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]
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 — EF501:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Sudbury 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).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the topic of Thursday (continued from my talk page):
The 00z suite of global guidance did very little to quell
forecast uncertainty - from Lincoln's most recent AFD. Some other selected quotes:
As a meteorologist or weather enthusiast, it's hard not to get sappy about Thursday. It's a rare convective environment taking shape for the Midwest, one that could yield a couple discreet, all- hazard supercells -- or nothing at all. Yesterday's phrase was boom-or-bust, and that's still the phrase today as we eagerly await this evening's 00z CAM output to help us resolve the Thursday pattern on a finer scale. Given the high degree of forecast uncertainty, SPC's Marginal Risk for most of our area seems appropriate.
The current record high for 5/15 at Peoria is 93 (1894), and the latest deterministic NBM guidance threatens that 130-yr old climate record.
Exceptionally warm low- level temps are expected at peak heating. In fact, progged 925 mb temps in the mid to perhaps upper 20s Celsius are above the 90th percentile of DVN and ILX mid May sounding climatology.
Even if a pre-frontal trough or surface wave keeps flow more backed, the large scale forcing is rather
meager given the very warm EML base and associated capping from it. Versus the April 28th failed conditional potential, this setup appears much more likely to have strong heating through insolation, helping to erode the capping to an extent. Finally, another competing factor appears to be very dry air at the mid- levels that could provide deleterious dry air entrainment into some updraft attempts.
Taken in sum, the impressive ingredients for severe weather, but conditional nature support the level 2 of 5 threat for most of the area in SPC's day 3 outlook. In addition to damaging to potentially destructive hail, and strong downburst winds, elevated LCL heights and comparably more modest low-level shear forecast may limit the tornado threat somewhat, if a few supercells do indeed occur.
Model soundings show large CAPE profiles with 0 to 6 km shear in the 40 to 50 knots range. If storms can form, they will have the potential to become severe but confidence is low given warmer air above the surface.
Please continue to monitor the forecast for Thursday as the track and timing of this storm system may still change impacting both temperatures and severe weather potential.
My, I don't know what to make of this. Maybe an article? 93 in mid-May in Peoria is... well, like they said, literally unheard of. I'm not too excited about the heat, because July is usually the hottest month here, and that's a solid 2 months away. Departure– (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say no, see the last part of WP:NOTALLHIGH in relation to crystal-drafting anything under a high-risk. I'm most concerned about the "nothing at all" part, this could very well be another April 28. EF519:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Maybe I'll work on it in userspace - it's marginally encyclopedic, and has the chance to go highly-encyclopedic on a 1-5 scale. And if it isn't, G7 is always watching. Departure– (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, both the Fultondale EF3 and Cookeville EF4 happened in MRGL risks, so you never know. I'd play it safe, though, March 14 was an incredibly rare case where a draftification that far out was worth it. EF519:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might have to do an article on the April 4-5, 2023 outbreak. I don't know how many individual cells happened that day (so maybe a tornado family type article) but it does interest me because apparently the soundings had an extremely strong cap and an elevated supercell caused 4 inch hail, 90 mph winds, and an EF2 tornado at 9 AM. Departure– (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm specifically talking about the "not-so-elevated" supercell. Per MarioProtIV, I think we really ought to rethink how we organize these tornado events - because the morning supercell was not part of the outbreak in full, even if it happened on the same day, much like how, from a meteorological sense, the March 14 and March 15 outbreaks this year were each separate outbreaks caused by different systems, even if they were egged on by the same upper-level system. I might do an article on just this supercell because it has a good amount of coverage on its own - about on par with June 2022 Chicago supercell - although I don't know how many project regulars will support this shift towards individual supercells getting their own article. I see it as no different than individual tornadoes getting their own article, in that it can only happen if the supercell itself and/or the tornadoes it produces are notable by themselves, and I think the April 4 supercell reaches that bar. Departure– (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the supercell that produced the EF3 that almost killed a storm chaser, who pulled the "let me see how close I can possibly get" move? EF520:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Chicago's had a lot of close calls with really scary supercells. I think it was some time in summer 2023 when a PDS-warned tornado warning was aimed straight for downtown, but I think the brief tornado dissipated before city limits and nothing came of it in the end. Departure– (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So kinda like El Reno. Back on-topic, a D3 ENH with a SIG SVR was issued a bit ago, I am right on that 15% border. EF520:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a Wisconsin/Minnesota threat. Reminds me of Parkersburg a bit. I bet that's where they assume the greatest chance for convective initiation is. It might not be particularly strong, especially with what might happen further south, but I'd guess they're more sure anything'll happen at all. Departure– (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one to talk. I just checked the HRRR 12z run over Wisconsin and I saw a lone supercell trailblazing in a shockingly conducive environment that makes me think an upgrade to moderate may be imminent... forget Illinois, Wisconsin needs to watch out, especially north of Madison / anyone in the vicinity of Lake Winnebago. I might make an article on this if we do get a moderate upgrade - that sounding and its context of being right ahead of a discrete supercell is giving out major / violent tornado vibes. Nothing over my neck of the woods, though. The AFDs are even less confident of anything happening than they were yesterday. Departure– (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘ Departure–, isn't the cap incredibly strong? I doubt anything will happen, although I'll pin this discussion if we do actually see a devastating tornado. And again, I can't read hodographs! — EF516:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sounding I linked over Wisconsin only has a weak capping inversion, and caps that weak are rolled right over by supercells as strong as the one the HRRR is showing. I use Tropical Tidbits to read models; but note that only the 0z and 12z runs every day go out far enough to see Thursday's threat right now. Departure– (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for hodographs, I'll give you the shortest explanation ever: they're the same as the wind bars on the right of the main skew-T except in a more concise two-dimensional form. For helicity, you're looking for a clockwise (yes, non-cyclonic) rotation of winds with height in about the first kilometer of the atmosphere (signified on most hodographs by the red line segment on the hodograph). Shear (SHR) is the change of wind speed and direction with height (again, clockwise) but typically is much stronger in the speed sense. The floating RM and LM are the right-moving and left-moving vectors (as outlined by Bunkers of NWS Sioux City) and show the approximate direction of right-moving (i.e. most severe) supercells and left-splitting (usually weaker and non-severe) supercells. Departure– (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So less straight and more curved, the better tornadic enviornment? Also, the CAPE is pretty high... — EF517:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If G7 can have multiple nuclear states with their metaphorical finger on the button, then I can have my metaphorical finger ready to "nuke" any non-notable draft under G7, right? Departure– (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more before I see the new run: Despite the absurd parameter space, there remains a few mitigating factors that continue to apply a downward pressure on predictability. - from Lincoln, 2 minutes ago. Departure– (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of like the Mayfield tornado emergency - waiting till the literal last minute to upgrade. — EF517:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, not only did Greenfield not get a tornado emergency, it was actually downgraded back to confirmed from PDS a minute before it hit Greenfield. Departure– (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, to be fair the DoW measurements weren't being transmitted live, it also curved at the last minute. Mayfield though, that was an inexcusable misuse of the TOR-E. They did it near Benton, too! Tornado was already killing people and then they decided to upgrade. — EF517:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We probably wouldn't have this problem if we were using Phased-Array. Thank Mr. T for whacking Radar Next. I might make a draft for that, too. Departure– (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new Day 2 is out, and it only adds a 10% hatched zone for tornadoes from Racine to about the Twin Cities. I guess I'll be watching the satellite view like a hawk for southern development before making a draft. Departure– (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling a D1 MDT. Also, if anyone not acquainted with weather terminology reads this, does it sound like we're speaking gobbeldy-gook? — EF518:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: Okay, I've made a mini-guide for myself on Skew-Ts and hodographs. To see if its helpful, reading this hodograph, I interpret it having a low-level jet, making it curve? I'm also assuming because of that, the sounding area is conducive for tornadoes? Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong. :-) — EF500:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm calling a wind-driven D2 MDT for that second setup and a D1 MDT for the Chicago setup, and possibly an all-hazards D1 HIGH on that KY setup. I doubt it'll happen, but there's a non-zero chance. — EF514:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the latest Romeoville AFD:
Severe Threat Today: The 00z CAM guidance, with some exceptions, did come in much more aggressive with thunderstorm coverage, particularly east of I-39 this afternoon and early this evening [...] 0z CAM solutions (and 06z HRRR) at least gave more credence towards the idea of explosive CI indeed occurring within our area [...] Assuming storms do occur, the thermodynamic and kinematic environment in which they develop will be very supportive of organized severe storms, particularly supercells.
I-39 is basically what splits northeastern and northwestern Illinois, and all of the Chicago metro is east of that. I myself checked the recent HRRR runs and they all show intense convective initiation at the Kane and DuPage county line around 0Z, so, at least to me, a moderate risk is plausible, especially if anything fires west of 39. Again, watch the GOES over Illinois this afternoon before even thinking about making an article. Departure– (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows, but Reed is already hypecasting so something will happen. Also, could you take a quick look at the collapsed below "how to read" section and see if it's accurate? I'm trying to learn how to read the super-nerdy stuff. No offense. ;) EF515:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nadocast's viewer shows a small 45% contour north of Metropolis, Illinois on the 12z Day 2, and the SPC's tornado-driven high risk probabilities start at 30%. Nadocast is just a machine learning project for chasers but if this uptrends a high risk could reasonably occur tomorrow. Departure– (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also state that this could easily fail if storms fail to develop, but at the same time, the area of Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana I'm watching has another excellent environment - almost on par with Thursday over central Illinois, only this time convective initiation is nearly guaranteed. Departure– (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: and @EF5: Given the upgrade to a 15# sigtor at the 06z and the explicit mention of Several strong tornadoes are expected, and a long-track high-end tornado will be possible, I’ve started the draft at Draft:Tornado outbreak of May 16, 2025. Unsurprisingly it was Broyles on deck (no high though, unless 06/12z CAMs go apeshit and warrants one at 1630). I’m gonna be on a cruise all afternoon so I will not have time to polish if things get ugly (barring a 4/28 repeat), so you can both add the synopsis stuff. If things get bad, we’ll evaluate on Saturday whether to publish or not after enough stuff is added in that scenario. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 06:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised they didn't go with a HIGH, 15% TOR and 45% WIND themselves are both moderate-able. EF512:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yesterday was notable on its own right, so once we get tornadoes confirmed today, even in the morning, I will publish. If the event stopped with morning convection today it'd still be notable; see the potentially EF2+ tornadoes in Wisconsin yesterday and the sheer amount of reports that came in. Departure– (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw on a stream a guy in central Wisconsin doing impromptu drone surveys. While they weren't obvious, I think it's feasible there was EF2 damage at least. Departure– (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, yeah, Jordan Hall. Flying drones over recently-destroyed homes leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and not a good one. Not cool. — EF514:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, storm reports. While convective initiation did occur shockingly early, including over the 88 corridor, the environment at low levels wasn't up to what initial models expected. There were still almost 500 preliminary reports anyhow. Departure– (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more linear to me, but let's see what the WFOs say. Maybe we'll get one of those CONCERNING... OUTLOOK UPGRADE MDs soon, been a minute since we've seen that. I didn't know the College of DuPage had such a good model viewer, though (we had the same problem a while back). Departure– (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are things downtrending? I keep hearing talk about SW winds spoiling the entire event and making it damn near impossible for a tornado to drop. — EF515:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I glad I spent my time working on the 15th. Indecision doesn't lead many places except uncoordination. Hell, we saw this same thing yesterday, so we'll have to wait and see. Departure– (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, yea, something's going to happen today. I'm getting that same "a lot of people could die today" gut feeling I got on March 15, something could really go down later. — EF516:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now I can't access the SPC website. Can't tell if my computer or network's the one acting up but I keep getting 504 - gateway timed out. Departure– (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the next outlook, I could expect the SPC to extend the moderate risk further southeast into Mississippi, but I'd say not quite on a high risk. Maybe at 2000z once the WoFS calibrates. Departure– (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't issue it. Storms firing in MO are linear and look like little supercells already, worst case scenario here. EF516:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it worst case yet. However, I still wish the WoFS didn't take until 1 PM CDT to start churning out useful data. I'll finish up the May 15 summary before doing anything for today's risk on the draft. Departure– (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't issue it. Storms firing in MO look like little supercells already, so worst case scenario here. EF516:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No problem. I've learned in the Civil Air Patrol that when someone's doing something dangerous or against policy, it's completely fine to stand up and say "cut it out" (or "stop edit warring", for example) regardless of rank, or in this case involvement. EF522:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:4 May 2007 Tornado Emergency for Greensburg, KS.mp3
Thank you for uploading File:4 May 2007 Tornado Emergency for Greensburg, KS.mp3. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
@EF5 Thanks for adding the link to the source. However, after reading the comments, I have doubts about the authenticity of this recording - it seems to be a mock. Pius (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pius, it's an audio version of a text product using an NWS-made TTS software. Every part of it is PD, regardless of mock or not. — EF516:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The point of the policy is that it doesn't matter if the edit was constructive; banned editors are not allowed to edit here under any circumstances, so I suppose the answer depends how much effort you feel like making in order to assist a WMF banned editor in contributing.-- Ponyobons mots16:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wandering on to this User talk page because you have a draft you created that is headed towards CSD G13 tomorrow but, my unasked for opinion is, stay away from content created by an editor who is under a site/community ban. It doesn't matter whether the content is good, ban or even exceptional. You're putting your own status as an editor in good standing in jeopardy and no content is worth that. If you persist in trying to save or recover it, this could easily bring you to ANI and all of its scrutiny by your fellow editors and that is never, ever a pleasant experience. Just let this go, it's not worth what might be a big headache to you in the future. Just my 2 cents. LizRead!Talk!04:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, EF5. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of conflicts in Southeast Asia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Temperature trace appears red, dewpoints green or blue
Wind barbs = Wind speed and direction at different pressure levels
1 knot is 1.2 mph
Clouds exist in layer of high relative humidity. The good stuff: High relative humidities are where the dewpoints and temperature are close together
Inversions are layers where temperature increases with height. They can prevent convection or make it happen once broken. LOOK for temperature trace and see if there is a sharp slope that isn't as steep as the diagonal lines to find inversions.
To get convective condensation layer (CCL; height which air will become saturated) look at the start of the dewpoint line (green or blue) find where the yellow diagonal lines and trace the dewpoint line start (at the bottom) till it intersects the red line. Whatever horizontal line it lands on is the CCL.
Red line on top-right is hodograph. Clockwise motion = bad.
Chaotic line = pulse type storms; efficient rainfall producers if high precipitable water/ moisture is present in atmosphere
Straight hodograph; low-level directional shear present! No real low-level jet (wind max). Aloft, speed increases but direction is constant with height; multicells/supercells (splitting); tornadic supercells possible
Northward clockwise low-level curvature due to low-level jet (wind max) present in environment (which enhances stormrelative inflow); curvature is most pronounced if speeds decrease above low-level jet; slowly increasing winds above low-level jet; tornadic supercells more supportive in large-scale environment
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@EF5: You might want to take a look at St. Louis' radar. There's a very quickly organizing tornadic circulation that might drop a killer tornado in downtown St. Louis. Gosh, I said that on March 14, and we're right back where we came from. Departure– (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eugh, I want to be sick. It's down in downtown STL. Lives definitely being taken right now. — EF519:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping for a repeat of March 14 for and only for St. Louis. A likely strong tornado in St. Louis, Missouri, as seen from WSR-88D This (right) is what I'm seeing. Not much room for misinterpretation in my eyes. Departure– (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, remember? The St. Louis tornado then was just an EF2, and it missed downtown - hell, it missed the city limits entirely, and caused no injuries to my knowledge. This could easily have been EF3+. WoFS showed nothing in St Louis itself besides hail and wind, so this caught me completely off-guard. Departure– (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please. If we're begging for another city-tornado, it better be another July 15 situation - that dropped tornadoes in 7 cities, all weak and unimpactful. We reasonably just saw a repeat of the 2019 El Reno tornado - dropped and lifted in the blink of an eye. I like to think I saw it coming to some extent, in that I knew it was a possibility that this thing was to the point where an RFD surge was imminent, but I didn't expect it to be that strong. Departure– (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a photo from downtown! That thing was huge! No doubt EF2+, probably caused casualties. — EF519:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This feels just like March 31, 2023 and the tornado in Little Rock. Hate to hear that there were four times as many fatalities. Thankfully, though, there were no reports of 600 injuries. More tornadoes are ongoing and storms are going to continue tonight. IAR and NOTTOOSOON were necessary for this. Thanks for helping out on the article. Departure– (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case more than verified in my opinion. All the HRRR runs I saw showed upscale growth into a linear system of some sort, not... this. Who'd have thought giving each supercell its own room to breathe would end up being such a simple factor to overlook in upscale growth? We've seen "worse case scenario" thrown out so many times. I don't blame the SPC for not going high given that I don't think anyone could have predicted all of this. Geez. The amount of discrete supercells makes it almost feel like a super outbreak, and I wouldn't be too shocked if it ends up as a devastating or even historic outbreak on the OIS. Departure– (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
┌───────────────────────────┘ Departure–, my god, so many people are going to die today. What the hell is NWS Indy doing??? Columbus is literally going to be obliterated if that doesn't lift. Hello, TORE!? I'd be tracking right now but I'm pissed off. — EF500:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at the SPC outlook and I feel like they were downplaying the convective outlook. A lot of the big storms are exploding in even the enhanced zones. Nahida🌷00:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to feel awful burnt out. All this about today potentially being nothing and now I'm hearing verbal reports of potentially EF4 damage in Creal Springs, Illinois (two story homes swept off their foundations) and I don't know if I have the energy to verify. I've been editing and keeping tabs on these storms all day, and if nothing else, I've dehydrated myself terribly. Got plenty of time to work on these later on. I hope my contributions are helpful. Departure– (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, welcome to me on March 14. Really though, take a rest (when safe), burnout can be cured by some sleepy-time. Still pissed they didn't go with a TOR-E, but whatever. — EF500:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably still be contributing tonight. I got some more water, and just cleared through everything else I have to do today, so I can put my full focus on the mess that's developed in the Ohio Valley. Departure– (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user continues to spread misinformation such as the somerset London tornado did not kill 23 which it has been confirmed to actually have killed 24 and due to no tornado emergency was not an EF4 which doesn’t mean anything as the 2011 Smithville tornado was not a tornado emergency 2600:1700:E2A6:1000:3055:80ED:22E2:CFE3 (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Governor Beshear stated 16 died just a few minutes ago, and I gave a source in an edit summary of the main outbreak article. Please don't falsely accuse me of being a vandal without clear proof. EF523:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, EF5. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of conflicts in Southeast Asia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
