ChessEric

2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page was last edited or modified by ChessEric (talk).

Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount
and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position.
Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 4 August 2013
Well said!Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)

Recommended reading for editors who are upset RIGHT NOW!:
Tips for the angry new user - Gamaliel
Staying cool when the editing gets hot!

If you came here just to insult me, I will delete your comments without a reply.
And if I wasn't involved, personal attacks clearly warrant a block.

Help Needed

So I really need your help quality control. This article just got published. I think it speaks for itself... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Sulphur_tornado

It is:

1.) Mostly unsourced 2.) Full of original research 3.) Has guessed/self-assigned EF scale ratings 4.) Uses all news pages or social media posts as sources, and contains no or next to no information from official NWS sources 5.) Many many steps below the standard of quality of articles we used to publish

I already spoke with this user about using official sources and not publishing reckless, unsourced information. Apparently he didn't listen. How should we handle this?? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Honestly...that article shouldn't even exist. The NWS Norman is very stingy with the information they put out at first. In fact, I'm thinking about purging all the Oklahoma tornado sections until more information is available. I might start a deletion discussion, but I haven't made an official decision yet. I'll let you know how I will handle this soon. ChessEric 15:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple other editors and I have agreed that you blew a simple CSD out of proportions. Just AfD it, and move on. It's not that big of a deal, and if it is for you, then it is most likely harassment. Thanks! MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have moved on, and now the conversation about how to deal with your disruptive edits is between me and other editors, and given your inherent bias in this situation, your input is not needed. And for the last time, just because your feelings are hurt and you don't like what is going on, does not make it harassment. I am not going to change my approach to this situation. You have a LOT to learn, and if you're not willing to learn and improve, this issue will continue, so it's more up to you than anyone else. BTW, another experienced user just proposed deletion (the very one who showed me the ropes when I was a clueless new editor, actually), and I promise we are not alone opinion here. It's early in the day, and you will hear from other users who share my viewpoint as they wake up and log on. So it's not "just me" because my points are valid and shared by other users.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Thanks. Article-worthy or not, I am trying to explain to this user that you can't put out massive paragraphs of dubiously sourced information with no info from the DAT or NWS. He thinks that adding a ridiculous amount of info from local news articles/social media = reliable sourcing. The kid is just not getting it, and he's taking everything I say as personal attack, when I am just trying tell him he's publishing original research, and putting out way too much info with next to no official NWS survey information available (NWS Norman always takes forever). But yeah, I need other people to talk to him besides me. It's just been me and him going back and forth and I'm getting exhausted. I am desperately trying to keep the level of quality here at an acceptable level, and it's a challenge to do alone.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Hey now. No offense but take that conversation someplace else; I don't want it on my talk page. ChessEric 23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

2016 Katie-Wynnwood OK tornado section

Hey, I noticed you deleted the section on the EF4 tornado? Just curious as to why. Thanks! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed it because of how short the summary was. ChessEric 23:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as short. Would you object to recreating the deleted section if it were expanded upon with additional sources of information? HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with sourcing, its the length of these section. The information provided on this tornado can be efficiently put in the table without a section being needed as anything else being added would make it overly detailed. I'm trying to cut down on the number of short sections that are in outbreak articles, especially since the new infoboxes are larger than the older ones (ironically, an IP address mentioning this on another outbreak article is where this idea came from). We can bring up this topic with other editors if you like though. ChessEric 04:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)