User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2024/May

Help Needed
So I really need your help quality control. This article just got published. I think it speaks for itself... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Sulphur_tornado

It is: 1.) Mostly unsourced 2.) Full of original research 3.) Has guessed/self-assigned EF scale ratings 4.) Uses all news pages or social media posts as sources, and contains no or next to no information from official NWS sources 5.) Many many steps below the standard of quality of articles we used to publish

I already spoke with this user about using official sources and not publishing reckless, unsourced information. Apparently he didn't listen. How should we handle this?? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12


 * Honestly...that article shouldn't even exist. The NWS Norman is very stingy with the information they put out at first. In fact, I'm thinking about purging all the Oklahoma tornado sections until more information is available. I might start a deletion discussion, but I haven't made an official decision yet. I'll let you know how I will handle this soon. Chess  Eric  15:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Multiple other editors and I have agreed that you blew a simple CSD out of proportions. Just AfD it, and move on. It's not that big of a deal, and if it is for you, then it is most likely harassment. Thanks! MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have moved on, and now the conversation about how to deal with your disruptive edits is between me and other editors, and given your inherent bias in this situation, your input is not needed. And for the last time, just because your feelings are hurt and you don't like what is going on, does not make it harassment. I am not going to change my approach to this situation. You have a LOT to learn, and if you're not willing to learn and improve, this issue will continue, so it's more up to you than anyone else. BTW, another experienced user just proposed deletion (the very one who showed me the ropes when I was a clueless new editor, actually), and I promise we are not alone opinion here. It's early in the day, and you will hear from other users who share my viewpoint as they wake up and log on. So it's not "just me" because my points are valid and shared by other users.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * Thanks. Article-worthy or not, I am trying to explain to this user that you can't put out massive paragraphs of dubiously sourced information with no info from the DAT or NWS. He thinks that adding a ridiculous amount of info from local news articles/social media = reliable sourcing. The kid is just not getting it, and he's taking everything I say as personal attack, when I am just trying tell him he's publishing original research, and putting out way too much info with next to no official NWS survey information available (NWS Norman always takes forever). But yeah, I need other people to talk to him besides me. It's just been me and him going back and forth and I'm getting exhausted. I am desperately trying to keep the level of quality here at an acceptable level, and it's a challenge to do alone.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Hey now. No offense but take that conversation someplace else; I don't want it on my talk page. Chess Eric  23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

2016 Katie-Wynnwood OK tornado section
Hey, I noticed you deleted the section on the EF4 tornado? Just curious as to why. Thanks! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I removed it because of how short the summary was. Chess  Eric  23:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't strike me as short. Would you object to recreating the deleted section if it were expanded upon with additional sources of information? HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with sourcing, its the length of these section. The information provided on this tornado can be efficiently put in the table without a section being needed as anything else being added would make it overly detailed. I'm trying to cut down on the number of short sections that are in outbreak articles, especially since the new infoboxes are larger than the older ones (ironically, an IP address mentioning this on another outbreak article is where this idea came from). We can bring up this topic with other editors if you like though. Chess  Eric  04:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Classification of tornadoes by intensity
A strong tornado is classified as EF2 or EF3. Referring to a tornado that has either not been rated or is not EF2 or EF3 is factually incorrect. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please don't act like I'm clueless or something. I know what a strong tornado is classified as and there are reports, videos, and pictures indicating that these were strong tornadoes. If I put violent, I'd understand, but there is nothing wrong with saying a tornado was strong when there is clear evidence of it being one. Please stop changing the summaries; it's annoying. Chess  Eric  19:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is evidence of it being EF2 or EF3 then it should be provided. Both violent and strong are both examples of words that specifically refer to a certain intensity with violent being EF4+ and strong being EF2 or EF3. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, reports indicate that these were strong tornadoes. I see no problem with adding that in the summaries. Chess  Eric  19:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the reports do they indicate that they are strong. We have to wait for the surveys to come in before we can make a judgement rather then speculating on the rating ourselves. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought you might say that, but I'm not at all speculating. News reports, spotter reports, and law enforcement reports all indicate that these tornadoes were strong. I don't just put in random stuff; I always use sources. Chess  Eric  19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources provided do not explicitly state that they are EF2 or EF3. We don't rely on indications based on reports but rather official surveys. Wikipedia has a policy against original research. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but OR is not something I use. However, I'm not going to argue anymore. This is not because I'm being salty, but instead because I'm trying to avoid these types of things, since I can easily get riled up. If you believe that the summary should not include the term "strong," you can change it, although I would bring it up on the talk page first. Chess  Eric  20:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time, cheers SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Happy editing! Chess  Eric  20:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)