User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2022/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, ChessEric,
If an edit of yours creates a mistaken page, as in this case, it would really help admins if you would tag this page for speedy deletion. It's not a useful redirect to have so in the future, use Twinkle and just tag it for CSD. It's only because your page move showed up on a bot list that it was apparent that this page existed. So, tagging unnecessary pages for deletion helps admins spot them and take care of them. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Liz: Sorry about that. I don't know why it came out like that at first. What is the template for that? I not always good at finding them. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Outbreak sequence
@United States Man and TornadoLGS: Regarding this and other drafts: I would like to note that an outbreak sequence is only generated by a single weather system, e.g., successively, so a succession of days that are generated by a different weather system belongs separately rather than to the same sequence. I believe that either or both of the aforementioned users have clarified this matter. So you can cut a good deal of the length of your drafts on outbreak sequences, given that several of the days listed were not generated by the same system, and thus do not qualify as part of an outbreak sequence. As an aside, have you purchased any of the books by Thomas P. Grazulis? If you have the resources, I would recommend doing so. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- @CapeVerdeWave: (1) I'm not sure what you mean by that. The description you just gave seems to be a tornado outbreak and not for an outbreak sequence. I just wanted to clarify what you are saying. (2) I use this as my Grazulis sources. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 06:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: You are correct. I should have realised my error. Also, I hope that my additions to your article have been of use. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- @CapeVerdeWave: Oh. LOL! We all make mistakes sometimes. As for your additions, they are a HUGE help as I've been caught up with other articles and school. I am systematically going back and entering damage info for the main tornado articles and am doing outbreak articles when I get to the specific time period. Adding damage info allows me to correct mistakes, but it is also time-consuming. Your contributions are very helpful, especially since you incorporated Grazulis' F5-F6 tornadoes into the picture. Keep up the good work man. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: You are correct. I should have realised my error. Also, I hope that my additions to your article have been of use. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Tropical Cyclone
What do you think the background section at Tropical cyclone should cover? I haven't done anything with it since I didn't know what its original purpose was. This article will take a long time to get up to par, especially working by myself. NoahTalk 12:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah: Maybe how the term tropical cyclone came to be and how they have evolved over the years. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
2011 Joplin, MO EF5 Edit on the May 21-26, 2011 tornado outbreak page.
Hi, unsure where you got the estimated wind speeds for the 2011 Joplin, MO EF5, you labeled it as 225-250 mph., where as it was officially given ">200 mph". I will fix this soon unless you provide a specific "official" source stating otherwise, thanks! Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicholas Krasznavolgyi: ...that was in the article man. Check source #22 in 2011 Joplin tornado. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- I read through the article. Although it could be true, it's not the official wind speed estimate set in stone, where as ">200 mph" is. If it was officially rated EF5 (225-250 mph), that's what it would say in NCDC and other big reliable sources. Where as this is just an article by a news agency explicitly saying the NWS said that, and I haven't seen that anywhere else. I'm suggesting you change it back I guess, I'm not really sure. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicholas Krasznavolgyi: I mean that's true, but it wouldn't be in the article if it didn't say it came from them. I honestly don't know either. I would like to get a second opinion on it. I think we can both agree that 295 mph label for the El Reno tornado was not correct though. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- This might best be done on the article's talk page, but I have always been a little iffy on that statement. The 225-250 mph figure is in that news article, but I've never seen it published in an NWS or other NOAA source. It may have been communicated to reporters in an "off the books" manner, but that's just speculation. I added the figure of 295 mph for El Reno. It was from mobile Doppler radar. The source was this paper. I had figured such Doppler readings were acceptable since they're used for the 2013 El Reno tornado and the 1999 Moore tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS: Oh. I'm sorry. I thought someone had just confused the tornadoes. Can you check that though because I'm pretty sure it was talking about the 2013 tornado, not 2011 one. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- I double checked, and the paper does mention both tornadoes. It states a wind speed of 132.1 m/s (295 mph) for the 2011 El Reno tornado and 135 m/s (302 mph) for the 2013 El Reno tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS: Okay. You can add that back then. I will admit that I just skimmed it and didn't really read much of it since I was doing that. My bad. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. Also added the source back with the proper URL. I think someone might have changed it at some point. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS: Okay. You can add that back then. I will admit that I just skimmed it and didn't really read much of it since I was doing that. My bad. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- I double checked, and the paper does mention both tornadoes. It states a wind speed of 132.1 m/s (295 mph) for the 2011 El Reno tornado and 135 m/s (302 mph) for the 2013 El Reno tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @TornadoLGS: Oh. I'm sorry. I thought someone had just confused the tornadoes. Can you check that though because I'm pretty sure it was talking about the 2013 tornado, not 2011 one. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- This might best be done on the article's talk page, but I have always been a little iffy on that statement. The 225-250 mph figure is in that news article, but I've never seen it published in an NWS or other NOAA source. It may have been communicated to reporters in an "off the books" manner, but that's just speculation. I added the figure of 295 mph for El Reno. It was from mobile Doppler radar. The source was this paper. I had figured such Doppler readings were acceptable since they're used for the 2013 El Reno tornado and the 1999 Moore tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicholas Krasznavolgyi: I mean that's true, but it wouldn't be in the article if it didn't say it came from them. I honestly don't know either. I would like to get a second opinion on it. I think we can both agree that 295 mph label for the El Reno tornado was not correct though. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- I read through the article. Although it could be true, it's not the official wind speed estimate set in stone, where as ">200 mph" is. If it was officially rated EF5 (225-250 mph), that's what it would say in NCDC and other big reliable sources. Where as this is just an article by a news agency explicitly saying the NWS said that, and I haven't seen that anywhere else. I'm suggesting you change it back I guess, I'm not really sure. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Edit warring
Don't you dare accuse me of being rude when you don't follow the typical policy of discussing article content when you are disputed. You don't just get to unilaterally dictate what belongs and what doesn't. You've been here long enough to know what proper behavior is, but generally what I get from you are episodes like this followed later by apologies for your behavior (followed by more episodes like this). You need to calm down and take it to the talk page. United States Man (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @United States Man: (1) I was initiating that and (2) I WILL call you rude when I feel like you keep making snarky remarks and come behind my back with every edit I make in articles like this and revert them without a valid reason, completely ignoring my reasoning. I've said this before, but you really need to stop this "you should know better" crap when you're the only person who I have trouble with in situations like this. Your WP:BRD appears to be an excuse to always revert any addition I make of something official. Please stop singling me out. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with your reasoning, whether you think it is valid or not. I will also oppose random additions of that wording everywhere else. I will oppose it on the talk page as well, because my voice is equally as valid as yours. And, no, I promise I don't "single you out" or spend my time going through your edits just looking for something to revert. If you get reverted consistently, maybe take the time to think about why what you add is being reverted. I am not picking on you. If I disagree with something it is within my right to revert it and discuss it on a talk page. That's how it works. United States Man (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @United States Man: You are the only person that reverts me man. I think that that comment should be the other way around. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with your reasoning, whether you think it is valid or not. I will also oppose random additions of that wording everywhere else. I will oppose it on the talk page as well, because my voice is equally as valid as yours. And, no, I promise I don't "single you out" or spend my time going through your edits just looking for something to revert. If you get reverted consistently, maybe take the time to think about why what you add is being reverted. I am not picking on you. If I disagree with something it is within my right to revert it and discuss it on a talk page. That's how it works. United States Man (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)