This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I added a line or two about the extensive damage caused by the 10 April 2009 Tornado. I forgot to sign my edit here is my signature Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You don't know what footnotes mean, look at Myrtle Hill Cemetery and I will keep continuing this same until you stop being a dolt. By way this is not a Vulcan. Logicals don't fit in encyclopedia. Check Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Culby (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The tornado damage is unimportant, and Wikipedia:Footnotes specifically allows explanatory matter there. Since there's just two of us, I suggest a Third Opinion. (It violates WP:NPA to call another editor a dolt.) Hi540 (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
We are disagreed with you about tornado damagael however footnotes isn't allow "long detail", only short summary. I do not see that a "dolt" violate any policies because this is not a personal attack, it is an insult to your intelligence. You brought illogicial sense yourself. I have no respect to rude and illogical Wikipedians. I do not buy that you are graduating from an university anyway. I still continue what I believe is right thing of encyclopedian styles and media universes. I see that you have no senses to leave arguements but you are not bossy of me. Good Day, Dolt. --Culby (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a notice about your incivility here.Hi540 (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, here's a third opinion from a complete outsider:
You are both slow-edit-warring over this.
The content seems unnotable and unimportant.
The article looks much better with the text in the article's body. It looks ugly with the text in the footnotes.
Calling someone a dolt and claiming that it merely is an insult to their intelligence, is severely violating WP:NPA.
I would remove the entire damage description, and keep the one small referenced sentence, without the details.
Just an opinion. DVdm (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I've done just that, except I've left one sentence in the footnote to give an idea of the severity of the tornado strike.Hi540 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks very good now. I made another subtle change. Those who are interested in the details can find all (and perhaps even more than) they need by following the link. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have since retired from activatly editing Wikipedia so I just noticed the above discussion and wonder if I had done something wrong? If I remember I had posted that part about the damage to the park, just a few hours after the Tornado Struck down there in Murfreesboro.( I saw the extent of the damage to the park myself and I am amazed at how quickly the park has since, recovered) I will say that I only expected my comments to remain for a short time until the newness of the event wore off then I expected that someone would re-state my statement on the Tornado and the way the article appears now is very close to what I thought would happen to a comment made in haste after a major disaster. I apologize again if I caused trouble. Thank you now back into retirement for me Magnum Serpentine (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)