ChessEric
 | This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChessEric. |
|
2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz Read! Talk!
While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)
Recommended reading for editors who are upset RIGHT NOW!:
Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel
Staying cool when the editing gets hot!
If you came here just to insult me, I will delete your comments without a reply.
And if I wasn't involved, personal attacks clearly warrant a block.
Classification of tornadoes by intensity edit
A strong tornado is classified as EF2 or EF3. Referring to a tornado that has either not been rated or is not EF2 or EF3 is factually incorrect. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't act like I'm clueless or something. I know what a strong tornado is classified as and there are reports, videos, and pictures indicating that these were strong tornadoes. If I put violent, I'd understand, but there is nothing wrong with saying a tornado was strong when there is clear evidence of it being one. Please stop changing the summaries; it's annoying. ChessEric 19:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- If there is evidence of it being EF2 or EF3 then it should be provided. Both violent and strong are both examples of words that specifically refer to a certain intensity with violent being EF4+ and strong being EF2 or EF3. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, reports indicate that these were strong tornadoes. I see no problem with adding that in the summaries. ChessEric 19:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nowhere in the reports do they indicate that they are strong. We have to wait for the surveys to come in before we can make a judgement rather then speculating on the rating ourselves. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I thought you might say that, but I'm not at all speculating. News reports, spotter reports, and law enforcement reports all indicate that these tornadoes were strong. I don't just put in random stuff; I always use sources. ChessEric 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The sources provided do not explicitly state that they are EF2 or EF3. We don't rely on indications based on reports but rather official surveys. Wikipedia has a policy against original research. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but OR is not something I use. However, I'm not going to argue anymore. This is not because I'm being salty, but instead because I'm trying to avoid these types of things, since I can easily get riled up. If you believe that the summary should not include the term "strong," you can change it, although I would bring it up on the talk page first. ChessEric 20:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time, cheers SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but OR is not something I use. However, I'm not going to argue anymore. This is not because I'm being salty, but instead because I'm trying to avoid these types of things, since I can easily get riled up. If you believe that the summary should not include the term "strong," you can change it, although I would bring it up on the talk page first. ChessEric 20:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The sources provided do not explicitly state that they are EF2 or EF3. We don't rely on indications based on reports but rather official surveys. Wikipedia has a policy against original research. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I thought you might say that, but I'm not at all speculating. News reports, spotter reports, and law enforcement reports all indicate that these tornadoes were strong. I don't just put in random stuff; I always use sources. ChessEric 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nowhere in the reports do they indicate that they are strong. We have to wait for the surveys to come in before we can make a judgement rather then speculating on the rating ourselves. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, reports indicate that these were strong tornadoes. I see no problem with adding that in the summaries. ChessEric 19:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- If there is evidence of it being EF2 or EF3 then it should be provided. Both violent and strong are both examples of words that specifically refer to a certain intensity with violent being EF4+ and strong being EF2 or EF3. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you! edit
 | The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For your incredible work on Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 and expanding multiple sections that very much needed it, including the Valley View, TX tornado which was just a couple sentences based off of preliminary reports before your expansion work. I know I've given you one of these before but you deserve this. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 17:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
Sorry about that reversion edit
Hey ChessEric! I wanted to apologize for this reversion. Yeah, I've been trying to hunt for weather-related Featured Pictures, since there is barely any, with less than a dozen tornado-related ones. The odd-thing with FPs is something called "Encyclopedic Value" or EV. The more EV an image has, the better than chance is to be promoted by the community. Right now, that tornado photograph is mid-nomination with 4 supports and 0 oppositions. However, it was listed for both the yearly article and outbreak article for EV. I really appreciate you changing images around and such, but when there is an FP chance, it is actually better to have it in multiple articles rather than just one. So yeah, really sorry about that reversion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I realized that and don't mind at all. I appreciate you letting me know that it did have an FP nomination. I'm actually surprised at the current count since the previous nominations were quickly shot down. I hope this one passes. ChessEric 22:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- For real same. The fact that in two decades of time on Wikipedia, tornadoes only have 8 (if I counted correctly) awarded images is insane. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)