User talk:HurricaneGonzalo/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Future events

Please stop trying to stake your claim to articles on future weather events. WP:CRYSTAL dictates that entries from predetermined lists or chronologies are not notable unless they are being discussed in-depth by reliable, secondary sources. We have no more information about the 2016 Pacific hurricane season than we do about the 2026 Pacific hurricane season, although they are both equally as certain to take place. The same goes for Tornadoes of 2016. Your most recent rationale for reinstating the 2016 PHS page was "just in case if there is a pre-season storm", which is, again, a blatant violation of CRYSTAL, as "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Further, editing behavior suggesting a perceived ownership of articles is considered disruptive. There's no glamour in being the first to create a season article; by the time the first event is underway, your page will have been edited beyond recognition by other users. Thanks. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton I'm not trying to be first, besides there is not gonna be a forecast until May 22. I said, "Just in case of a pre-season storm." Means that ther could be one in January-Early May. I'm just trying to help out, but I'm also being criticized because I'm new. There is more information about the 2016 PHS than the 2026 PHS. There are already predictions of the El Niño lasting into Early Spring 2016, raising predictions of a pre-season storm. HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is criticizing you because you're new—your contributions are very much appreciated. The issue is that several editors have tried to guide you in the right direction, and you keep reverting them without cause. There could be a pre-season storm, yes, but that's baseless speculation. That there won't be any seasonal forecasts for several months is exactly part of why the article should wait. It'll be trivial to re-create the article if a storm does develop before the start of the season. Again, Wikipedia only reports information from secondary sources, with no synthesis or extrapolation of data. Unless there are reliable sources that significantly discuss El Niño in the context of the 2016 season, it's original research. If you want to keep articles like the 2016 PHS and Tornadoes of 2016 in WikiProject sandboxes, where they can be viewed and edited until they're ready go to live, that's fine. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States tornadoes from January to February 1973, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rising Sun, Illinois. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (List of United States tornadoes in March 1973) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of United States tornadoes in March 1973, HurricaneGonzalo!

Wikipedia editor NorthBySouthBaranof just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Well done!

To reply, leave a comment on NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of The Big Tunnel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Big Tunnel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.angelfire.com/in/lottgreene/hallotunnel.html and https://www.flickr.com/photos/cindy47452/sets/1601243/comments?rb=1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Deor (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor Thanks, I think I've learned a valuable lesson. ;) HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 30 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

List of United States tornadoes in March 1973
added a link pointing to Georgia
Tornadoes of 1972
added a link pointing to Mechanicsburg, Indiana

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for damage descriptions in articles are lacking

Hello. I have noticed that several of your articles do not corroborate their details on damage. For instance, your page on the February 1950 outbreak includes sources that provide data on tracks, deaths, and injuries, but do not go into depth on the damage that actually occurred, though the damage is described in depth in the article. Another such page is this one, which contains the same flaw. For inclusion, specific information must always contain pertinent inline citations that explicitly support the material contained in the article. Otherwise, there is no way to tell how reliable it is, so it is thus subject to possible deletion by others. This is just a friendly notice, since researchers are sticklers for thorough, accurate reporting. Thanks! CapeVerdeWave (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is a great example on how to properly reference claims. Note that several of the details on individual tornadoes are backed up by specific citations that clearly substantiate each claim. Note how many details on damage even refer to specific pages in a reliable, printed source. I just wished to offer some guidance on how to make bulletproof articles that are not subject to significant changes on account of meager or nonexistent citations. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found something in the 1950 article that seems to have been misplaced, to say the least. The section on the Shreveport F4 tornado incorporates the following excerpt: "Major damage was reported at North DeSoto High School, where the right side of the building collapsed." I could find nothing—absolutely nothing—about such an incident in the sources that I utilized (and as you can see in my edit history here and elsewhere, I use quite a number of verifiable sources, including printed works by Grazulis, NOAA Web pages, peer-reviewed articles, scientific papers, newspaper articles, and sometimes others). However, I did locate information that is well known and easy to find—about the collapse of the local public school in De Soto, Illinois, during the 1925 Tri-State tornado. Several schools sustained partial collapse of their walls, for which visual evidence is abundant and which caused great numbers of fatalities in this tornado, the deadliest in U.S. history. Along with the numerous other details in the 1950 article that I could not confirm, this one makes me pause.
Other unverifiable tidbits from the aforesaid article: the six deaths at Stonewall, the nine near Bossier City, the two at Minden, changes in tornado intensity between locales, etc. One particularly blatant example is this, from the account of the second Hickory Flat tornado in Mississippi: "The twin vortex of the first Hickory Flat tornado struck a house, killing three out of a family of five when a wall fell on them. The other two suffered minor injuries." First, no source that I could locate ever referred to this tornado as a satellite of the first event. Second, while there were three official deaths and two injuries in connection with the second event, not one source ever discussed the circumstances of the deaths (italicized). Another discrepancy can be found in the details for the second (F3) Center tornado in Texas: "A tornado destroyed many structures and overturned cars along Timpson Street. Trees were uprooted along with many destroyed homes and outbuildings." Once again, even after perusing multiple reliable sources, both printed and digital, I could not confirm several details: the overturned cars, the notation that several outbuildings were destroyed, the claim that "many" structures were destroyed, and the location of the damage "along Timpson Street."
Needless to say, I am becoming a bit suspicious of the details that you are entering into your articles. I hate to cast doubt on your work, much less the work of any editor, but it is official Wikipedia policy (and, as it turns out, good academic and professional practice) that all claims be reliably and clearly sourced. So far, what you have shown does not meet the criterion. If you do have access to sources that verify the details I mentioned, by all means, use them. Many of us, including new researchers, would love new resources to draw upon when examining historical severe weather. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your response to me, unfortunately, seems to be a non-answer. I have politely described in great depth, and given pertinent pointers, as to how you must properly cite sources for your claims. The fact is that, as I have mentioned, none of the descriptions of damage in your articles is sourced. The links that you do include as sources contain no specific information about the damage. Please do not presume innocence while failing to address the question of where you found your information. Based on the preceding conversation, I shall have to remove and/or significantly modify all of the details in your articles, starting, namely, with the February 1950 tornado outbreak. You have asked for help from others; I have given it to you, but apparently that is unpalatable, given that you have been caught providing details that come only from your head—or sources about other tornadoes. If you were truly engaged in constructive editing but merely concerned about the details—i.e., correct source formatting—you could have even looked at the edited versions of your articles following my extensive revisions; you would have seen the proper source formatting for Web and various printed sources. But you didn't. Everything points to the assumption that you are not editing in a particularly constructive manner. I hate to be harsh, but that's what the facts seemingly imply, and in this case the evidence is very pungent. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that you're finally making appropriate adjustments by removing false information here, but what you did was an egregious violation of ethics, Wikipedia policy, and professionalism. Deliberately inserting spurious information into encyclopedic articles is no laughing matter. It is insulting to the many good, honest individuals who write high-quality, well-written articles with reliable, verifiable sources. This place is no sandbox in which to play a game of disaster by fictionalizing real severe weather events through the crafting of false narratives. Please do not engage in such editing behavior again, or I shall report it to others. Have a nice day. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: How do you...

I purchased the volume encompassing the period 1680–1991 from this source. There is also an update covering 1992–1995, which I also own. Both sources are essential starting points when researching historic tornadoes. Another useful source is the monthly publication Storm Data (prior to 1959, included in the Climatological Data National Summary), which can be located here. Simply scroll down to the appropriate link and click away. Then select from a menu-bar the month containing the tornado event(s) that you wish to research. A PDF file will be accessible, containing state-by-state listings of severe weather events, including tornadoes. You will find abundant data for many of the weaker tornadoes that Grazulis's books do not include. Best of luck! CapeVerdeWave (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CapeVerdeWave Thanks! HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneGonzalo/Archive_2"