User talk:Mrwasatch

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Mrwasatch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible EF5[edit]

The source you provided provides no evidence that the survey team was from the NWS. It also states that "There was tremendous public pressure for an EF5 rating" which does not constitute this tornado being on there. United States Man (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the F5 tornado page to include Tuscaloosa because it meets the criteria of "Possible F5/EF5"... I'm well aware of the final 190mph EF4 ranking, but the fact that 1 of 3 teams rated it EF5 alone makes it a "Possible F5/EF5" candidate, as does the wording that "there was much dispute". Kellerville and Red Rock are also "clearly rated F4" in NWS databases, yet they somehow found their way onto the page - Tuscaloosa is equally worthy, especially given that it is reported to have been more severe than the EF5 Greensburg tornado in that article I reference.

Mrwasatch (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer any of the things that I said in the comment above: 1) What evidence do you have that states this survey team was from the NWS? It could have come from anywhere. 2) I, sort of, asked: What makes you think that "There was tremendous public pressure for an EF5 rating" constitutes this tornado being included.

I never noticed the NWS in Birmingham say anything about this being an EF5. United States Man (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.norman.noaa.gov/nsww/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/LaDue_NSWW2012.pdf

See slide 13, Some of NSF team rates EF5.

Mrwasatch (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it kill you to reply on this page. Anyway, I'll check it out. United States Man (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it over, then I put in a search to find out more about the surveyors. When I put in the search, an article from the Tuscaloosa News popped up. I clicked on it and found that a University of Alabama survey had also mentioned it possibly having EF5 winds. So I guess it can stay. Sorry about that. United States Man (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, sorry about posting in the wrong place... I'm a Wikipedia novice, but a tornado history enthusiast. Thanks for taking the time to debate/research the tornado, I'm glad it's watched over carefully and that not every F4/EF4 is tossed onto the possible list.

Mrwasatch (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I was just making sure that just anything wasn't being tossed on there. United States Man (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]