User talk:Dovah12333

Discussion on Tornado Records

I've put in numerous edits and cleaned up the Tornado records section to the best of my ability. What in particular is there to doubt about the sources given? Just because 300+mph wasn't recorded by instruments doesn't meant that none of the tornadoes deserve to be there if multiple experts, from the NWS and ESSL, to Grazulis and Fujita, are in agreement. I also find it odd that you categorize our sources' claims as 'misinformation', even when they are clearly from reliable sources. If you could please provide us with a source on why these tornadoes shouldn't be included in the article, that would clear up much of this confusion. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the damage they have done, like I have having acquired all the survey images. It is very clear none of these tornadoes had 300 mph winds and there is zero evidence structurally or contextually to even think that they have, all you are doing is saying the do because xyz said it and because xyz have such and such titles it is 100% factual even if I have to deny logic and reasoning in the process. Dovah12333 (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue building consensus on Talk:Tornado records#Verification Check: Highest winds observed in a tornado, instead of this talk page. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are doing this based on your own analysis of damage, that is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hi Dovah12333! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to keep this matter on the talk page rather than continuing to revert. Discussing the matter on the talk page does not mean the edit war should continue on the main page. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing on the talk page

Hey Dovah12333! I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion open on the article’s talk page to let us discuss the issues with the content and help stop the edit war.

I recommend participating/discussing in it here: Talk:Tornado records#Verification Check: Highest winds observed in a tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes Improvement Time!

Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.

There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!

If you wish to participate, please visit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Tri-State tornado outbreak. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research, Grazulis himself stated that the 695 number is an underestimate. The red cross made that number. If you even go through each town and add the death toll; 12 in MO, 37 in Gorham, 234 in Murphysboro, 69 in De Soto, 14 in Bush, 192 in Franklin County, 65 in Hamilton and White Counties, and 95 in Indiana, you get more than 695. Hence it is definitely necessary to state the death toll is likely higher than the official 695. Dovah12333 (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite the fact that the number is an underestimate. Citing your own analysis of facts not found in reliable sources is synthesis and should be avoided. Departure– (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]