User talk:Departure–

Are you a newcomer interested in writing a tornado article, or an experienced user in need of a refresher or an insight into my mentality? Check out my WIP guide to writing a US tornado article! Archives: 1, 2

Procedural closures

Seeing as how you closed the 15th-16th via procedural closure because of sockpuppetry, I think this would also be the option for closing this old discussion as well, as it was also started by a now-blocked IP likely of Andrew5 origin. I would do it myself, however I still am sanctioned on closing discussions and thus cannot do it, even if it was on good intentions. I might BOLDly move it should this be the way you go about this (14th-17th? Idk) But the main goal right now is if you can close that discussion on the same basis as you just did before. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'll use the same closing rationale etc. Departure– (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to get a second opinion here due to the sheer length of discussion. Departure– (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small head's up

NOT HERE, PLEASE

Please direct any comments to Talk:1925 tri-state tornado instead of this talk page. Departure– (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just wanted to let you know I partially/manually reverted something you did on 1925 tri-state tornado. I say partially, since the edit you reverted from another editor was for it being unsourced. I went ahead and added the content back, sourced, and I also changed the format to the newly agreed on format for source disputes on things like death tolls or damage estimates...i.e. the format used for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado infobox damage estimate. Since you would not get a standard revert notification, I wanted to let you know I did that reversion here. I also wrote a very long edit summary (used every possible character for one even...lol). Anyways, cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherWriter, not so fast, this'll need a talk page discussion. Didn't we come to the conclusion that Moriarty was unreliable, or...? :-) — ^EF⁵ 00:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moriarty isn't the only author as there appear to be four actual authors. (Side note, we said he was unreliable for meteorological knowledge, but knowledgeable on engineering knowledge). Plus, they listed the organizations who aided in the project: "Iron County Historical Society, Bollinger County Historical Society, Perry County Lutheran Historical Society, Jackson County Historical Society, Williamson County Historical Society, Morris Public Library, West Franklin and Illinois Silkwood Inn Museum, Frankfort Area Genealogical Society, Hamilton County Historical Society, McCoy Memorial Library, Carmi Public Library, Illinois State Archives, Evansville Vanderburgh Public Library, Willard Public Library, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Indiana State Library, Indiana State Archives, Owensville Carnegie Public Library, University of Southern Indiana, Blue Island Historical Society". It does appear Moriarty only conducted engineering analysis based on the article as well. Either way, check out the full edit summary I wrote. It seems well written enough, with plenty of sources. It seems to be a solid WP:SPS/SME source. Plus, it is the most recent analysis on the tornado, published even more recent than any NWS-based source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherWriter, yes, but regardless this will 100% need a talk page discussion because I can already tell how controversial this is about to me. — ^EF⁵ 00:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are free to revert it. I have no intention of getting into an edit war on the source/topic. I just happen to see the edit dispute between Departure and Dovah12333 from my watchlist, so I decided to take a look. In my honest thoughts, after a full read of it, I see it as being good enough for the article. It was way more detailed than the self-published source by Timothy P. Marshall, which is currently cited in 2021 Western Kentucky tornado#Possible EF5 intensity. Marshall is already a very clear SME on tornadic damage, so obviously it is not a direct correlation. But, nonetheless. If it were really up to me, based on how detailed the article is, I would honestly be in favor of ignoring the standard unreliability of self-published sources, and making this an exception. But, if you feel it is not good enough for the article, I will not dispute any reversions. This was more like a third opinion from someone who just happened to see the dispute and decided to look at it themselves before editing. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To put it in more simple terms: If this dispute goes to some larger discussion, you can consider me in favor of having it on the article, under the logic of WP:IAR and this source being well written, well sourced, and from WP:AGE MATTERS, the newest analysis to be published on the tornado, being newer than the latest analysis published by the National Weather Service. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 and WeatherWriter: I reverted that again because even barring the source being barely reliable at its face I can't find any other figures in the for the death toll (798 appears nowhere at the source). Again, go to the talk page to get consensus as to the reliability if you want to readd it. Please direct any further comments to Talk:1925 tri-state tornado; I don't want this to overrun my user talk page. Departure– (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aw man, I wanted to seige your talk page. Really, though, I'll comment further there. — ^EF⁵ 01:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Sources

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) 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset

Just to let you know, I'm going to WP:IAR publish Draft:2025 Whittle-Somerset tornado today, all help wIll be appeciated. — ^EF⁵ 14:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest determining factor is how big the Aftermath section is. I'd suggest at least half as long as the tornado summary section of prose as-is. Departure– (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I need help. I need to juggle the lead and aftermath. :) — ^EF⁵ 15:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has been published. ORES shows FA quality. 2025 London tornado, if you need the link. — ^EF⁵ 20:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tornadoes in Chicago

On 2 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tornadoes in Chicago, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Chicago's tornado siren has been described as creepier than the city's actual tornadoes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tornadoes in Chicago. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tornadoes in Chicago), 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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Warn-on-Forecast

Hello, Departure–. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Warn-on-Forecast".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock again

Looks like we have another Andrew sock on our hands, opening an RM on Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 under same claims other LTAs have done. Also how they opened this 2 minutes after creation which is definitely suspicious. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand it was blocked as a confirmed sock. Requesting you NAC/BMB the discussion since I can’t. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. One: I don't think your sanctions override BMB removing a sock-opened discussion, but you should discuss that with ArbCom; second, to my knowledge, requesting a specific closer is usually not allowed, but I can't find the specific policy point there, and it's on procedural grounds anyway, so IAR? You'd probably be best pinging an admin requesting for the topic to be outright removed at the SPI. If the topic gets re-opened by an A5 sock I'm going to close it on sight. Departure– (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah true I should probably bring that up with them. I wasn’t really requesting you specifically but I guess it could’ve just been because you’re very acquainted with spotting A5 socks so you’re like a go to person to identify them. That’s all. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]