User talk: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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|ChessEric}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]