User talk:Joshoctober16

3 more former F5-EF5 tornadoes

Hi,

According to this reference from the article List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, there used to be 3 (more) tornadoes rated F5 in Tennessee other then the one in 1923 and 1998. I believe one of them was promoted back to F5 (due to damage in Alabama). Do you think this info from this reference should be added to the article? [1]--Halls4521 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and there are still plenty of things for me to be sure about for the ef5 list , location is draging it out a bit too long, after locations are finish other stuff to plan.--Joshoctober16 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bowdle South Dakota, Possible EF5

Hi, I've bee looking for a chance myself to add the 2010 Bowdle tornado as a possible EF5. I attended a talk by Tim Samaras back in 2012 where he expressed his opinion that the Bowdle tornado should have been rated EF5. Would it be possible to cite that? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is in fact what im looking for however you need at least one link proof to put it there , if there is a video of it we can post it , or some sites ... , any proof of tim samaras saying a tornado should of been rated f5/EF5 can be added , it is noted that the allison tornado of 1995 will be added if i can figure out how to post this nws link that might or might not work, if it cant here is what it shows up as https://www.weather.gov/media/ama/amator_dbase.xlsx.Joshoctober16 (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1950 F5's

There are some localize NWS websites that seem to recognize some Pre-1950 tornadoes as F5's even if there not officially rated. When we find a NWS site as an reference should also put NWS on the "Listed F5 by" section? What do you think? --Halls4521 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we put it on the Listed by section , and infact one tornado has me in a confusing situation... its a offical sorce that list a bunch of tornadoes , with ONE in 1947 that is rated F5... so im unsure what to do about this one...--Joshoctober16 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which tornado? Is the source a website, book/paper, Etc.? I think if it's from an official source we can use it.--Halls4521 (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.weather.gov/media/ama/amator_dbase.xlsx this is the 1947 Glazier-Higgins-Woodward look at the Database Segment part. Joshoctober16 (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say use it (along with these two links - https://www.weather.gov/oun/events-19470409 and https://www.weather.gov/oun/tornadodata).--Halls4521 (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and add those to the Woodward tornado. The link/reference is already being used as a reference to the 1995 Allison, Texas tornado anyway.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cyclones

Sorry but I had to removed certain items you have put there : supercell, Derecho, etc... which are clouds or clouds complexes, not circulations. Only center of rotation can be in this template.

Pierre cb (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i think you need to re look what a supercell is ... and derecho kinda understandable , 2 of the stuff you remove should be kept. Joshoctober16 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start an edition war. I am a meteorologist and I know what are supercells and other convective complexes. They may contain circulation, like a mesocyclone, but are not circulation themselves, they are clouds complex. You have no idea of what you are talking about! Pierre cb (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the may contain part is the reason why im not taking you seriously... , they have to have circulations to be called that, the other stuff that aint supercell/Mesoscale convective vortex i can understand. Joshoctober16 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer shows me further that you have no idea what you are talking about, that is the egg and the chicken : a supercell is not formed by a circulation, a circulation may form in it (mesocyclone) from the change of an horizontal rotation into a vertical one by the updraft. The mesocyclone is thus the circulation, not the cloud! Idem for the other MCS. Pierre cb (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if there is no mesocyclone in the storm it aint a supercell , i never stated a supercell is or isn't formed by a circulation, the simple question for you is can a supercell have no mesocyclone? Joshoctober16 (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No the point is : the mesocyclone IS the circulation, not the cloud. Pierre cb (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your acting as if i put the word Cumulonimbus , i want no fight please read what a supercell is before going at me. Joshoctober16 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But a Supercell IS a cumulonimbus, not a circulation. I repeat: the mesocylone is the circulation not the cloud. The same for all other MCS: Derecho/MCC/etc... there a thunderstorm complexes that have localized circulation like mecosyclones, meso lows and mesohighs BUT they are not circulation themselves. Pierre cb (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A supecell is a cumulonimbus with a mesocyclone in it , yes derecho i agree , its just the supercell part and you removed a circulation type as well, look back at the tab this is the way it should be. Joshoctober16 (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

now that i hope the supercell talk is over with, the meso high.... im unsure where to put that one, i mean yes its related with mesoscale storms... but its a high pressure? Joshoctober16 (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Man Walking

I'd have to look around a bit, since I don't know who owns the copyright to the Dead Man Walking photo. Was it previously removed from Wikipedia on copyright grounds? TornadoLGS (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it states it will be deleted in 7 days im unsure who even can contact him or if its even possible. Joshoctober16 (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also i realy want a big wiki page just for the jarrell tornado , did a post on that talk page but no reply yet Joshoctober16 (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it will get much attention, unfortunately. I've posted a few discussions myself that have gotten little or no response. A few years there were some editors who would've been all over such discussions, but most of the experienced editors seem to have moved on.

Template Weather

Hi:

I just want to let you know that your addition of this template is completely screwing the formating of many articles like Arcus cloud. Can you correct its effects. To me this template should be place at the bottom, like the one for cyclones, but that is only my opinion. Pierre cb (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

both agree and disagree , yes cleaning it up should be a thing to do , however if you look around ive been updating more then 90+ page per day , but this template type is made to be not on the bottom , like the cyclone you speek of , just point out what page that needs this template push more down, or even try to put it a bit more down. Joshoctober16 (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hmm now that i think about it a show/hide format for that template could help it out , just like how the earthquake one has it, might take a day tougth. Joshoctober16 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could be an excellent solution. Pierre cb (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok i just did it i hope it worked out for all the page's Joshoctober16 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good on Arcu at least. Pierre cb (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded

by increasing the size of Template:Natural disasters, we now have Drought and Earthquake in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. it would be better to not include everything in that template, but just the key topics. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

uh can you try explaining this again? i dont get what you mean , what about drought and earthquake? and what about this size thing?Joshoctober16 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A note on talk pages

I've noticed that you tend to leave replies to messages on your own talk page. Quite often this would mean that the other person won't see that you've replied unless they either check back on your talk page or have it on your watchlist. You can reply in such conversations either by leaving a message on their talk page, or by using the talkback or reply to templates. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina Super Outbreak

Don't remove sections, search more.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleada_de_tornados_de_Buenos_Aires_de_1993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F3:8F:101E:5D78:15CD:D390:F6A0 (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i have found enough proof to see that a outbreak existed on that day and spot... however there is no proof of 300 tornado or 100 or ANY number , theres no data or notes how much tornadoes happend. once you find out about that part then we can keep it , otherwise it will be remove.Joshoctober16 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with bad faith and edit war, the SMN confirmed 300 tornadoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F3:8F:101E:BC0A:F2F8:DD32:6CFF (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you havent shown the proof for 300 tornado post the link. wiki links dont count.Joshoctober16 (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You need references for your edits. I provided one for my edit. If you wish to revert it, you need a ref to show that my ref or my edit is wrong. Otherwise you are merely being disruptive. Thinking something makes no sense is not reason to revert. You need to base your edits on sources. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Please provide a specific proposed title, and more explanation, for this list.

The Discoverer and Year of Discovery for the Moon should be listed as Ancient or Prehistoric.

Visual magnitudes would be useful.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Joshoctober16/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Joshoctober16/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joshoctober16! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Joshoctober16/sandbox

Hello, Joshoctober16. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft 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 get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cirrus cloud

I have nominated Cirrus cloud for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

Hey, just letting you know, I added some bullet points in front of your comments on the Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion just to keep the format the same across the different tornado discussions. I wanted to make sure you were aware since it was technically an edit to your comment. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yep im fine with that. Joshoctober16 (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]