User talk:EF5/Archives/2024/May

DYK for G299.2-2.9

On 29 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article G299.2-2.9, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that G299.2-2.9 (pictured) is one of the oldest known supernova remnants in the Milky Way? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/G299.2-2.9. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, G299.2-2.9), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ardmore/Sulphur videos

There is only one verified video of the Sulphur tornado, and it's this one. Shows a stout, ugly tornado only illuminated by power flashes and no city lights. https://twitter.com/CameronCW13/status/1784475703007690884?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1784475703007690884%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

This video is being passed around as Sulphur but has not been verified as such. It looks like Ardmore (explaining below) https://twitter.com/QueenDarbyy/status/1784474310171664716

Ardmore is a larger town and it illuminated the tornado. Sulphur is smaller and power was out at the time of the tornado, and therefore any video of a narrow cone tornado illuminated by city lights, is probably from Ardmore. The photo you shared is more consistent with Ardmore than the one verifiable clip of Sulphur. A lot of videos from Ardmore got spread on social media as Sulphur, and it's creating a mess. When it doubt, throw it out, and I doubt this one more than I can express. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@User:TornadoInformation12 This is what the Ardmore tornado looked like. While I will say that more than one tornado hit Ardmore, both of them look only slightly similar to Sulphur. See also here. Also, there is no upward lighting in the Sulphur photo, consistent with what you said about power being out (I may be wrong about this). While I get your points, it definitely matches what has been said about the Sulphur tornado. Since us talking usually spirals out of control, I'll try to keep it civil this time. Thanks :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

More than one tornado did NOT hit Ardmore. See this isn't good, you're already confused about what happened last night. There were additional PDS warnings for Ardmore later but nothing was confirmed in the town. You are obviously are relying heavily on social media reports and photos, and that's sure fire way to get confused. There was one path through through the Plainfield Estates subdivision, and that is the only confirmed path in Ardmore at this time. That photo is ONE angle and it looks that way because it's illuminated with a power flash. Literally every other video from Ardmore looks like these below. These are ALL from Ardmore and it isn't up for debate:

https://twitter.com/onlynaders/status/1784421181929427404 https://twitter.com/JeffreyMHough1/status/1784555615013990792 https://twitter.com/StormHQwx/status/1784436631480529041 https://twitter.com/MundoEConflicto/status/1784417481869680713

Also look what I just found, a video that was being passed around as Sulphur later in the night, clearly labeled and consistent with Ardmore. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. We have no way of knowing, and I'm not letting something uncertain like this onto wikipedia:

https://twitter.com/onlynaders/status/1784431755727958322

Also the Sulphur tornado was large and rain-wrapped, and basically not visible as it moved into the darkened town. If it was, we'd have more than one video of it, and like I said the one video we do have looks nothing like what I shared above I'm not trying to start a back and forth, but I'm telling you right now that you are not going about this the right way, and you're going to get false info published. I know you're probably a kid so I won't blow up, but you need to take the advice of other more experienced editors in moments like this. I've been doing this long enough to no when things aren't adding up and there isn't enough evidence for inclusion. This is one of those times.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

1. I literally said that we need to keep it civil
2. Violations of WP:NPA do not show your experience in any way
3. I may be wrong, and I do understand that. I will have a talk with my friend to see if he is telling the truth or if this is a screengrab. Until then, feel free to do whatever the heck you want with the image. I do agree, with the evidence presented, that it should be removed from the main article. Thanks!  :) (Also to clear up confusion, there were multiple signs of a second tornado in Ardmore when I was watching it live, others voiced my same concern, and as of right now it has not been proven or disproven)

MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok one more thing and I'll wrap this up. You can't post things that your friends send you. You either have to take the tornado pic yourself, or it has to be from a government source (FEMA, NWS, NOAA, ect). There's a reason why we can't just post photos internet friends send us, and that's because it's a real life case of "source: trust me bro". There's a rule against it because we want to avoid situations where false info gets published for everyone to see. I once submitted a photo of a foundation partially pulled out of the ground by an EF5 in Smithville, MS back in 2011. It was crazy, incredible, and I know exactly where it was taken and can verify it was real. Problem is, it was taken by a friend of a friend, and it got taken down. I wanted published with every fiber of my being, but eventually had accept I couldn't because I didn't take it. Just the way it is, and over time I've come to understand why.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformatinon12

Okay, that makes sense. MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Publishing of Inaccurate/Unverified Info

Hey I swear I'm not trying to nit-pick everything you do, but you just published a bunch of inaccurate info in the Sulphur writeup.

1.) While there was debarking in Sulphur, you didn't add a source for it (I will try to find one for you though, because this claim is true).

2.) The claim about branches embedded in concrete is also unsourced, and untrue, and it happened in a different town (Norman, OK) from a weak tornado. The sticks were embedded in stucco, not concrete (https://twitter.com/LiveStormChaser/status/1784425063690727822). Stucco is a styrofoam like substance that is sprayed with a hard layer of fiberglass to make it look like concrete. I can say that as someone who has extensive knowledge of building materials, and have seen this phenomenon in many other tornadoes over the past decade. In the video, you can see the exposed styrofoam on the corner when the camera moves to the other side.

3.) NWS Norman has only confirmed only one CONFIRMED tornado in Sulphur. There is nothing to indicate that there was a second one besides some false reports on social media the night of the event. You can not add or mention a tornado unless it is confirmed by the NWS, period. If they add a second path through Sulphur, then you can go ahead, but I'm telling you right now that they won't.

I know you're trying and still new at this, but you can't be publishing so much stuff that isn't true or properly verified. I'm also concerned that you're just looking at a bunch of photos and social media posts, and writing things based on that. Those are not considered to be reliable sources, and can be only be used as a last resort supplement to officials sources, which are the NWS and the Damage Assessment Toolkit. News media articles can also be used as a secondary source, but not a primary one. You'll get the hang of it, but don't be offended if a lot of your stuff gets changed. I will be fair and try to alter as little as possible, and keep and or find a source for anything that is true and verifiable. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, you're all good. I will admit that tensions in the tornado community were extremely high on the night of April 27th, and I may have been wrong about a second tornado in Sulphur, which is a claim that has been heavily tossed around. I am looking at the ArcGIS damage toolkit, which is where I got the "East Broadway Avenue" info from. Social media-wise, I don't really get my info from there, it's more videos and articles that have been passed around. I'll try to do better about sourced and verified info. Thanks! (Also I know what stucco is) MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool thanks for understanding. Another important thing is you can't guess the point of highest-rated damage or the basis for the rating of a tornado. You have to wait until the DAT or the NWS officially announces it. Idk if it was you, but I found a claim that the EF4 rating in Marietta, OK was based on a Dollar Tree warehouse. It wasn't, and I have some "insider" info that hasn't been publicly released yet (been doing this a while so I have some connections) that the EF4 rating is going to be based on a destroyed Homeland grocery store that was extremely well-built, confirmed by engineer Tim Marshall. Now even though I know it to be 100% true because of mu sources, I can't publish it right now, because it hasn't been released to the public yet. So I gotta keep it vague per the rules. One the NWS adds the grocery store to the DAT or mentions it in a more detailed survey, we can add that piece of info.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for understanding my side as well. For the Sulphur one, I never mention "EF4" damage because I have quite literally no experience in and no idea what this absolute demon could be rated. I'll try to avoid premature ratings and unconfirmed speculations. Thanks! (Also a tornado outside of Sulphur was confirmed, apparently it hit north of Sulphur, but really didn't hit anything) MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok correction some stuff got lost in translation. It's based on a combination of the warehouse AND the grocery store (this stuff gets complicated). See even I sometimes get bad info when stuff is this recent. That's why I always try to be cautious and keep it vague until more info is released.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Draft:2024 Hollister tornado

What's this about? Before I cleaned it up just now, it was full of completely unsourced sensationalism. Joke pages are not taken upon kindly here. Please do not create any further such drafts; base any and all information on cited sources please. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Mk. It's a draft, which is meant to be a prep space for an article. Feel free to delete it, but yeah. Also, it isn't a joke page or "unsourced sensiationalism" the strongest tornado statement was released by the NWS but later retracted, and somehow it was only rated an EF1. Feel free to delete. Thanks :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You didn't WP:CITE anything and have no proof the NWS said that. If an actual tornado hadn't occurred this would've been speedily deleted as a WP:HOAX.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Again, remove it if you'd like, I am most likely not going to do anything with the article as it was rated extremely low as compared to its radar structure MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that you don't do something like this again. Please take your responsibility to not create WP:HOAX-like content again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Something extremely serious happened in my family about half an hour ago, I do not want to start any sort of argument right now, now just isn't the time for debates. MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2024 Sulphur tornado for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 Sulphur tornado is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

United States Man (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Will Talk With Whom I Want

You can keep stalking my posts on other talk pages, but I will not stop engaging with other editors to deal with the issues you have created. If you want me to stop, then work on your editing and sourcing skills, take a step back to observe and learn, and do better work. Let me be very clear, I WILL talk about ongoing problems that need fixed with other users, and most of them just so happen to currently involve you. This is nothing new, there's no rule against it, and you are not owed protection from being the topic of conversations you don't like. Until you improve, you are going to have to deal with me conversing with other editors to clean up messes that are left behind. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Hello. I will do that, but you NEED to stop lecturing me every time I say literally anything. Your "talks" are seen as extremely derogatory and straight-up harassment by me. And per your rationale, I will edit what I want. Whaddya gonna do to stop it? I am currently getting a block set up between the two of us because I just can't talk to you anymore without keeping the conversation extremely toxic. You talk about encyclopedia content, well none of our conversations are productive. For an experienced editor, you really just can't put any blame for anything on you, can you? At least I, the rookie, and taking it up on myself to own up to my actions and get both of us interaction blocked for the sake of the wiki. Thanks for your help, or whatever. I can't even believe I have these kinds of conversations with an editor who has 14,000+ edits. Wow. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no basis for interaction bans yet at this stage, and as unpleasant as this was, I actually still have hope for resolution and don't want to bicker with you. Believe it or not, I actually want us to be able to collaborate and be productive together, as I can tell you have the passion and drive to be a very productive tornado article editor at some point. I DO see your potential, and you actually remind me of myself when I joined this site as a kid, which makes me want to help you get to the point where I can "hand over the torch" so to speak, and see you do this 100% on your own. I will own up to when I am going about things the wrong way and being to harsh, and will start by saying I am guilty of that today. On my end, I promise I will not remove your stuff as long as it is largely NWS/DAT sourced, relevant, and encyclopedic in tone. On your end, all I ask is you either hang back on having such an active role in tornado draft/article creation for while, or if you refuse to do that, at least be ok with me reverting or re-writing a lot of your stuff while you are still learning (half of my contributions were removed or changed during my first year or two of editing tornado articles, so I know how it feels). Can we shake on that agreement, and at least try to wipe the slate clean one more time? We actually seemed to be doing ok until you published the Sulphur article. What really set me off is that I explained in detail what sources to use and avoid, and how to summarize damage/EF scale intensity information using those sources. You said "Ok will do", but after reading the Sulphur article, I saw you did all the things I specifically asked you not to do, so I lost it. I felt like I wasn't taken seriously or listened to, so things went off the rails again and I'm sorry, but I do want to give us another shot at working together in a civil manner. I actually want to have a more detailed conversation this weekend about making sure this never happens again. What do you say?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I'm busy at the current moment, I will read the message when I have time (some serious family stuff right now) MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice that I have started a discussion in which you involved.

It can be found at user:randykitty's talk page.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not make anymore accusations of harassment while there, if the editor needs more information, you will most likely be asked.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I fully respect your decision to step away, as it's honestly grown extremely stressful for me as well (hence why I just about left last night). Thank you for getting an admin involved, and I do realize that some of it is my fault. See you on something not related to this. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

O7, hope to see you later.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

o7 MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 16:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I had a long think session about what you and weatherwriter had said, and since one of the two people who have been causing this stress apologized, I think I'll give it one last chance. I really thought I was leaving last night, but yea. I'm still taking a 2 week break, but I'll be a better person from now on, and WP:IAD once I'm legitimately back. Thx MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I really hope that all the drama does clear up, though, because I'm honestly still low on morale here. All conflicts have ends, however, and I just hope it ends quickly. MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully the drama will clear up when you return in a couple of weeks. I'm glad you're giving it one last chance, I believe that WP:IAD is a good approach to take. You may also like to see this. Hope the causes of this stress don't return, and until you get back, enjoy New York City! ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 17:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never been in a city with more than 3 million people, so NYC is definitely going to be an adventure. Cya when I get back! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Some advice

Hello MemeGod27, thank you for contributing to weather articles here on Wikipedia and helping out, I wanted to give you some pointers to guide you in the right direction:

Please do not create drafts or articles for a tornado outbreaks before they've been proven to be significant events with widespread coverage, proving notability. For example, the draft for Tornado outbreak sequence of April_25–28, 2024 was created during the Nebraska/Iowa portion of the tornado outbreak following the Blair tornado because it was already receiving large-scale coverage from many sources, and it was clearly a major tornado event unfolding. Meanwhile, drafts such as Draft:2024 Hollister tornado and Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 30, 2024 were inappropriate because they did not receive widespread coverage from reliable sources, and didn't sufficiently prove notability for a significant tornado outbreak, or a standalone tornado that warrants an article.

Also, please do not insert data that isn't reliably sourced into the articles. For example, you inserted specific damage ratings for specific buildings on 2024 Sulphur tornado which were not sourced from an official source, such as the Damage Assessment Toolkit or NWS Norman. There is a policy on Wikipedia against personal research and estimates being included in articles, so please do not include them in the articles you write.

It may take multiple days for the full scope of tornado outbreaks to be realized, and if it becomes clear a few days later that a tornado outbreak was a significant, large-scale one that deserves an article, then it can be done then. It does not need to be done before or during based on forecasts, unless its immediately clear that it's significantly notable, as mentioned above. Additionally, it may take multiple months for a tornado's lasting notability to be realized, e.g., through rebuilding efforts, and an article can be created then when it has been proven, and when more info from official sources (NWS and Damage Assessment Toolkit) has come out.

I understand that you may have other worries you need to tend to right now, or that you just want to steer clear of this topic right now, and that's fine. This advice is here whenever you're ready to return to it, or have a bit more time to work on weather articles on Wikipedia. I'm here to help you out, so if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ping me and ask me. Thanks, and hope my advice can help! All the best, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have retired, so I wanted to say that it's sad to see you go, and I hope you decide to return at some point. I truly believe you were becoming a productive, competent editor that just needed a few pointers in the right direction, for weather articles anyway. Wishing you the best for your future endeavors, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 22:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, I just can't do it anymore with the constant harassment . You at least give me constructive tips, I honestly want to keep going on WikiPedia but I just can't take how toxic many community members are. "There's no point pursuing what you enjoy if you don't enjoy it." -MemeGod27 (also thanks for your help in general, you were definitely on my list of actually friendly editors) MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I may be back, but if I come back later in the year and the events that went down today happen again, I'm leaving for good. It's insane how a literal encyclopedia can drain someone's morale. Thanks :/ MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad I could at least help out some, and I understand that. I try to be a bit more understanding with relatively new editors to highlight areas they could improve so they can actually help fix those issues and become competent, constructive editors in the future. I fully understand that statement as well. I'm hoping you do return later in the year as you were clearly passionate about the topic, and I do truly think you can come back and be a very good, productive contributor. I'm sorry this made your morale drain so much, I still believe that you can be a great editor, and were clearly a good-faith, passionate one. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Some people here definitely need a talking to about how to deal with inexperienced editors. I won't name names because I'm not that kind of person, but I'm hope the community as a whole takes this as a valuable lesson to not murder the newcomers. Thanks so much for all the help. :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

My autocorrect is bugging out, I'm sorry for the horrible grammar lol. Cya MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

(Last message here, seriously) If I don't come back after tonight (if I make no edits by 3:00 PM EST tomorrow) please update my user page with a message stating that "this user has left" or something. I've also directly addressed some of the editors who caused most of this to go down, and I hope they can take away something from this situation. Seeing as I'm still being harassed as we speak, it's gonna be a long while before I'm back. Thanks so, so, sooo much for being an amazing person overall, and probably the friendliest editor I've ever met on here! :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

bro what did they do 4.39.220.106 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Kiso 5639

On 10 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kiso 5639, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Skyrocket Galaxy has been described by NASA as looking like a "July 4th skyrocket"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Skyrocket Galaxy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kiso 5639), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Dang, that happened quick. Thanks so much! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 00:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Enjoyed reading the article - interesting! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Some galaxies are definetely cooler than others, and if NASA themselves call a galaxy beautiful, you know it's gotta be good. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Enjoyed the earlier galaxy article as well. Thanks for your contributions! Feel free to drop me a note if you need advice about sourcing or other wiki-details. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve got a job for you

See Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 6–9, 2024 for more information. The pictures you took of those storms. Can you please move them to Commons that way we have something other than an error page. Thank you. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:5054:A7C6:AA2D:9AE2 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

? MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I literally added them on commons MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Friends?

WeatherWriter wants to be your friend! Friends promote WikiLove and make people happy. This user wants to be your friend because they like you. You can contact me at my talk page. Oh, and hopefully you will be my friend too! Become someones friend! Add {{subst:Friend}} to their talk page.

• I have not been super active in the last few days because of jobs and overall just stuff. However, I did take a moment to look over what happened today and I am sorry for all the debate today. In about two weeks (after May 9-10th timeframe), I would be more than willing to sort of mentor you through creating an article if you are up for it. I’ve creating a ton of articles, including four which have reached the status of “Good Article”, with one of those currently in nomination to become a “Featured Article”.

Taking a Wikibreak is always a good thing. I have actually taken several in the past (some just a few days and one actually a month long).

Also, if you decide to give Wikipedia another try, there are several tornado-related articles that you can improve without really any interactions with others. An example is List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes, an article which I started back in 2022, is still far from being complete. You could also pick a random Tornadoes of (Year) article. Most if not all of those articles can always be improved. While typing this, I pulled up Tornadoes of 1986, which is actually very bare of information.

Again, I am willing to help mentor you through an article creation or even just overall editing if you want me to in the future. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well…I tried the Friend template and for some reason it ain’t working. Sorry about that. Maybe an admin will randomly see this message and fix it for me. Hmmm… The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)  Done ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 00:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that. It'll really depend on if I even think I should come back here or not. Seeing the events of today and the way some editors have acted towards me in the past few days, I am most likely not coming back (sadly). If I do? I would love to learn from an actually experienced editor like you! I want to learn, no matter how much it seems like I don't in today's debacle. Sending all the WikiLove right back at you! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

If it helps any, you can think of Wikipedia oddly enough like a social media platform…Like Twitter (I refuse to say X, even though it is X…lol). Cool and interesting stuff is posted, people debate like it is life and death, everyone forgets about it and moves on with life. One of the best pieces of advice I got from my own mentor (Jason Rees) was back on July 4, 2023, right after I got into a super heated debate with others. To not lose the full affect of it, I will just quote the whole thing as I personally think it also applies to you, just the same as it applied to me last year: “Hey, I have read through some of the stuff above and would agree with them, that it would be wise for you to take a step back from Wikipedia for a few days and let real life unfold. WHen you are ready I would be willing to informally mentor you as i think you are a productive and passionate editor, who just needs pushing in the right direction.” (bolding/emphasis my doing)

After that message, I took a break from editing (forget how long exact, but a couple of days at least). After my Wikibreak, I came back to editing and by August 16, just a little over a month later, an article which I wrote reached the status of “Good Article” for the first time.

Just like I was told, I will tell you the exact same thing: Take a break and if/when you are ready to give it another try, I will be here to guide you through editing. Hopefully this helps cheer you up! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that did cheer me up a bit. :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

And… the harassment continues by another editor who I am not naming. I'm done here. Goodbye. Thanks for everything, really. You were one of the better people that I've met in my short time here.  :( MemeGod ._. (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not know if you will decide to come back to Wikipedia ever, but if I was to say one final thing, you can choose to WP:IAD…otherwise known as “ignoring all dramas”. Who cares if someone things you are not a good editor? So what? Back in 2021, I had an editor say straight to my face that I was not competent enough to edit Wikipedia. Did that hurt? Yes (as it was an editor who currently has over 240,000 edits!) and I had a long Wikibreak after it. However, I was determined to prove them wrong. If you feel like others are harassing you, take a break, let the drama die down, and then prove them wrong. Well, if this truly is the last thing you see as a Wikipedia editor, hopefully you can say you at least made a friend while it lasted. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been told that multiple times, including Floquenbean himself. I'm gonna take a break, and if I come back I'll WP:IAD (every day I learn about new policies and essays lol). Thanks! See you on the flip side. MemeGod ._. (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter Sorry if I'm bothering you, but are you still free to teach me a few things or help me a bit? I am working on Draft:Weather of 2001, and honestly need some help from an expert. Thanks so much! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I took the day off, so sorry for the late reply. In the morning, I will take a look at the draft/article and I can help you with it and also answer any questions you have. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter It's all good! Thanks so much for even offering to help me in the first place! I'm also working on Draft:1997 Jarrell tornado aswell, but I think that I have that one wrangled and ready. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• So a few things: Weather of 2000 and Weather of 2001 are a good start-class equivalent articles. The main things would be to obviously add more sources to each section/expand each section & actually by working on a timeline. If you look at Weather of 2022, there is a yearly timeline. Like I said, those are good start-class articles (Wikipedia:Content assessment for further on the class of articles). 2000 is probably borderline C-class, but 2001 is a solid start-class.

Now onto Draft:1997 Jarrell tornado. First thing, references go at the end of sentences (i.e. This tornado is Texas' most recent F5 or EF5 tornado, as of 2024.[4] instead of This tornado is Texas' most recent F5 or EF5 tornado, as of 2024[4].

Secondly, the meteorological synopsis section has no references currently, so references need to be added to it.

I am going to go ahead and switch over to the draft talk page Draft talk:1997 Jarrell tornado for additional comments going forward, just so future editors could see what was discussed/changed. I went ahead and removed to AFC submission template just so it doesn't get pushed into mainspace too fast (before it is actually ready), as that could lead to other editors possibly challenging it in mainspace.

I also wanted to note something, I am going to be kind and all that through comments and reviewing the article, but I may ask some difficult questions. Obviously, the goal for the article would be to one day reach Good Article status {which requires a non-involved editor (someone who hasn't edited the article basically at all) dissecting the article bit-by-bit in a peer review}. But I promise you that I will be here to help/answer questions through it. But, like I said, I will basically peer-review the article and answer any questions that you have.

The draft content looks solid at first glance, so nice job on that! But, I haven't done a full verifiability check on it yet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely understand. Unlike Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1–3, 2024, I'm going to try to get this as complete and good as possible, and then publish it. I'll start adding references as well for that section, and I'm gonna add some extra sections, like "reactions" and "documentation". Anyways, I will also now transfer over to the Draft talk. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, a really good method to use when creating articles (excluding standard ones like Weather of YYYY or Tornadoes of YYYY, where notability is automatically presumed) is to use the Good Article criteria. For drafts I create, I basically go through the checklist myself before publishing it into mainspace. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Always better to publish something when it qualifies as "good" than a start-class article that can be SPED before it even gets to that point. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh also, just a quick question so I know how to best describe stuff: Do you use the Visual editor or Source editor? If you don't know which one you use, then you could tell by this: If you were to go editing the tornado summary for List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2024#January 5 event, do you see:

|- class="expand-child"

| colspan="8" style=" border-bottom: 1px solid black;|Some trees were snapped and uprooted, power lines were damaged, and some homes had minor structural damage.

or would you just edit the straight text. If you see the stuff I just posted, then it is the source editor, if not, then visual editor. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm just gonna be honest, I absolutely suck at source editing. I mainly use visual editing, but if needed I use source. (To answer your question, mainly visual)  :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That works! That just lets me know how to describe stuff going forward (i.e. don't copy the whole source editing code stuff...lol). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Uh….. (lol, guilty as charged) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Weather of 2000 moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Weather of 2000. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Zsinj^Talk 01:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on it tonight. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It has now been published, there is adequate sourcing. Article still needs expansion, however MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for COSMOS field

On 12 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article COSMOS field, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the COSMOS field (pictured) is the largest contiguous survey of the universe ever taken by the Hubble Space Telescope? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/COSMOS field. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, COSMOS field), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Photographs

Hey MemeGod27! So I wanted to mention something that actually isn’t written down anywhere, but is more of an “unwritten rule” around Wikipedia. Typically, if a photograph becomes: (1) a Featured Picture (WP:FP) on Wikipedia, (2) a Featured Picture on the Commons, or (3) a Valued Image on the Commons, it typically is not replaced/removed from an article, unless by another image from those categories. 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado is a weird/good example of this “unwritten rule” actually.

So obviously a tornado photograph trumps any photograph on a tornado-based article, since it is the true subject of the article. However, if you click the “More Details” on the damage photograph in the infobox, you would see that it is a Featured Picture on the Commons. That, oddly enough, is why the infobox has two images, instead of just the tornado image. Because it became a Featured Picture, it basically has “priority” over other images. If it is written down some where, I actually have no idea where it would be/what “essay” says that, but from experience, that is just an unwritten rule that editors sort of do on their own, just because X image won an “award” over Y image. Hopefully that helps! If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot about the fourth picture “award” category, which is Quality Image on the Commons. So yeah, anything from those four categories typically isn’t replaced unless it is by something else from those four categories. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm usually one to add images to articles, but I understand if a Featured Pic should go up top. After all, the image is recognized as one of the best. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

United States Man (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How is this a content fork? Like I'm respectfully asking. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Jarrell article is long enough and has a greater focus on a well-known specificity, so I would not delete it. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Your recent editing history at 1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Quit adding it until you get consensus in favor. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not gonna argue this time, I 100% agree. The both of us had explained the situation to each other on the talk page, and are now all good. Thanks! (Also the 3rd revert most likely came from me reverting myself earlier today) :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

E 2600:1700:B290:48D0:A8CF:3B8C:E327:AC02 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi MemeGod27. Thank you for your work on List of Ohio tornadoes. Another editor, Clearfrienda, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great job

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Clearfrienda}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Clearfrienda ^💬 23:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Lol! Thanks MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: Texas tornadoes

Hey there, wow that list has really progressed nicely! I warned you that the list might be a huge undertaking, but you're plowing full-stream ahead, nice. I'm not sure what your plans are, but here's a little advice from when I worked on the California tornadoes - if there are multiple tornadoes on the same day, start with something like "There were X tornadoes across the state". That was something that came up a few times in California tornadoes, and I had conflicting reports for the day with the most tornadoes. Luckily, it's easier for Texas. It looks like Hurricane Beulah spawned 67 tornadoes on September 20, 1967, which according to the NWS was the most tornadoes in the same day in any US state, until it was tied in 2003 (South Dakota), and then surpassed in 2008 (Kansas) - source. That's backed up by this source, which I'm not sure as much of its reliability.

So in summary, if you just mention the outbreak first and give a summary, then you don't have to write as much. Heck, for Beulah, I might just mention that there were 67 tornadoes, and that being a national record. Or a breakdown of tornado by intensity. Of course, that makes me wonder if Beulah's outbreak should have its own article - Hurricane Beulah tornado outbreak - since there were 117 overall, the most from a tropical cyclone until the Hurricane Ivan tornado outbreak of 2004. This is why these articles are useful, to link together different events, and put things into context at a state level. I'm trying to do that now for List of California hurricanes, which I realize was half-written about Arizona storms for some reason, and a lot of events were missing.

Does that all make sense? Any questions? You doing OK? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea, that all makes sense! It's definitely a task, but I think I'm doin' pretty good on it. I am weirdly fast at article-browsing, and constructing detailed lists usually is something I'm not too bad at. I can probably knock it out by Thursday or Friday if time allows. Personal-wise, I'm doing okay (could be better, but life is life). Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if I devote a week to each "tornadoes in ___" article that doesn't currently exist, I could probably get it done in 1-2 months! I wouldn't mind, as my summer break is next week and summer is notoriously boring. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Good to hear back so quickly! Yea, lists are both difficult and easy at the same time. Organizationally it's not the most difficult, but the tricky part is to get the right amount of information. Not too little, not too much, make sure it's relevant and to the point. And btw, you might need to have sub-articles in the future (like List of Texas tornadoes (2000–present). I worked on List of Florida hurricanes, which has five sub-articles, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 2000-present list is split in the near future. So if the list gets too long, that's OK, it might be time to publish a portion of it, and then keep List of Texas tornadoes as an overview, like maybe listing the F5/E5's on the main list, as well as any deadly events, with links to the various time periods? Just a thought in case list seems overwhelming.

And did you mean Tornadoes in ___ as in by location or year? The task is easier if you collaborate with other people, ideally other tornado editors from Texas. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I meant location, one of the main issues I've been finding hard to get is organizing the tornado count charts. It's nearly impossible to keep track of those darn F0 and F1 tornadoes (lol). I might put it in the main space by tomorrow and then link WikiProject Texas to it, and hopefully others will see it and help. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea.... that's why I had the table at the bottom, so you could list the number of tornadoes by intensity by each county. Your call if you want to do it that way, but I felt it made things easier to organize at the state-level. And after all, a lot of statewide things are usually organized at the county level, like election maps, health statistics, metropolitan statistical areas, whatnot. Before you publish, make sure everything is cited, by the way. I see a ton of stuff that's unsourced. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I'm working on citations right now. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Currently working on Draft:List of Ohio tornadoes, thanks for the support here by the way! You are genuinely one of the few people on here that I can have a civilized conversation with! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ohio is one of the states I was hoping would eventually get a list. Be sure to update stuff like climatology, as in how many tornadoes there are yearly, plus the day with the most tornadoes. That's useful information that readers will likely want to know. I notice the Beulah outbreak wasn't added to Texas yet. The best way to do the lists is focusing on the important events (and not random F0 and F1's). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Bada bing Bada boom Bada bop pow. I do add what I can, but its a list of tornadoes, not significant tornadoes. Anything goes. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ack, you really need to add more stuff before you publish! I appreciate the quick work, but look at the lead. "The U.S. state of Ohio experiences roughly 137 tornadoes every year, including". That's copied from Texas. Do you want to move the list back to draft space, since it's not done yet. You have nothing about climatology. No mention when the earliest recorded tornado event was. And again, large sections are unsourced. So unless you want to deal with another AFD, I suggest moving the article back to draft and working on it some more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No need to be all dramatic, it's called fixing something. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't help being dramatic, I'm a musician :P But also, there are rules for articles, and you don't own them once they're published. Plus, you largely ignored my advice to skip the F0's and F1's, and you published the list when a lot of it was still unsourced. So... yea I'm going to be dramatic if you're doing things the wrong way! It's called criticism ;) I'm not saying that what you did was worthless, quite the opposite, just that the work was unfinished. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point, as a piano player I can confirm that we are the silent bunch :) . I get that I don't own articles, you also gave me that advice literally the second I had finished up things. Also, I know what criticism is, don't even get me the heck started on the April 1-3 nightmare :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Good god, I know you may not keep up with the weather, but the strongest tornado I have ever seen just hit Greenfield, IA. A house was slabbed there, I hope nobody lost their life.(kinda venting, kinda informative, I have relatives in Des Moines) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't hear about that, I hope everyone was safe. I personally don't know how anyone can feel safe in such weather-prone areas. My hope is that eventually we build up and create a weather article for every place around the world for every weather type. You're helping to chip away at that bit by bit, but this is why I suggested you try and seek help and collaborators. I'm not the most active on Wikipedia (believe me, I only have bits of time to sneak in edits), so don't think I'm trying to control your editing or anything, just trying to provide a bit of wiki-guidance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

First ever tornado chase yesterday!!! Also, I get all your points, you're a great mentor/person/friend/idk! Thanks for trying to bring me up when times get rough, I needed that. I guess I'll listen more from now on. Have an amazing Wednesday! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact for today, I am currently working on Draft:List of Alaska tornadoes (I'm gonna get as much done as I can in one edit, so it doesn't exist yet) so I looked it up, and did you know that Alaska has only had four tornadoes EVER? I would've thought that they like, y'know, 2-3 tornadoes yearly. Anyone, thought you'd enjoy that, lol :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm also still keeping to my promise to get every single state done over the summer, I already have done Michigan, Ohio, New York, Texas (also sorry for removing NJ, that was an accident haha) and am planning to do Washington and Oregon this weekend. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

May 21st Greenfield tornado

Did you really get to chase that violent tornado? If so, I am jealous! There are never any clear or notable tornadoes occuring near Austin! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I did, first (and most likely last, that was TERRIFYING) chase ever! I live in Ohio, but went down to Des Moines because one of my relatives was sick. I only briefly chased it, but it was one of the wildest things I have EVER seen. It was rain-wrapped from where I was for most of its' life, but there was like this brief point that the sides were illuminated by the light (I'm sorry I'm just so excited rn) kinda like the 2011 El Reno-Piedmont tornado. It was honestly all fun and games until I learned that people had died, I was gonna go back down to Greenfield later today but apparently EMS shut down the city. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Also I'm glad that we are back to being decent people to each other! I'm always glad to see two people who have had a tough past make up and just be chill! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about the past, I can now clearly see you are a well-meaning and active contributor to this community!

In all cases, I'm glad to hear you are safe and got to enjoy such a historic event. I'm nearing 25 and still haven't seen a tornado in person (though I have been under countless warnings). Still, its unfortunate that the first tornado that you witnessed was a violent killer tornado that upended many lives. I am guessing the tornado you photographed was the Greenfield EF3+ tornado or the Carbon EF2+ tornado, both of which were violent deviant monsters.

Imagine the prospect of seeing a EF4/EF5 on your first chase ever...that is amazing. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I know! It downed wind turbines, which is something that the Greenfield tornado was confirmed to have done. It would be cool but again kind of sad to have an EF4+ tornado as the first one I've ever chased, just looking at photos of the damage is absolutely insane. I've been in multiple tornadoes (specifically on march 31 of last year) but I never SAW the tornado with my own eyes. Unfortunately the Greenfield one wasn't super photogenic from my vantage point. While TornadoInformation12 and you were offline, I made 1997 Jarrell tornado, which is kind of like my way of showing how much I've grown in the past month. Anyway, have a great day, and I hope that the storms developing don't do too much more damage! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have taken a quick look at the Jarrell page, and while it needs a lot of work to truly become a good article it is in fine shape for now.

I have tried to delete some sections that I see as redundant or without precedent (such as the 1990s death comparisons - unless someone is willing to update every tornado article of the 1990s plus create other comparisons for tornado articles of other decades, it should be deleted). But yeah, I am willing to help edit grammar and structure to create a more neutral and informative article! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Hey, at least most people were in support of keeping it! I will agree that it needs work, but I'll work hard to get it up to GA, and maybe even FA in the far-fetched future! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Dang, the Greenfield tornado is now a confirmed EF4+. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god a storm chaser died outside of Greenfield. I had no idea that whatever the hell I was chasing was so violent, jesus christ. I am so, so, so glad that I kept my distance, that is the first storm chasing death since 2013. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And to clarify about if it WAS the Greenfield tornado, I'm not exactly sure. All I know was that I was within the general vicinity of Greenfield, and happened at around the same time. It honestly could've been another tornado however. I'll look more into it, but I pray that Greenfield can rebuild quickly. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: glad you are safe. Did you also take any other photos or video of the tornado? Hopefully you can confirm which tornado you saw. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 18:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I did get a video (the photo I did take was a still from the video I took), I can confirm that it was the Greenfield tornado, the one in the photo downed a wind turbine (I saw it when I was driving back, it looked like it straight-up disintegrated), but that was something that the Greenfield tornado did. So this WAS the Greenfield EF3+ that I saw. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I can upload more stills from the video if you'd like, but as I said the tornado was heavily rain-wrapped and I wasn't able to get any other good shots from my view. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I was gonna go get some damage photos down in Greenfield, but apparently they blocked the whole town off, so I can't do that. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank You For Being Forgiving

I saw you've welcomed me back and have been nothing but kind and forgiving to me after my blowup and unannounced break that followed, even though I really don't deserve it. All I can say is sorry once again, and thank you for being welcoming. Btw, I can see your editing skills rapidly improving, so keep it up. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

No problem! Right before you left, I had noticed that you responded to a message from WeatherWriter, in which you stated that you just wanted to help, and may have taken it too far. Everyone makes mistakes (heck I almost left after you went on a break because of something I did), and I understand that most things can be forgiven. You do deserve a welcome back, because you tried to help, not hurt. Even if it wasn't the best way to go, at least we tried. I'm glad we reconciled, and are now not getting into stupid arguments! Also, for a B-Class article which I made while you were on break, see 1997 Jarrell tornado. Thanks so much, I can't wait to start editing with you again! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoInformation12 Also, see List of Texas tornadoes, List of Ohio tornadoes, List of New York tornadoes, List of Michigan tornadoes, Weather of 2000 and Weather of 2001, all of which I have created in the weeks that you were gone. Welcome back (I like saying it, haha) :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, it's almost tornado season again, hopefully you'll be back by then. :) E_F⁵ 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Tornadoes in Iceland. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey there, I deleted the revision where you showed your IP address. Hope all is well, happy editing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024

Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | Women in Music | Alphabet run X, Y & Z Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon June 2024 - Going Back in Time The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Find a Grave is NOT a reliable source (as it is user-generated content). It can be used to look for biographical clues. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sean Jones (basketball) (May 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Significa liberdade was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sean Jones (basketball) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Attention needed at username change request

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

? Trinity :3 (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)