Hello, TornadoLGS, 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:
{{help me}}
I was going to edit incorrect information about Wichita Falls, Texas regarding the tornado of April 10, 1979. I have an appropriate source for the information, but when I went to add it to the references section I found simply "Reflist|2" in two sets of }'s and {'s.
How, then do I add new references? I have looked at the help section, but am still stumped.
Hi.
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
You put references directly after the fact - in the body-text itself - in-between <ref> and </ref>. For example;
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
...and they automatically appear in the references section (produced by that {{reflist}} thingy), with a linked numbered footnote.
How references work
Simple references
These require two parts;
a)
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>
b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";
== References ==
{{reflist}}
(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)
Chzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook">
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009.
</ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/>
Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.
Citation templates
You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;
Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
| last = Smith
| first = John
| title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
| publication-date = 2001
| publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
| page = 125
| isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>
{{help me}}
I have found that a few articles about tornado outbreaks of recent years mistakenly link to the Wikipedia article on the original Fujita Scale in reference to the highest rated tornadoes instead of the Enhanced Fujita Scale. Does correcting this count as a minor edit? TornadoLGS (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No; if fixing those links, I wouldn't mark it as 'minor' - and make sure you explain what you do in the edit summary. I'd only mark something as a 'minor edit' if I was, e.g., fixing a comma or possibly fixing a coding issue. If in doubt, don't mark it minor. See Help:Minor edit. Chzz ► 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.
In the future, you can warn vandals yourself using one of these templates. I know it can be a little overwhelming, but the most commonly used ones are {{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, and {{test4}}. After issuing a level 4 notice (i.e. "This is your final warning" or similar message) if the user continues to vandalize, you can report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism (AIV). Reports there are usually dealt with within minutes.
Anyway, I posted on the April 25-28 talk page several other reliable sources that refer to it as this. But if the NWS calls it that, I'd say it is justified for mention. Let me know what you think.
You can go ahead and blend my sandbox into yours. I just copied from the outbreak page instead of doing it manually. And, I think a better title might be 2011 Hackleburg, Alabama - Huntland, Tennessee tornado because it gives a better indication of where it occurred. But either one is fine. United States Man (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on using the radar image from this NWS report to put in an article I am working on improving. However, I'm not sure what template to apply as the two similar images here and here use different formats, so I am confused as to what format to use when I add the image. Does it count as coming from the Federal Government if it is a local office of the National Weather Service? TornadoLGS (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A specific tag for the NOAA exists: "PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA". As the NWS is a sub-agency of NOAA, i would suggest to use it here aswell (their website makes it quite clear, they are a NOAA sub-division). USGov works too, but is rather vague - a lot of specific sub-organizations have their own PD-tag. For a complete (maybe) list of US government-related tags see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the head's-up. I used UTC because it seemed to be the standard format for timestamps in other articles on tornado outbreaks. To be consistent, I used UTC to demarcate the dates as well. I am not sure whether there is a set standard as to whether to use local time or UTC to split apart dates. However, if there is none, then I would imagine that UTC would do just as well as local time, so long as consistency were maintained. But feel free to let me know whether I am wrong. Again, thanks! :) CapeVerdeWave (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good except for two things: 1) I don't think that nickname belongs in the lede because it isn't sourced and I am not not a fan of nicknames anyway. 2) I would get rid of the subsection header in the Meteorological synopsis section and just make it a single section. I see no reason for that subsection to be there.
It is the European Severe Weather Database. It is a bit more complex than NCDC but not too hard to figure out. Cyclonebiskit has finished everything through late June. I will try to help some with this as well. United States Man (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of European tornadoes in 2012, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Komi and Podlesie (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.
I have been busy recently, so I did not have time to respond to your query; besides, even though I have been around for some time, I am not sure whether all editors consistently follow the severe-weather format for tornado-related articles. I suggest reading this for a good guideline. In many of my articles, I have tried increasingly to follow the format of the article on the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak, as it has been rated a good article and seems to be a standard-bearer for long articles (and a good tutorial for smaller ones, too). At any rate, you have made a good start on the article and the details look fine—I would suggest making the Sparta – Edgefield tornado header smaller, and instead placing a larger headline entitled "notable tornadoes" just above it. Then you can place all details for the most significant and/or deadly tornadoes under individual subsets. I would also add the state after the locations, and add a slash to make the whole thing read: Sparta, Georgia/Edgefield, South Carolina. As all these subsets would be under the main section for notable tornadoes, the word "tornado" would be unnecessary in the subsets. Again, these tips are just starters; feel free to use the sources that I suggested. Best of luck! CapeVerdeWave (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few suggestions: 1) Change "List of tornadoes" to "Confirmed tornadoes." 2) Get rid of the notable tornadoes heading and leave the smaller heading for the "Sparta, Georgia/Edgefield, South Carolina" tornado to slide under the table. 3) No sense in having the Coordinates column in the table if there are no Coords. So it would be good to get rid of that too. United States Man (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the May 24 tornadoes
The source was an email to severe wx editor here, so that may or may not work. You can view it on the talk page. The reason being behind why I feel strongly this is that I know that several meteorologist and severe WX experts have disagreed with the rating. There is no official documentation but it is common consensus among experts and enthusiasts that I have seen among forums. I can vouch and say I have done quite a bit of research over these two tornadoes, and after sifting through tons of pics and discussion with experts, I KNOW that these were. I am quite knowledgeable down to detail about how the EF scale is used, and I know that it was misused in this case and I want some kind of permanent online documentation of the controversy surrounding the ratings. I know it is hard to take my word for it, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone who edits here that is quite as knowledgeable about the EF scale than myself. And lets be logical here, the NCDC write-up is absurd, with 1 mile per hour away from an EF5 listed. Large and well built homes were swept cleanly away, vehicles were hurled and smashed to pieces, ground was deeply scoured along with pavement. This is as clear of an indication as you will get for an EF5. We need to figure out something at least for documentation purposes.
Sharkguy05 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]
Hattiesburg tornado article
Hello, I just created the 2013 Hattiesburg, Mississippi tornado article and the infobox needs a picture. Since I have absolutely no clue how to upload any pictures so I was hoping that you may be able to put one up for me. The one I had in mind is located here (It is the first picture under the heading "Radar Imagery"). But, if you could dig up a good damage photo or a picture of the tornado that would be good as well (Maybe one for the infobox and two in the "Meteorological synopsis" section.) Also, if you have any suggestions on how to improve the article I would appreciate those as well. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind adding some pictures to the sections entitled "Smithville, Mississippi", "Cordova/Blountsville, Alabama", and "Raleigh, Mississippi/Uniontown, Alabama". As I have told you before, I am not good with that. I don't care which ones you pick, but one per section should do. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
F4 Tornado
I am very sorry for posting on your user page. That was a total accident, I just assumed I was on your talk page. Also, I assume you know more than me about the F4 tornado in Oklahoma than I do, so I'm going to guess that you're right. Spindocter123 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tornadoes of 1992 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tornadoes of 1993 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tornadoes of 1981, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington, Wisconsin (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.
There is currently a discussion ongoing regarding altering the naming conventions for tornado outbreak and tornado outbreak sequence articles. Please feel free to view and comment on the discussion here. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) via User:Ks0awb22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC) You are receiving this notice because you are listed as a member of WikiProject Severe Weather. If you would not like to receive future WikiProject Severe Weather notifications, please add your signature at User:Ks0stm/Notify list.[reply]
thanks for telling me that about the (INFLATION ADJUSTED COST) but....
theres still one weird problem and its about Wichita Falls TX actual cost... why is it lower then what it says in wiki? they never said that the (ACTUAL) is a error tought... also can you fix the Hackleburg AL adjusted cost its not right, that's all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.207.158 (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok now for the last thing is that Oklahoma City Metro tornado count is 1400 but needs to be 1401 , Tuscaloosa tornado is 2542 but needs to be 2543 and the Joplin tornado that's 2906 needs to be 2907 then evrething will be fix perfectly, not sure why it makes it go down by one number for... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.207.158 (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2013 (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 in April 2014, 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.
Hello, TornadoLGS. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox tornado. Message added 21:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States tornadoes in June 2014, 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.
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 Milford, Indiana. 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.
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 Pinhook, Indiana. 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.
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 Edgewater, Florida. 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.
Hi, I'm looking to help revamp the Percy Jackson Task-force, a project dedicated to maintaining articles related to Rick Riordan and Percy Jackson & the Olympians. I noticed your interest in the Percy Jackson & the Olympians series, and I wanted to invite you to join! If you're interested, I'd like to invite you to become a full member; please note that the difficult requirements for membership are going to be lowered in the near future, so you can join worry-free (I know they scared me away on the first try.). You can also become just a "supporter", if that's more your speed.
Head on over to the project page if you're interested -- and no hard feelings if you're not. Thanks again in advance, and feel free to contact me on my Talk page. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the Joplin tornado in the list of F5/EF5 tornadoes
I noticed that the Joplin tornado is listed as an "undisputed" EF5 when in fact its rating was quite controversial, with the 2013 survey in particular applying a maximum rating of EF4. Would this not put it under the category of "Official F5/EF5, but rating is disputed; event may not have been F5/EF5"?
--Anonymous Macaw (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TornadoLGS. 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.
Hello, TornadoLGS. 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.
Hello, TornadoLGS. 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.
the jarrell tornado in its multi vortex stage[1] or alot of people call it the dead man walking?
in one of the books i have its used as a example for a multi vortex tornado.Joshoctober16 (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-tornadic fatalities - consistency?
Hey there - I noticed your recent change to List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks, where you said the list "didn't include non-tornadic fatalities." When I first added that entry to the table, I wasn't sure whether to include the fatalities or not. I can't say I disagree with your edit - but I have to say that I wonder about the consistency? In Tornado outbreak of April 17-19, 2019, the infobox shows "Fatalities: 4 non-tornadic." With that article being titled "tornado outbreak," would it be equally inappropriate to list non-tornadic fatalities in that infobox? What are your thoughts? Sleddog116 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage there are none, this article should not be created until there is a tornado in May, please don't remove until there is actually a tornado listed on this page, with a source.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Possible creation of "Tornado outbreak of May 30-June 1, 1999"
On the article Tornadoes of 1999, there's a small subheader labeled "May 30-June 1" however with no details other than a small tornado table. From what I was able to gather, this outbreak produced a total of 59 tornadoes and resulted in three tornadic fatalities. What's even more notable about this particular outbreak, however, is the FAA citing the severe weather as a contributing factor for the crash of American Airlines Flight 1420, which killed an additional eleven people.
Even when taking Flight 1420 out of the equation, I still feel this event meets the notability criteria for articles on WikiProject Severe Weather. It was an outbreak that produced 25 or more tornadoes and resulted in three tornadic deaths. I'm obviously not an expert however, and I know you've been around here for much longer than I have so I'd like to hear your input. Would it be worth it to create this article? Thanks, TheRMSTitanic (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheRMSTitanic One thing I'd think is worth checking is if everything was from the same system. Just looking at the maps of the Tornado History project, I'm not sure if it was all one system, particularly with the tornadoes on May 30. Otherwise, I have no objections as long as there is enough information. I don't have much time to work on it myself right now. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From what I was able to find, all 31 tornadoes spawned on June 1 were part of the same storm system. As for May 30 and 31, I can't be 100% sure. The two F0 tornadoes in Florida on May 30 were simply waterspouts that tracked inland briefly, and were unrelated to the outbreak. A waterspout that tracked inland in Alabama on May 31 was also unrelated. Two F0 tornadoes in southern Louisiana and Mississippi may have been unrelated as well, but like I said, have no way to confirm this. An F2 tornado in Michigan I believe was also isolated. This would bring the total number of tornadoes down to 59 (which I have no idea where that number came from in the first place, a source would be nice.) Since all of the fatalities and most of the strong tornadoes occurred on June 1 anyway, would it make more sense to just make the page about the events on June 1? TheRMSTitanic (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--FreemesM (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tornadoes of 1992 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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.
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
