User talk:Nicholas Krasznavolgyi

January 2022

Hello, I'm TornadoLGS. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tornadoes of 2021, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Confusion over NCDC data

There does appear to be some confusion over tornado listings based on some of your recently reverted edits. Tornado entries in the NCDC database are not individual tornadoes, but track segments divided where a tornado crosses county or WFO lines. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My misunderstanding, sorry for the inconvenience 👍 Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, I'm Ingenuity. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to April 2022 North American storm complex have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello, I'm United States Man. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of United States tornadoes from October to November 2021 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. United States Man (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Florida tornadoes

Hi, I removed the Florida tornadoes earlier because initial LSR statements usually aren't enough, unless they either give a rating or explicitly state that it was confirmed. Though, in hindsight it looks like these can stand. I've been wary of LSRs lately since I've been "burned" a couple times by events that turned out to be gustnadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the cited source states that the Hillsborough county tornado is not confirmed. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry about that, but I do have one question. Is it possible I could keep in the New Port Richey, FL tornado I added in? It wasn't given an official rating yet, but the tornado actually formed over my home and I saw a ground circulation as trees were lofted in the sky confirming a touchdown. I surveyed the damage afterwards and there were many trees down and buildings damaged, no one was injured thankfully. I have video footage of the debris flying through the air circulating around the main funnel, I can send that as proof if you'd want? Figured I mine as well ask, thank you.

I'll leave a twitter link of the tornado before touchdown here in case you were curious: https://twitter.com/NickKrasz_Wx/status/1531804246047395841 Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Never mind I realized you kept them after the first message, thank you once again. Sorry for this second reply. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The Pasco County tornado? I guess I'll be neutral about its inclusion, but someone else may end up removing it, in which case it may go to a talk page discussion. As it is, personal social media page generally don't meet WP:RS, so you couldn't add it as a source in the article. I'd recommend removing the Town 'n' Country tornado though, since the LSR states that it isn't confirmed. That is a cool video, BTW. I've gotten some unimpressive video of a tornadic supercell, but didn't get the tornado itself. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

high end ef4 thingy

i sorry, i thought high end was 185+ my bad Lolkikmoddi (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes

Hey! I recently saw you were interested in the F4/EF4 list article for 2010–2019. I wanted to let you know that there are numerous drafts in progress (like Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2000–2009) and I wanted to ask if you would be interested in helping. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure I'll look into it. I got completely confused thinking there wasn't a 2020+ F4/EF4 tornado page and I thought it was just abandoned for some reason, sorry about that once again. Thanks! Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I'm going to trim some of the summaries you wrote on the list. The main idea for the notes section is important details (like touching down at f2+ intensity, or random things like that) and anything about the F4/EF4 intensity. We don't really include the entire summary of the tornadoes, since the charts would be almost impossible to read. The important detail facts are just anything that seems important to note. Long note sections are used at times, but normally for tornadoes that had a lot of F4/EF4 locations or possible F5/EF5 tornadoes (examples for long sections are on the List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2020–present) for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado and 2021 Czech Republic tornado as well as a few on the List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019) like the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado, which has a lot of EF4 damage locations). Basically if it is (E)F0-(E)F2 damage, it is almost never included unless random important fact. F3/EF3 is normally some of the important facts, especially if some detail withheld an F4/EF4 rating for those. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for letting me know. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tornado outbreak of November 4–5, 2022, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Center Point, Arkansas. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Chapman 2016 WAS a high-end EF4 per NCDC

I noticed that you changed the section for the 2016 Chapman, KS EF4 to describe it as a mid-range EF4. While it is common misconception that this was a 180 MPH EF4, it turns out this is not actually true and doesn't come down to a DAT error. The final rating and wind speed estimate of a tornado is not official until it is entered into the NCDC database, and are subject to change until then. While Chapman was initially given an estimate of 180 MPH, this changed when it was put into the NCDC database.

The entry notes the following: "The worst damage was done to a farmstead 1 mile southwest of Chapman along old highway 40 where the home was destroyed and all outbuildings were blown away. The sub floor of the home was removed from a bolted sill plate and the poured concrete foundation was cracked on the south side exposing the rebar where the strongest forces from the lifting structure occurred as it was being removed and blown away likely occurred. Much of the brick facade of the home did remain where it fell around the structure however so the area was not swept clean. Winds approaching 200 mph were likely in this area https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=626912

In addition, when the NWS Topeka damage survey team was interviewed on Tornado Talk about the Chapman tornado, they describe it as a high-end event and even mention that they probably would have rated it EF5 had it hit the town directly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvOTNoraTEI

As a result, I have listed the wind speed estimate in the article as 180 - 200 MPH. All this info is pretty buried and hard to find, but its real, and given that both of these pieces of information came from NWS and NCDC sources, I think there is plenty of evidence to support describing Chapman as a high-end EF4 event in the article. I do appreciate you taking accuracy seriously though. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12!

Hello, thank you for forwarding this to me. Despite NCDC and other sources you stated listing a possible 200 mph rating rather than the standard 180 mph rating it has, it is just officially 180 mph. I just had a talk with NWS Topeka about this and here is what they stated: "Hi Nick, 180 mph is the official wind speed estimate for the degree of damage done to the structure so that's your number. The NCEI narrative is subjective and "approaching 200 mph" could have been worded differently for clarity. 166 to 200 mph is the range for EF4. Nasty TOR." The statement in NCDC is basically saying that it might've had 200 mph winds because that's the highest wind speed number in the EF4 rating range, so it was just worded weirdly. I hope this clears that up, I changed it back. If you disagree about this, I'd be glad to keep talking about this, thanks! Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm I can't refute that if it's coming from a NWS employee, but I just have hard time believing a NCDC entry that says verbatim "winds likely approached 200 MPH" means something different than exactly that. Also the NWS Topeka interview with Tornado Talk clearly paints the event as a near-EF5 tornado. I'll revert it back to the way it was, but it doesn't entirely sit well with me, as there seems to be conflicting statements. In my own opinion, 180 MPH seems a bit too low given the damage to the home's concrete foundation and the nearby railroad tracks, and very upper-end EF4 seems like a better fit, so the NCDC entry seems legit to me. I think this needs further investigation to clear it up, but will keep it at 180 MPH for now.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I am not disagreeing with you about the tornado reaching high-end EF4/EF5 strength, it most absolutely did. I'm just going based off of what the twitter account manager for NWS Topeka told me. It should've been given a higher rating given the very intense contexuals nearby the residence. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the 180 MPH is a bad call, no doubt about that. I find it odd that NWS Topeka employees would describe how it came close to EF5 criteria when interviewed on Tornado Talk, then tell you it's 180 MPH and a misunderstanding. That suggest that even NWS Topeka employees may not be on the same page with one another. The main reason I want to include this info is because I feel that the inclusion of the "likely approached 200 MPH" NCDC tidbit makes the rating seem less egregious, and demonstrates a more accurate wind speed estimate given the extreme damage. I think that readers will be confused when they read that a mid-range EF4 warped railroad track and tore away part of a reinforced concrete house foundation, and it sets a bad precedent. Would you at least be ok with a mention of the discrepancy between the NWS Topeka wind speed estimate, and the NCDC estimate? Something like, "While officially given a wind speed estimate of 180 MPH, the NCDC entry for this tornado mentions that winds likely approached 200 MPH." I think that's a fair compromise, but if you don't agree I'll let it go. I'd like to at least show that there is a bit of inconsistency and controversy regarding the final wind speed estimate.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Probably don't say that specifically, you could mention that NWS Topeka mentioned that it reached high-end EF4/EF5 strength without stating the 200 mph wind speed. That would likely confuse the readers more if you add a wind speed of which it was not rated. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It definitely is confusing, and that is actually what I want to highlight if that makes sense? I'm trying to show that there is controversy about the rating and wind speed, like Vilonia, AR 2014. The "likely approached 200 MPH" is a direct quote, but if you don't want that included, I can add something like "While officially given a wind speed estimate of 180 MPH by the damage survey team, the entry for this tornado in the National Climactic Data Center mentions that the wind speed may have been considerably stronger at the farmstead, and likely approached EF5 intensity." Would you be ok with that?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12!

Sure sounds good ig. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA

This: "Take my advice from yesterday US Man, stop being a dick to everyone. Try to teach/help people rather than being a cocky nuisance when fixing things, I suggest you fix your irritable behavior Mr. "Long-established User"" is verging on WP:NPA since it was unprovoked, so I would watch it. That's my teaching for the day. It does always make me laugh when people get so worked up over a Wikipedia issue though. Have a good day! United States Man (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The rude and snarky comments on fixing peoples edits are highly unnecessary though, it pisses me off when I see you do it to others and pisses me off when you do it towards me. Just state what you edited and leave it be, you don't need to add anything else. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"you should have to passing a grammar and writing test to edit here" Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Don’t try sending me bogus warnings out of spite. That won’t get you anywhere ;) United States Man (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

that is not being bogus, you were harassing Nicholas saying he don't have "perfect" grammar, also it was a general note. Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t harassing anyone. I didn’t even know who wrote it. If I don’t push people to be better around here, especially newer editors, then these pages are going to become a disorganized mess over time. I don’t think anything even concerned you anyway, so why are you butting in? United States Man (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This is typical US Man. Just let it go; there's no use arguing with him. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak draft

Hello, just notifying you that i created a draft for today's possible tornado outbreak at Draft:Tornado outbreak of December 13–14, 2022. Poodle23 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

All right, thanks for letting me know. If it gets significant enough I'll get to work on it. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I created another draft here. See here for more information. Poodle23 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I once again made a draft here. If the outbreak doesn't live up to what we think, i'll delete it, but for now, we can work on it. Poodle23 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

edit revert

There is no DAT indicators for any EF3 Damage yet. Lolkikmoddi (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

-> June 22nd

There's a brief discussion here about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado_outbreak_sequence_of_June_14–19,_2023#c-Wxtrackercody-20230622193100-Wikiwillz-20230622184500

Avoid edit warring, will cause problems. Wikiwillz (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit was reverted and some advice

Hey! I wanted to let you know that I have reverted part of your edit to the Tornadoes of 2022 article. In the edit, you uploaded a copyrighted image, which is currently being speedy deleted on the Commons. So I have a few things to help you so you don’t get blocked on the commons for all the copyright violations:

1. Take a look at the NWS Public Domain Copyright Template. The bolded part of it says, “Thus, all images on NWS servers are public domain (including "Courtesy of ..." and “Photo by ...” images) unless specifically stated otherwise through a copyright watermark. Basically, before uploading images from an NWS Webpage, you need to (1) make sure the image does not contain any watermark at all. (2) make sure the NWS does not have a copyright notice themselves. This NWS Webpage has an example of this point in the “Tornado Photos” section (i.e. “Photo Credit: © Wayne Collamore”).
2. Another thing I noticed from a lot of your damage picture uploads is not tagging the images with the NOAA or NWS copyright. Most of the images you have uploaded, like this one, are being tagged as the generic CC 1.0 Public Domain license template. If you are using the “Upload Wizard” feature, you can tag the images as ”This work was made by the United States government”, which gives the button to pick “Original work of the US Federal Government”. Damage pictures from the Damage Assessment Toolkit should be tagged under that template, which can then be converted to the PD-NOAA or PD-NWS template.

Hopefully this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction to what I said. The image may not be copyrighted. We should let the discussions on the commons finish though before re-adding the image to the Tornadoes of 2023 article. If it isn’t copyright, I am truly sorry for removing it and it can be re-added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2021 Tri-State tornado has been accepted

2021 Tri-State tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Xegma(talk) 06:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Nicholas Krasznavolgyi. Thank you for your work on 2021 Tri-State tornado. User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Images placement need reorganised. The "multiple image" template may be better for this. I removed the clear template. Its not used on Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 09:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2021 Tri-State tornado

The article 2021 Tri-State tornado has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Clarksville tornado, article should be redirected to the outbreak of December 10-11 and the section that was in place before the creation of this article restored

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cutlass^Ciera 14:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A goat for you!

this is for the goat of damage assessments, i hope this spring won't be bad for tornadoes!

ModdiWX (message me!) 17:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyrighted Images

Okay, the Blacklick EF2 photo wasn't mine. The photo you yet again reverted is from a public domain video. It's been all over the media, I literally have no idea where it came from (and I'm not taking credit for this image), I just make the title random because that usually lowers the chances of this getting striked. Every news station and social media post I see regarding this video is missing credits, and doesn't seem to be accredited to anybody (I may be wrong.) I'm not gonna revert your changes because you might be in the right here, but yeah. The video is CC, I assumed the screenshot/frame from said video would be CC. :) ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Because a video is uploaded to the media/news outlets does NOT mean it is public domain. News stations typically ask for permission for it to be posted or license the footage. When uploading public domain photos/videos to Wikipedia, you do not put it under your name. That is not considered as the "public domain" classification.

Also, "I just make the title random because that usually lowers the chances of this getting striked", so you know this is wrong, so you find a loophole so you don't get in trouble for it, because you know you will get in trouble if you do it the proper way? Come on. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: — See the deletion nomination for the image. I asked a question to you about the source of the image, which is vital you reply to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I will get to it around 3:00 PM EST, Wikimedia Commons tends not to work (I'm at HS right now, they gave us Chromebooks and blocked Commons), if it is extremely urgent, you could screenshot it and send it to me via my talk page? Sorry for the inconvenience, securely sucks ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The title of the image you are referring to doesn't even reference me owning it? You could have just said "It's not CC, I removed it" and I would be fine with that. The title is "March 14 2024 Ohio tornado location unknown.png", it's under a CC-4 license and automatically gave me the "own work" tag for some reason. I'm new here, so sorry if I'm not up to your standards on perfect CC images. ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

We know. We are not mad at you at all. Copyright is just something that is never messed around with (ever). On English Wikipedia, copyright violations are actually entirely deleted from the history of an article, so they are not viewable or recoverable. Copyright rules and laws are basically the sole rules that are enforced at all costs, no exceptions. That is why that the moment someone has a question about the copyright status of an image or piece of text, it is instantly figured out. So it isn’t just snapping at you or anything like that. It just happens to be the one thing that Wikipedia is extremely strict on. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No, yea, I completely understand why copyright shouldn't be messed with. I've had my fair share of images that have been striked. I know and understand why we are talking, but he honestly didn't have to say things like "come on" and "so you know this is wrong" and other things like that, which give off the impression that I'm in some sort of trouble or something. Thanks for stepping in and de-escalating things @WeatherWriter. :) ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)