Jump to content

User talk:184.58.26.140

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by United States Man (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 21 December 2012 (→December 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

December 2012

Please do not violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at List of United States tornadoes from October to December 2012. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. United States Man (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my job to add the citations for the work that you are adding. If you don't want it reverted then you need to provide reliable sources to back up your edits. Don't depend on others to do it. United States Man (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it seems you have had a problem with original research before. Usually when you post something, I can find no trace of it on the NWS report for that tornado. That is my reason for reverting most of your edits. United States Man (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not constructive. If you had unsourced info, I would source it for you. If we actually worked together, we could get a lot done. Also it was incredibly rude of you to call my constructive edit about the Mobile tornado "nonsense". This damage happened and I will try to source it correctly. I am still learning so give me a break. Either start writing more descriptive damage summaries, or learn to work with others. 184.58.26.140 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

If you would read the Difference between revisions page, you would see that this edit is what I called nonsense. On a side note, my long time suspicions seem to have come true. You are Sharkguy05, which explains why I revert edits from both accounts for the same reasons. Anyway, that is irrevelant. And I don't appreciate you telling me to write more descriptive damage summaries, I add what the damage assessment states. United States Man (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NWS doesn't have to be the only source. The NWS failed to mention the extensive damage that occurred to a gas station, and that it flipped cars in Mobile. Media can count as a source. Your reversion of a more in depth descrition of the Ringgold-Cleveland-Appison tornado was not necessary at all, especially with a listing mentioning 4 towns that was left unreverted. Not remotely "confusing". The point is, reverting 100% true information that could otherwise be lost in the future is not a good move. 184.58.26.140 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)sharkguy05[reply]

I know that NWS isn't the only source, but you fail to provide anymore sources. That is why I just warned you for original research. And the Ringgold-Southeast Tennesse tornado was more correct than your revision because Cleveland wasn't directly affected by the tornado. So there you go. Those are explainations for all of your accusations. United States Man (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely love to know how you figure that the Mobile tornado is uncited. That is completely ridiculous. United States Man (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to place a single inline citation in the summary. You instead put them in the box that is specifically for the NWS links. And there you go with the rudeness. 184.58.26.140 (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

You must have no clue how the "tornado list pages" on wikipedia run. The source box at the bottom is where the sources for the tornadoes go. We do not include inline citations on these pages. And by the way, the box at the bottom contains an archived version of a NWS Public Information Statement. Get your facts straight before accusing me of something I didn't do. United States Man (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here longer than you have, that is how many of the articles are cited. This was only a recent change, and the bottom box was previously only for NWS surveys and SPC reports. Specific damage reports and media info has for the most part been inline, and placed at the end of the summary box. Look at the 2011 April 25-28 Outbreak page for example. Inline citations at the end of each description for the most part. The grey box was for NWS office surveys and storm reports only. I have no problem with changing it though. 184.58.26.140 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

As I just told you, the NWS surveys and SPC reports are the only things in the source box. And just because you have been here longer doesn't mean you know more about anything. We are not changing anything, this was changed well over a year ago. United States Man (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:184.58.26.140&oldid=529172923"