd throw that out there. On a side note, this is up by the way. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

happy late new years!

Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise is needed

Hey TornadoInformation12. I know you don't like to participate in discussions often, but could you participate in Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion#June 23, 2016 China? We have questions about those Chinese meteorology twitter accounts, and I am unable to really explain what you meant in our previous discussion about them last year. Thanks! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want nothing to do with that, sorry. That whole list is so far gone at this point in my opinion, that it's just going to stress me out. I'm avoiding it for my own mental health.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
This is for once again fixing up the tornado sections, this time for the Tornado outbreak of January 12, 2023. I did my best (I essentially wrote up all the sections), but I will NEVER live up to the way you masterfully fix up the tornado sections. Keep up the good work! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eric! It's what I love to do.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12![reply]

Other Draft

I don't know if you saw me bring this back but here's the link for Draft:Tornado outbreak of January 22–23, 2012. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! So glad this one is back. Btw, I know I keep nagging about this and you may have already answered, but do we have a draft for the August 2016 outbreak too?
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]
Actually, that was bought back already. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! I can't think of any other events that had their articles reverted that should be brought back, so thanks for taking care of that.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12![reply]

Ur welcome, although it was revamped by someone else before it was both back to the mainspace. By the way, did u see the message I left in the Pensacola section? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 2011 Super Outbreak

2011 Super Outbreak has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent behavior

Your hostile behavior is reaching a point of being unacceptable, with consistent WP:TPNO violations. You can have strong opinions and express them, but you cannot do so at the expense of others. Disparaging other users (WP:NPA) for not understanding how to use DAT and adamantly refuting concerns brought up by other editors without giving them a chance to explain is not how this works. You also don't get to decide whose opinion does and doesn't matter. I value the immense amount of work you've done over the years but this attitude cannot continue. If you continue at this rate you run the risk of losing editing privileges. You did not even give me a chance to comment before reverting and you've done the same for another long-time editor (now predominantly a lurker) [1] . This was followed by aggressive comments waiting for someone to respond, which I was in the process of. Wikipedia is not a chat room and responses should not be expected immediately, things happen in the real world that can delay a reply. You're really not helping yourself either by canvassing other editors to support your opinion (WP:CANVAS) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'll take a break for like a week. I think I need it. You guys can hash it out.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Take as much time as you need, the RfC will be there when you're ready. Your opinion definitely matters in this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright my input has been given. Reach out if you have any questions or follow-up concerns.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Robinson over Gordon

I didn't want to start an edit war over this, so I just wanted to ask what you meant in your edit summary when put Robinson back in the title for that specific EF3 tornado in the Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 article. ChessEric 15:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We try to go by the most significant areas of damage, combined with the larger/most significant communities impacted, because that is what people will search. When people want to look up information on this event, they will look up "Robinson, Illinois tornado" rather than anything about Gordon, which is just a very minor unincorporated community. We also try to avoid titling with very minor communities when possible, as some of these are places that locals don't even know about. My own neighborhood is listed on Google maps as something locals never even call it, for example.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I seriously am in awe of how you cleanup tornado summary after tornado summary in both sections and tables without becoming tired of it. Keep up the good work, and don't go anywhere anytime soon please. ChessEric 12:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States tornadoes in 1946

Hey TornadoInformation12! Myself and Tails Wx have almost completed the list of United States tornadoes in 1946. I know you work with and are really good with the tornado charts, so I wanted to ask if you could take a look at the list. At the time of writing this, everything is completed except May (Talk:List of United States tornadoes in 1946#Page Progress). I alrealy let ChessEric know about the list as well, but the list should be completed soon, which will put 1946 up into the really good tornado lists. Cheers! Elijahandskip (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YOU'RE BACK!!!!

Oh my God; you're back! It's been HELL trying to keep up with things and I've missed you! Where have you been!? XD ChessEric 18:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

You do not need any text after the four tildes. Right now this is what you're doing: Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Jasper Deng[reply]

As you can see, there is extra text. This clutters up the talk page needlessly when you are participating extensively in a discussion. Please only sign with four tildes, and if you're already doing so, reconfigure your signature to remove the extraneous text. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Tornado outbreak of April 19–20, 2023

An article that you have been involved in editing—Tornado outbreak of April 19–20, 2023—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current proposal to set criteria in Tornadoes of XXXX articles

Hello. As an editor who recently edited in the area of tornadoes, I am informing you that there is an ongoing proposal to set criteria for the yearly Tornadoes of XXXX articles. You can see the proposal and discuss it here. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help you adjust content!

Hey TornadoInformation12! I’ve seen you’ve been quite active on Tornadoes of 2024 recently, and I’ve noticed a lot more run-on and watered down quality of content on that page. Anyways, as someone who has had years of experience editing (2015-2019), I’m always happy to help you adjust and revert those low quality edits to. All the best! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've been meaning to get more involved but I've been busy. In any case, I'm going to try clean up the entire month of February right now. If we communicate and keep up to date on everything, we can keep the quality up as well.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

=

Notice that I have started a discussion in which you involved.

It can be found at this editor's talk page.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you all the best

I know you probably arn’t my biggest fan, but I want to say that I do respect you and your work, and hope that we can go forward without any overly hard feelings. Consider it an olive branch if you like.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TornadoInformation12&oldid=1222264488"