In memory of the victims of the 2011 Hackleburg tornado.

I am under 18, and won't accept emails from people I am not familiar with or have not already talked with.

This user does not mind criticism. Feel free to let them know if they did something wrong.

This user was a bite victim, hence knows the pain of being bitten and WILL NOT bite other users.

Archives (Index)

2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/October 2024/November 2024/December 2025/January 2025/February

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at 2021 Bowling Green tornadoes. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AirshipJungleman29 was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" for more information.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I think this contravenes WP:NOTMEMORIAL, yes.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Casualties of the 2011 Super Outbreak and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EF5! Having an article draft 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! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good article about an event and not a personal non-notable memorial. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So… resubmit? I may ask at the steakhouse and just avoid the whole AfC process, since opinions clearly differ. :) E_F⁵ 12:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse*, apologies. E_F⁵ 12:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure myself, when I occasionally write articles I just mainspace them. You're experienced enough as an editor to realize this is a mainspaceable page and could have just done that and then gone to the steakhouse for dinner. Obvious this isn't a memorial (the "no memorials" reasoning seems to be for individual non-notable people, usually those who a person knows or is related to and wants to give them a public space memorial. this is not that.) Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could have, but I genuinely have never written articles dedicated to names of victims, hence taking it through AfC, and didn’t want to take that chance mainspacing a policy-violating article. (One of my previous articles was a September 11, 2001 victim, which was AfD’d and later deleted under NOTMEMORIAL, which is something I don’t want a repeat of). :) E_F⁵ 12:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense (once bitten!). Thanks, eventually mainspacing this historical record would be a good use of Wikitime, probably don't want to lose it to userspace. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, then. I still find it crazy that 72 of the ~300 deaths from that horrible day were from one absolute demon of an EF5 tornado, really a testament to the lack of adequate building construction and warning systems in AL. E_F⁵ 13:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting video on your user page, thanks (checked out your user-page stuff, if you have a minute please send an e-mail, have an offline question). Have you ever seen a tornado? Closest I've come is a major cloud spinning event which could have dropped one, it made the local news that night. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've never been hit by one, but have come relatively close, although due to it being in a suburban area and in the early morning I was asleep when it happened (although the sirens did go off, iirc). E_F⁵ 13:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Replied. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be working on getting 2023 Covington tornado to mainspace (just G7d its CFORK and sock-edited draft), so I wanted to ask. How should I handle this tornado's relationship with the Wynne tornado? I'm certain they were caused by the same supercell - following the same motion vector, forming while the other was on the ground 4 miles to the north, etc - but the only source directly stating that is a blog. Departure– (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not EF5, but my personal philosophy is that this is where Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is actually supposed to be used. You know this is a fact, source everything possible to other sources, source this single fact to the blog and be prepared to accept criticism if it's given. For instance, the DYK hook I had that you reviewed, which I've since fixed if you like to take a look, sources to the wordpress site because that's the source that contains the info that I need to write effectually.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm really not sure; I'm better with torsums than I am with metsyns. E_F⁵ 18:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm the other way around, given I just spent half an hour interpreting a bunch of mesoscale discussions on the 2024 Greenfield tornado that I have a strong feeling I'll bring to FAC soon. But, that article has a similar situation (twice) and it relies on improper synthesis that hasn't been removed yet. For now, I'll have Wynne as a short mention that it was on the ground north of Covington, and nothing more. Departure– (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2007 Greensburg wedge tornado.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! EF5, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! EF5 18:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a bug, this is the second time it's automatically sent an invite to someone (me, this time!). E_F⁵ 18:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit confused about this lol!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damage estimates are turning into the biggest point of friction within the weather community, especially with AccuWeather, Helene, and now that ridiculous estimate from Selma being... one hundred and seventy-eight times more than the next estimate. What was that RFC you mentioned in the in-article comment that said NOAA estimates on their own are unreliable, why have I never seen it, and why has this advice been utterly ignored? I think it's time for another RFC for AccuWeather, CoreLogic, property damage vs insurance estimates vs damage exposure. Don't take this as me putting you down for using a bad source, because that Selma article is pretty damn good otherwise, but there is no way in hell that an EF2 in Selma did more damage than an EF5 in Hackleburg. Cheers and happy editing. Departure– (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure AccuWeather is already considered unreliable by the community, not sure about CoreLogic. Some tornadoes just do a crap ton of damage (the Nashville EF3 being a good example). Not sure how they got the $1 billion, though, that is one heck of an overestimate. :) E_F⁵ 14:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearly certain it's damage exposure - how much money all the properties in Selma would have cost if they were destroyed. I'm opening an RFC because this is a mess that needs sorting out. AccuWeather is still definitely used for a few estimates. Maybe we'll get it on RSP at some point. Departure– (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: An RFC has opened. Feel free to comment. Departure– (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2011 Cullman tornado Dead Man Walking.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tornadoes in Oklahoma, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the three costliest tornadoes in Oklahoma's history hit the same town in 2013, in 1999 and in 2003? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tornadoes in Oklahoma. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tornadoes in Oklahoma), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of 2023 Selma 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) 00:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm actually going to try and get Greenfield to FAC, because it might be too late for the Tri-State, but it isn't too late for Greenfield (nor is it TOOSOON, funnily enough). Would you mind taking a look over the Tornado Summary section? You've said yourself that's the area you're best at and it shows from the articles you've written. I want to make sure everything's cited, there's no undue synthesis (especially for the other tornadoes that may or may not have formed during the Greenfield event), and the length is long enough for the magnitude of the event. I'll bring it to FAC over the coming week and your help here would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'm going to say just at a cursory look that it's going to need a lot of work, I can list some issues I see if you want. :) E_F⁵ 15:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I'm really not the best at writing tornado summaries, so a list would be very helpful. Departure– (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's a list, most of these issues are within the tornado summary but I also see some other issues:

• Why is the wind turbine image a multimage when there's only one image?
• Touchdown point needs an exact time; it's given in the infobox but not the summary.
• External links section is too large and shouldn't have that many YouTube links
• The paragraph in the "Formation and path" section is too large
• The website name in ref 23 needs fixed.

@Departure–: I'd love to do a more in-depth review once it hits FAC, but these are just a few things I noticed. So now we're in a race to see who can bring their tornado article to FA class first!?^[Humor] E_F⁵ 16:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which one are you working on again? Departure– (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greensburg; I'll probably FAC it later this week after doing a spot check. E_F⁵ 16:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's too bad; I just vandalized the entire article and I wish you good luck in finding it!^[Humor]

The wind turbine is a multi-image becasue there were two images there, but one was deleted as a copyvio. Everything else doesn't seem too much to handle, and I'll be bringing this to FAC very soon. This, and a bit more expansion of the chasers and aftermath section.

In addition, I will get a radar loop of the tornado if and when I learn how to process raw NWS azimuth data. Departure– (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–, Wikipedia doesn’t have deadlines. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you mean? Departure– (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said it might be too late to get the Tri-State tornado to FA status. What I mean by that is there’s no deadline and it’s never too late. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, as in I had initially tried to get it to FAC before the actual deadline of getting it on TFA this year (which has closed around 3 weeks ago). It's its 100th anniversary. Beyond that, there is still good reason to improve the article, and I think I will hit its 101st. Departure– (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that deadline. I see now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:2007 Greensburg tornado radar.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sreejith K (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sreejithk2000: Can I get a more specific reason why? It's in the public domain as an NOAA product. E_F⁵ 18:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sreejithk2000: It should be exported to the Commons, which is why I think it got randomly deletion nominated. It is public domain though under {{PD-NEXRAD}}. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeatherWriter, it can’t be exported to Commons until the deletion tag is removed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve contested the CSD nomination myself. It is clearly PD-NEXRAD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for the thanks and the message on my page about being new to Wikipedia. But the main thing I came here for is to give you thanks for all your tornado articles. I was in the process of researching stuff about the 2011 Stevenson-Bridgeport tornado (specifically a supposed video of it that could be the Hackleburg tornado) and I came across the super outbreak article and I was shocked. I want to thank you for your renovations for it and providing a lot of useful information about the outbreak itself. You're welcome for the source on that Cordova photo btw ;)

But more than that, thank you for creating an article on the 2011 Ringgold tornado, which occurred very close to me on April 27th. I have wanted more people (including myself) to be able to find more information about it and how insane it was, as it happened close to home. You have my gratitude. If needed, I have a few images/videos (some with sources, some without) that could be used if you need them.

Ihatemygrave (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that means a lot! April 27 was definitely a dark day in tornado history, that's all I can say. :) E_F⁵ 18:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2011 Ringgold EF4 tornado.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cullman Tornado in Cullman 2011.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Monster Tuscaloosa EF4 tornado.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Your noteworthy contribution (3 points total) helped reduce the backlog by 185 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]