Hello! Would you be open to discussing possible adoption? I also have a (big) interest in tornadoes (especially after going through a tornado outbreak myself :P) and I think overall you are a cool person who could provide valuable mentorship.
Thank you, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer on-wiki, if that's fine. It's nothing personal, it's just that Wikipedia is the website I have access the most to throughout the day (and I've had at least one questionable experience with talking off-wiki). :D — EF501:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Worst" in this context means "most widespread" - you were the one that said while it was ongoing that it was a mile wide, and that's been verified from surveys. I saw on the DAT that it probably had a weird multiple-vortex structure. I don't see anything even close to EF5 damage but I'll tell you right now it was more devastating than a lot of EF5s could even hope to be. Maybe they should bring back the Fujita-Pearson scale if you want impacts to matter over damage. Departure– (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. So “costliest ever”? Or just “costliest since”? So weird that it popped out randomly then slithered back into the supercell in 3-or-so scans. EF501:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for cost, we're probably going to be surprised when the NCEI announces the final toll, as it's either going to overperform (I've seen preliminary estimates up to $1.6 billion) or underperform (Mr. T runs this joint!). Departure– (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I almost forgot, we had tornadoes in Nashville, Dallas, and Palm Beach that may have caused the most damage since Joplin, but then I remembered that Kehoe's statement implies this was worse than Moore in 2013 based on the sheer magnitude of damage. Departure– (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just uploaded a new image of the tornado, as the old one was horribly blurry and oddly significantly less clear than this version that was not modified (the increased contrast was to make the tornado more visible which it didn't do well). Two distinct funnels can be seen, just like that Goshen tornado from the Palm Sunday outbreak. Easily a mile wide. The twin funnels easily back up the size claimed and surveyed. Departure– (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be real, I liked the first one better. This one (falsely) shows two large wedge shapes that will 100% misdirect the reader. EF518:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've contacted a person who took a photo of the Plevna tornado; waiting for a "PD or no PD" response. EF518:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who's to say that it didn't have a structure like that? This image was from the LSX summary on the tornado, and the PNS survey explicitly said "It is possible that multiple tornadic circulations were involved, and future analysis may adjust these statistics." Either way, it's significantly less blurry than the other image. Departure– (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those funnels look way more than a mile apart, imo. I guess i'm just having a hard time believing such an incredible tornado went through such a large city. EF518:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that still works. The image was taken from the Gateway Arch looking west, and the tornado travelled northwest. The two funnels could have easily been a mile apart and yet only produced one mile's width of damage if they weren't on opposite sides - it's less than intuitive, and seemingly unlikely, but the tornado could have very easily been asymmetrical (with its vortices aligned to sort of "concentrate" damage) from the image I uploaded. Departure– (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, who said it didn't have to be a species stub? Also, I just realized it's likely going to happen early morning in EST, so I won't be able to do it anyways. :( — EF501:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not-so-early morning EDT now, and there's only about 400 new articles since you left this. You potentially could still go for 7 million, assuming it gets reached by tonight. However, I don't know if article 7,000,000 is worth anything due to the fact that articles are also frequently deleted - unlike something like edit number 1,300,000,000 which can be proven with a diff link. Departure– (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, amazing point. Also, on Wikipedia we should be focused on making quality content, not throwing out (inevitably) poorly-made content to get a trivial milestone. — EF514:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think I just cracked the St. Louis tornado's twin-funnel situation. Upon judging the photo with radar scans, yes, the "twin funnels" do look to be well over a mile apart, but the one on the right is obscured with rain and is likely the mile-wide tornado the article is mainly on. If you look at the velocity data on the tornado, there's another tornado vortex signature about 2.7 miles to the south (when cross-referenced with actual mapping data), and assuming the velocity scan and image of the tornado itself were taken around the same time it's entirely reasonable that the left funnel was a satellite tornado. This may also explain reports of damage significantly further south of the tornado such as at the St. Louis Zoo and Harlem Tap Room. Again, that's synthesis, but it's the best theory I have. Departure– (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
┌──────────────────────────────┘ Departure–, interesting. I'm going to wait till the end of June and if the London tornado still has coverage, I'll WP:BOLD write an article. — EF514:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, thank you so much! I downloaded Apple Music Classical a few week ago, but it's really hard to use because all of the classical song names are really long. I said last month that may is usually most active for tornadoes, and we had a tornado kill 19 people a state away from me on the 15th. Not a good month. No GAs this month, but I did write and nominate several articles, like 2020 Jonesboro tornado. :-( EF521:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In light of your concern, I changed the wording of my comment from "American" to "editor" in order to keep the peace.
However, I have thought more about it, and I would like to respectfully ask that you remove your comments where you accuse of me of WP:OUTING. In no conceivable way did I out any editor's identity or location, and even if you did not intend it that way. In addition to casting aspersions, stating that I am outing other editors is an extremely serious accusation (would merit a site-wide ban if true), and not one that I can let sit there, given that in my view, it is false. If you do not, I feel I have no choice but to ask for administrator assistance, given the seriousness of the accusation (if I actually did out someone, I would deserve corresponding punishment for it).
Done, struck. Please don't speculate about the nationalities of others though, whether OUTING or not it's led to blocks in the past. I don't have a specific user on my tongue, but I believe it has happened. — EF519:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that part was my mistake. I should have said something like "editors are taking only the American perspective in mind", which is what I intended to mean - but, to your point, is quite different. I appreciate it. FlipandFlopped㋡19:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea, but we're putting together our list of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red. We are creating the list to celebrate 10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania. We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider? Can you suggest a DYK style hook? If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on the talk page.
Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regarding notability and reliable sources. Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements.
I am restarting the creation of a big list of RS and non-RS sources used or discussed related to weather events. Since this will be extremely useful going forward, if you have any sources that you want to add, please add them. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your contributions to the WP:7M discussion as well. While the discussion was extraordinarily chaotic, I think you raised some very good points (including the need to be transparent on how the milestone article is determined) and were very helpful in getting everything resolved. Also, your article on the 1955 Yuba–Sutter floods is very well written; I'm glad it's one of the articles that made it onto the 7 millionth message page. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, struck. Please don't speculate about the nationalities of others though, whether OUTING or not it's led to blocks in the past. I don't have a specific user on my tongue, but I believe it has happened. — EF5 19:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
