Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dym75! I noticed you are finding a lot of errors in tornado articles. If you find a bunch of errors like you did on 1985 United States–Canada tornado outbreak, feel free to ping me. I've been working with others on quality/content accuracy checks on weather articles. So, pinging me would let me know to check a certain article. Also, keep up the amazing work! People like you are the unsung-heroes of Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elijah (or Skip?)!

You're incredibly kind to acknowledge that. :-) I've been doing some research so I can create Wikipedia pages of my own (just some tornado list pages that I figure others would definitely be interested in seeing) and am using other Wiki pages as a launching point. However, I keep stumbling upon things that are incomplete or just completely wrong or whatever. I will certainly share info with you as I find it and I'll also try to do some repairs of my own.

Regards,

David

p/s - one of the pages that I was previously trying to spruce up was the List of Tornadoes by Calendar Day page. I definitely plan to continue with that as well, but life hasn't been conducive to the interesting stuff for a while. Trying to get back into things as I can. Dym75 (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We no longer bold the death toll in tornado tables. Please stop doing that. ChessEric 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric My apologies. I won’t do that again. Where can I find standards for these articles? I want to avoid making other mistakes. (Out of curiosity, why have you/we stopped doing this?) Dym75 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than needing to use the NCEI for damage figures, you're good; as far as "standards" goes, you haven't really broken any other than the ones I just mentioned, although admittingly, I probably not the best person to ask about standards. I don't know why we stop bolding death tolls (it happened well before I came onto Wikipedia), but my guess is that this was done to be consistent with the unbolding of ratings in tornado tables. You do well with grammar and spelling edits so keep up the good work and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask! ChessEric 00:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NCEI, I need to reiterate that we really shouldn’t be using NCEI damage estimates for tornadoes before March 1995 (which is when they started using actual figures instead of that coding system). They’re incredibly inaccurate. Case in point: there’s no possible way that Kokomo tornado from Palm Sunday 1965 caused $500M in damages. Maybe $50-100M is accurate - don’t know - but not $500M. If Fujita or some other reputable source (e.g. NWS office websites, papers accepted by AMS) has updated or more accurate information for tornadoes before 1995, we really should be using that. If you’re not the person to ask, is there some Great and Powerful Oz who can address this? Or am I going to get banned/blocked for challenging something? I’m obviously not a vandal, but I *do* think we’re doing a disservice to the Wiki community - and those in the media or academia who use this as a resource for broadcasts or reports/projects - by posting obvious inaccuracies, especially if there are better sources with closer estimates out there. (Before you think - or anyone else thinks - I’m a bit nuts, this definitely isn’t a hill I’m willing to die on; however, I do think it’s worth mentioning again.)

cc: @Elijahandskip Dym75 (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of deadliest tornadoes in the Americas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conasauga, Tennessee, Pleasant Hill, Louisiana and Reagan, Tennessee.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dym75. I got some unfortunate news. So back in April—May 2023, a community consensus Request for Comment (RfC) took place about tornado costliest lists. Basically the ruling consensus on that discussion (one I highly disagree with) is that “ranking” the costliest tornadoes through NOAA information is not valid. A secondary reliable source has to be used for any rankings. Sadly, the consensus followed the Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth mentality. I actually created Verifiability, not truth in action essay using that RfC consensus as the example. I was a strong advocate against the RfC’s outcome, but it is now a ruling consensus. So as it stands right now, you need to locate a reliable secondary non-NOAA source (so not NWS or SPC) that states the list for the costliest tornadoes.

The easiest way to make the list be ok is removing the “rank” column and make it chronological. The actual outcome wording of the RfC was, “Editors should reference a non-NOAA secondary source when claiming a tornado as the Xth-costliest”. So removing the “rank” column satisfies the RfC. I hate to be the one to tell you, but I got burned for it and I don’t want you to put all the hard work into the list and have it get deleted for being classified “original research”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Earlier this year, I complained multiple times to different folks because I *knew* NOAA estimates from the 1950s to 1990s were inaccurate, etc. i was ignored every single time. I expected this page to get torn apart or deleted because I *was* using *other* (probably more accurate) sources. Unless there’s some easy fix, I currently don’t have time to check and double check everything, nor do I have time to remove the rank column. I guess I’ll just add a note to the Talk section of that page? This irritates the heck out of me, though. Is there an article that has all the current rules and standards for weather-related articles? There should be. Whoever the Powers That Be are need to make their demands accessible. Dym75 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]