Hey first off, just letting you know I got back to you with my input on guidelines for individual tornado articles. Let me know what you think.

However, we have a more concerning and pressing issue that I feel isn't getting the attention it deserves. The entire European tornado database has been upgraded to the IF scale. That means there is a gargantuan amount of rated European tornadoes here on Wikipedia which have ratings listed that are no longer accurate or valid. One way or another, all rated European tornadoes on Wikipedia will be have to be changed to reflect IF scale update to the ESSL database. This is going to be a massive, time consuming effort which will quite frankly be a pain in the neck, not to mince words. I started a discussion because I feel like people are kind of avoiding the topic due the headache it has created, but we have to address it at some point. Feel free to discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Damnit, tornado ratings are always creating issues one way or another. I assume that means that all European tornadoes ever are now on the IF scale? E_F⁵ 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sure does, and it seems like nobody wants to talk about it wither. It's a huge headache, but ignoring it won't make the problem go away. It seems like I'm just going to have to dive in and fix it myself, which could literally take years.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Hello --Elijah Olivas (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Olivas, hi! Do you have a question related to editing Wikipedia, or are just saying hello? :) — E_F⁵ 14:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of 1955 Scottsbluff tornado at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Departure– (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2024 Sulphur tornado you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2024 Sulphur tornado for comments about the article, and Talk:2024 Sulphur tornado/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | March 2025, Vol 11, Issue 3, Nos. 326, 327, 332, 333, 334 Online events: New: Alphabet run E & F | Artists+Activists | Women of the Arab World Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements from other communities: March editathons around the world Celebrate Women 2025 office hour series Tip of the month: You can access the Wikipedia Library if you have made 500+ edits, and 6+ months editing, and 10+ edits in the last 30 days, and No active blocks Moving the needle:[1] 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) 23 Dec 2024: 20.009% (2,041,741 bios, 408,531 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limestone County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would you be open to discussing possible adoption? I also have a (big) interest in tornadoes (especially after going through a tornado outbreak myself :P) and I think overall you are a cool person who could provide valuable mentorship. Thank you, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure!! It's almost tornado season, so perfect time to ask. Do you have any off-the-bat questions? :) E_F⁵ 00:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what would the best way to communicate be? FarmerUpbeat (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer on-wiki, if that's fine. It's nothing personal, it's just that Wikipedia is the website I have access the most to throughout the day (and I've had at least one questionable experience with talking off-wiki). :D — E_F⁵ 01:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: do you think the discussions for Jarrell and Greensburg would be better suited for an RFC at Wikiproject Weather? I think having a project-wide standard for naming tornadoes is going to be more productive than having individual RMs setting precedent (especially after the no-longer-capitalized tri-state and still-capitalized Tri-State situations). I definitely have a lot of input that extends beyond what would be relevant to a single RM. Departure– (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, I honestly wouldn't be for or against it. Tornadoes having a COMMONNAME are relatively isolated cases; the majority of tornadoes don't even have a COMMONNAME. If you will start an RfC, please please please (x∞) wait until March; the last tornado-related RfC only saw two participants and basically went nowhere. I'm currently working on Draft:Overpass myth, I'm mildly surprised it doesn't have an article yet. — E_F⁵ 19:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of overpasses, could you go to Slide 7 and 17 respectively of this source... I think I just found free photos of the 1999 Moore tornado and 1997 Jarrell tornado on complete accident. — E_F⁵ 19:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The low resolution and everything surrounds me tells me that these were likely ripped from somewhere else and a higher resolution exists elsewhere. Alas, the acknowledgements at the end states that images were taken from a multitude of individuals and collective entities - not free, sadly. The Moore photo is the most usable, however - if you're going to send an email to anyone, send it to either KFOR or Moore Emergency Management as they are most likely to have the full resolution and have the right to give it to the public domain / free status if they so desire. Departure– (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if I am starting an RFC, it's going to be on or after March 4. Geez. It's April 13 all over again. For context, April 13, 2024 wasn't even a tornado outbreak, but in my haste and oblivion as someone rather unacquainted with predicting weather that far out, I thought it would be a super outbreak of types as the SREF had multiple indicators going off the charts (the Craven/Brooks Significant Severe index displayed in scientific notation as it exceeded 100,000!), that also had a day 6 enhanced risk, and wouldn't you know it it was a slight risk day with no tornadoes. Departure– (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of March 4, this isn't looking good AT ALL. — E_F⁵ 20:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You sound just like me before April 13. Departure– (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a draft lurking as I slowly grow the meteorological synopsis section.

BTW NOAA/NWS firings have started. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this is the eighth(?) time in SPC history they've issued a 6 day 30%. — E_F⁵ 21:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact: None of those 8 times has gone high risk. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the highest rating we've seen on a D630 (I'm making up vocabulary)? — E_F⁵ 22:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (if I were to trust Twitter fellas) that there have been three MDTs and four ENHs. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant EF rating (lol). — E_F⁵ 22:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that, but probably EF3 or 4. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar

Information and democracy are under attack, and evidently so is your user page! People who are scared try and use fear to gain control, but us Wikipedians know the best way to scare them back is to be objective, neutral, get the facts, know the people who are in our community, and ignore the trolls who just want to make the world a worse place. For standing up to the trolls and ignoring the hate, here's the Special Barnstar! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Although I've removed the upside-down flag and some of my personal beliefs per WP:POLEMIC, I've still managed to make someone mad (which I'm perfectly content with dealing with). :) — E_F⁵ 19:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like triggering hateful people! As long as you do it by the rules and don't become a troll yourself :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you never want to prove a point by doing what the troll is, but I get where you're coming from. I prefer organized protesting and immediate action rather than slowly burning up while watching the country fall apart (akin to burning in a tanner used by him, although he probably spray-paints his on). — E_F⁵ 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Seems I've turned them into an LTA on accident! They're now making anti-trans pages (I'm not transgender, so I assume they're just shouting into the void?). Worst-case-scenario, I'll have to AC-protect my talk page, but oh well. — E_F⁵ 20:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to get an SPI case on the go as well.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait and see if they keep doing stuff; for now AIV will do. — E_F⁵ 20:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]