User talk:Hurricane Clyde/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hurricane Clyde. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Please note: some of these talk page messages that you see here; were messages left to me as an IP editor.
Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Your Files for Upload request: SPC day 1 convective outlook for April 2, 2024
Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. Regards, Geardona (talk to me?) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Full file list
Are you the sockpuppeter meatballrunfatcat?
This user was blocked along with his other sockpuppet accounts. I noticed that your IP Address started editing the Tornadoes of 2024 page after User:Lokicat3345 and User:Meatballrunfatcat were banned.
If you want to come clean now, it is the time. I am very suspicious of certain IP addresses that only stir up trouble and conflict on Wikipedia, and I have had a lot of instances where IP addresses can be easily used to anonymously vandalize pages. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not Weather article creator (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, i was wondering how i could get exempt from my ip addresses block, since i am not the intended target Weather article creator (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @HamiltonthesixXmusic; @ChrisWx; No, this is definitely NOT a Lokicat sockpuppet (I found this one on the SPI when I was trying to gather information for a long term abuse report), I can confirm that this was one of my IP adresses I edited under just a couple days before I registered. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to respond to that; please do so on my current talk page (User talk:Hurricane Clyde) and NOT here. For archive purposes I have copied everything on here to an archive of my current talk page. Since this is one of my IPs I edited under before registering. I only just realized it was the IP one of mine just now (otherwise I would have probably defended myself at SPI). Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokicat3345. Thank you. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 06:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Testing 1 2 3
This is a test message so that the talk page will be created. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hi WestVirginiaWX! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
Also, I know you probably don’t need this since you were a relatively experienced IP editor, but welcome, and I’m glad you created an account! :D WxTrinity (talk to me!) 13:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that you shouldn't comment on SPIs after they are closed, as you did there. Also, IP addresses are never blocked indefinitely because they often change to a new location after some time, and administrators would like to prevent blocking any innocent potential editors from wherever the IP's location gets switched to. The IP address was left unblocked because it hasn't edited for some time, likely meaning that the user who obtained that IP address then is likely no longer the same user now (although there are some rare cases, e.g. this banned user, who remain on the same IP address for several months or even years at a time, which can be identified through seeing the same editing patterns and topics/articles being edited over the course of long, often intermittent, periods of time). Just wanted to give you some insight on this. 
ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m sorry. I don’t know. Thanks for letting me know. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, and you're welcome. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Editing Alabama in United States Solar Eclipse
Ohh my bad! I thought that chart was for the entire USA :D Didn't notice that it's for Alabama. Yeah neither crossed the path in Alabama. Ottwiz (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
List of deadly tornadoes
Hey there, I see you're working on a list of deadly tornadoes. Just throwing it out there, but I think it might be more useful setting up various state lists, and adding the deadly events to those lists, like List of Alabama tornadoes. I can help you set up new ones, like List of Mississippi tornadoes. I just wanted to reach out, since it seems like you are an ambitious editor/writer. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, so I like reaching out to people if I haven't yet interacted. I hope you're figuring out things OK on here! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- You’ve got the wrong person. I merely added one entry to @WeatherWriter’s list because it didn’t include March 2, 2012 (which caused massive damage across parts of Kentucky and killed quite a few people.) So with all due respect, I wouldn’t call that ambitious. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- The main ”ambitious” thing that I’m working on is a draft list of PDS watches (which you are welcome to help with too, need all the help we can get.) But that list is actually in draft space and is being edited by about a half dozen other people. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- But any additional help with that list is certainly welcome. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Because there are only four people (including myself) that are really actively involved in editing that list at the moment. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink, now I understand why you left me a message on here. I just noticed the talk page entry on WP:WEATHER. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Because there are only four people (including myself) that are really actively involved in editing that list at the moment. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- But any additional help with that list is certainly welcome. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- The main ”ambitious” thing that I’m working on is a draft list of PDS watches (which you are welcome to help with too, need all the help we can get.) But that list is actually in draft space and is being edited by about a half dozen other people. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm glad you might be interested in working on the List of West Virginia tornadoes! As you noticed, there aren't that many. When I did List of California tornadoes, I got a little bit overwhelmed by there being over 400 of them, but over time, I eventually got them all. The hardest part is going to be getting good sources for the older events, but there should still be some reports to fill in the gaps. If you start with deadly and strong events (over F/EF2) then it will be even less. And if that's still overwhelming, maybe start at like 2000 and go forward, to at least get the events this century. And then work your way backwards. It takes a lot to get the article to be a featured list, but not so much work that it's impossible. It just requires good sourcing, good writing, and hopefully a few images. Those events in 1944 (the two F4's) of course need a mention in the lead, but see if any other events stand out like that. For instance, deadly events appear to be pretty rare, just one in 2010, one in 1982, and one in 1974, although if you notice, neither of the last two event reports describe the death, so you'll need to find other sources. It's a lot, but hopefully it's not too much to attempt to do! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I always start with the most recent events and go back. (Ex. I start with tornadoes that happened in 2024, 2023, 2022, etc.) West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- That works. I'm assuming you know about NCDC storm events? For older events (Before 1993), you also have storm data, which is a series of monthly reports going back to 1959. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do know about that. NCDC goes back to 1950 I think. So it doesn’t cover the really old tornadoes, but to be honest, it covers enough. Who’s going to care about an F1 tornado from for example 1909? I’ll tell you who: no one. Unless it was the first one on record; it hit the state capitol building or some other important building/structure; or the tornado did a massive amount of damage and/or killed a bunch of people; unless one of those three things are met, theres a good chance that no one (except maybe someone who’s more than about 85 years old who was hit by one of those twisters) is going to care if a tornado from prior to 1950 is not mentioned or barely mentioned. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. And honestly, the most important part is the climatology, and recent history (2000-present). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do know about that. NCDC goes back to 1950 I think. So it doesn’t cover the really old tornadoes, but to be honest, it covers enough. Who’s going to care about an F1 tornado from for example 1909? I’ll tell you who: no one. Unless it was the first one on record; it hit the state capitol building or some other important building/structure; or the tornado did a massive amount of damage and/or killed a bunch of people; unless one of those three things are met, theres a good chance that no one (except maybe someone who’s more than about 85 years old who was hit by one of those twisters) is going to care if a tornado from prior to 1950 is not mentioned or barely mentioned. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- That works. I'm assuming you know about NCDC storm events? For older events (Before 1993), you also have storm data, which is a series of monthly reports going back to 1959. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Hiya, just checking how you're doing with Draft:List of West Virginia tornadoes? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have been taking a bit of a semi-wikibreak (but I am still editing and I haven’t forgotten about that list). As you can see with the edit summary, I did send Citation Bot out to fix my formatting errors. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hope all is well then! I understand the need for a break now and then. I'm in the opposite phase now, feeling more invigorated to edit than in a long while. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I’ve also got that list largely complete back to 2010. Will probably look at adding additional entries either tonight or tomorrow if I can remember to. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)- Nice! I've talked about it with other users, and I think as long as each list goes back to 2000 (or contains most of the notable ones), that's good enough for publishing. That's a good first step toward getting every area covered. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Correction, I looked and apparently it’s only complete back to 2015, notable ones with good coverage go back to 2010. I hadn’t looked at it really closely when I posted my initial comment. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve struck out my initial comment because of the somewhat erroneous statement. Although I still plan to keep filling in the list. I plan to go back to around 2000 for all tornadoes, but continue to list notable events (eg. events with multiple tornadoes, tornadoes rated F2 or higher, or tornadoes occurring in an unusual time of day or year such as in the middle of winter or in the middle of the night) beyond that. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- It also has a couple of holes in 2024 just because Storm Data doesn’t include anything that occurred less than three months ago, the current cutoff in data is March 31. I’ll see if I can hunt down any public information statements from the Charleston and Pittsburgh NWS offices to fill in the holes. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I just published the list. There may be a couple holes in terms of recent (within the last three months) tornadoes that have not yet been put on NCDC. And there are still quite a few gaps prior to 2000; but every tornado that we know of between 2000 and June of 2024 is listed. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It also has a couple of holes in 2024 just because Storm Data doesn’t include anything that occurred less than three months ago, the current cutoff in data is March 31. I’ll see if I can hunt down any public information statements from the Charleston and Pittsburgh NWS offices to fill in the holes. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve struck out my initial comment because of the somewhat erroneous statement. Although I still plan to keep filling in the list. I plan to go back to around 2000 for all tornadoes, but continue to list notable events (eg. events with multiple tornadoes, tornadoes rated F2 or higher, or tornadoes occurring in an unusual time of day or year such as in the middle of winter or in the middle of the night) beyond that. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Correction, I looked and apparently it’s only complete back to 2015, notable ones with good coverage go back to 2010. I hadn’t looked at it really closely when I posted my initial comment. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nice! I've talked about it with other users, and I think as long as each list goes back to 2000 (or contains most of the notable ones), that's good enough for publishing. That's a good first step toward getting every area covered. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Re: Beryl
So because I was the first one to publish the draft for Beryl, I didn't want to be the one to close the move discussion, since I knew it was already nearing SNOW territory. Looks like I wasn't needed! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes Improvement Time!
Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.
There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!
If you wish to participate, please visit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter, I am already in the process of doing that. Thank you for the reminder though. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you so much for being willing to help (or at least add a tiny bit) to Draft:List of Illinois tornadoes, you are legitimately the only editor that has been involved (I've asked 2 complete wikiprojects and at least one user) in this soul-draining and extremely tedious list. Thanks again! (Also congrats on 1,000 edits, it still feels like yesterday when you were an IP haha) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- You’re welcome. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
PD-NWS Violations Update #1
I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an update to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.
For starters, no "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred. All that means is the template is not formally deprecated and is still in use. However, Rlandmann, an administrator on English Wikipedia, has begun an undertaking of reviewing and assessing all images (~1,400) that use the PD-NWS copyright template.
What we know:
- Following email communications, the National Weather Service of Sioux Falls has removed their disclaimer, which has been used for the PD-NWS template for decades. This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid:
By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others.
Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer. However, the live version of the disclaimer no longer contains that phrase. - See this deletion discussion for this point's information. NWS Paducah (1) failed to give attribution to a photographer of a tornado photograph, (2) placed the photo into the public domain without the photographer explicitly giving them permission to do so (i.e. the photo is not actually in the public domain), (3) and told users to acknowledge NWS as the source for information on the webpage. Oh, to note, this photographer is a magistrate (i.e. a judge). So, the idea of automatically trusting images without clear attribution on weather.gov are free-to-use is in question.
- The Wikimedia Commons has a process known as precautionary principle, where if their is significant doubt that an image is free-to-use, it will be deleted. Note, one PD-NWS file has been deleted under the precautionary principle. The closing administrator remarks for the deletion discussion were: "
Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it.
" - Several photographs/images using the PD-NWS are currently mid-deletion discussion, all for various reasonings.
- As of this message, 250 PD-NWS images have been checked out of the ~1,400.
- The photograph of the 1974 Xenia tornado (File:Xenia tornado.jpg) was found to not be in the public domain. It is still free-to-use, but under a CC 2.0 license, which requires attribution. From April 2009 to August 2024, Wikipedia/Wikimedia was incorrectly (and by definition, illegally) using the photograph, as it was marked incorrectly as a public domain photograph.
Solutions:
As stated earlier, there is no "formal" rulings, so no "formal" changes have been made. However, there is a general consensus between editors on things which are safe to do:
- Images made directly by NWS employees can be uploaded and used under the new PD-USGov-NWS-employee template (Usage: {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} ). This is what a large number of PD-NWS templated images are being switched to.
- Images from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) can be uploaded and used under the PD-DAT template (Usage: {{PD-DAT}} ). A large number of images are also being switched to this template.
For now, you are still welcome to upload images under the PD-NWS template. However, if possible it is recommended using the two templates above. I will send out another update when new information is found or new "rulings" have been made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Archive problems
I am restoring my archive because since my username change; the archives haven’t linked. I’m going to let ClueBot re-archive it. Might take a couple weeks but I’m going to have to do that. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Alert: PD-NWS Violations
This is an alert being sent to all active editors on the WikiProject of Weather and any editor who has recently editors weather-related articles.
Editors on the Commons have received communication from the National Weather Service that the Template:PD-NWS, which is often used to upload weather-related images, is incorrect. There will be a discussion starting on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard within the next few days to determine how to manage this issue. Under the current PD-NWS copyright template, images on any NWS webpage was considered to be in the public domain unless it had a direct copyright symbol and/or copyright watermark.
One National Weather Service office has confirmed this is not the case. For the next few days, it may be best to not upload any image from an NWS webpage that was not made or taken directly by the National Weather Service themselves. Once the Commons determine how to move forward, editors will recent a new alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- So does that mean I’m being accused of a copyright violation? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- The only NWS images I used on Commons or on here were images that were created or taken by the NWS or someone actually acting in their official duties (like from the survey teams); but I do get the point. I (as you know) were heavily involved in the discussion. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as 2022 Appalachian floods. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I knew I had to attribute public domain content; but I didn’t know how to. Thank you for giving me the link to the template. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also in the future, try writing stuff in your own words, instead of copying. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well I’m not very good at writing that kind of stuff in my own words, that’s why I waited so long to actually start drafting that article. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is also why I generally prefer to create lists and redirects rather than actual articles. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- But I did rephrase some of the text pertaining to the meteorological history. Like I said before, I’m not very good at writing articles from scratch. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is also why I generally prefer to create lists and redirects rather than actual articles. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well I’m not very good at writing that kind of stuff in my own words, that’s why I waited so long to actually start drafting that article. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also in the future, try writing stuff in your own words, instead of copying. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Great job on 2022 Appalachian floods! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)
I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an new update (2nd update) to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.
On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.
What is new?
- The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
- Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
- As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
- A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle.
- One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.
How to deal with new photos?
Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!
- If the photo was made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (excluding NWS), You can upload it under the PD-NOAA template via {{PD-NOAA}}.
- If the photo was made by the National Weather Service (NOT Third Party), you can upload it using the new PD-NWS-employee template via {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}.
- If the photo originates on the Damage Assessment Toolkit, you can upload it using the PD-DAT template via {{PD-DAT}}.
- If the photo is from a U.S. NEXRAD radar, you can upload it using the PD-NEXRAD template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.
What about third-party photos?
In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.
- KEY: Third party images of tornadoes & weather-related content can potentially be uploaded via Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Guidelines!
- Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
- NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
- The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
- Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
- NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
- NFFs currently on Wikipedia can and should be placed in this category: Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes.
Update Closing
Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Return of a sockmaster
Lokicat seems to be back! It may indeed be time to open an LTA on them. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Open one Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve been suggesting an LTA for more than a month now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to politely ask everyone to refrain from pinging me or leaving me messages regarding Lokicat, Andrew5, or any other SPI investigation; unless it directly pertains to me in some way. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve been suggesting an LTA for more than a month now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Tree trimming incident.
A tag has been placed on Tree trimming incident., requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
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. Skynxnex (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Skynxnex it is certainly being contested. It is an alternative name. See the article itself. If you’ve tagged it because of ambiguity; why don’t we turn it into a disambiguation page? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll remove the CSD templates and nominate it at WP:RFD as trailing period redirects are basically always deleted unless they're actually part of the name, if you still object but first:
- The CSD templates are supposed to be at the top and disrupt the redirect so the request to delete is visible to people who use the redirect
- The issue with this one is the trailing period, which from what I can tell is not a part of the time. I also just tagged as an alternative name and marked as patrolled the redirect you made without the period, Tree trimming incident.
- Skynxnex (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t know there was a trailing period. In that case please keep the speedy template up. Because it must have been a typo in the creation process. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I probably should have done a more custom notification on your talk page since it seemed like a simple mistake (although twinkle makes it so easy to not). Definitely thank you for the redirect without the period since it's useful. Skynxnex (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t know there was a trailing period. In that case please keep the speedy template up. Because it must have been a typo in the creation process. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll remove the CSD templates and nominate it at WP:RFD as trailing period redirects are basically always deleted unless they're actually part of the name, if you still object but first:
To all who may concern
This is to all administrators who read the speedy delete notices on the two archives (the “s/1” and “5” entries) and wonder why I’ve blanked and tagged them for speedy deletion.
First of all; I have manually moved everything on those archives to the correct archive page, which is User talk:Hurricane Clyde/Archive 1; both pages were created with the wrong names by ClueBot III. The first one was because I had the script wrong. I don’t know why the second (“s/1”) archive was created; but I think it was likely a technical glitch too. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Category:Weather events with particularly dangerous situation watches has been nominated for deletion
Category:Weather events with particularly dangerous situation watches has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
"April 8, 2024 (Monday)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect April 8, 2024 (Monday) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16 § April 8, 2024 (Monday) until a consensus is reached. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahecht; I had created the redirect for the sole purpose of redirecting users via the hatnote that I had to the April 2024 article in case someone wanted to specifically know about the date. Since someone changed the target of the redirect to go to the eclipse article; that purpose has been defeated. My opinion on it: I’ll back either deleting the redirect, since I know that hatnote was probably the only link to that redirect; or retargeting it back to where I had it before (and restoring the hatnote), I’m good either way. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Hurricane Clyde,
I recommend that you refrain from participating in discussions on this noticeboard until you have a lot more experience on the project. The editors who frequent Deletion review, assessing decisions made by closers, most of whom are administrators, are some of the most experienced editors here. They have been contributing for years. If you want to comment on a DRV discusion, your opinions have to be grounded in a thorough knowledge of policy because your remarks will be analyzed by the other participants. You can't just offer up a random observation or you will be challenged on it and that can get uncomfortable.
You have only been editing here for a few months and you should probably focus on article improvement and tasks like anti-vandalism rather than jumping into advanced administrative work where you could get criticized for offering a casual opinion. You have already been very active on Wikipedia and your work is appreciated, I just wanted to offer you some advice to go slow in areas where your inexperience could be held against you. "Not now" doesn't mean never, it just means you need to work your way up to more demanding areas of the project. That's my advice. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was just looking around when I saw the deletion reviews and was kinda curious. So no, I probably won’t be commenting on any more of those for a while. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz; Part of the reason why I’ve been commenting on those and other deletion related discussions is;
- Number 1, I’ve been involved in an overhaul of the PD-NWS template (led by @Rlandmann) on Commons, so I’ve participated in dozens of deletion discussions over there in the past few weeks;
- Number 2, as I stated above; I was curious what deletion review was, so I put my two cents in a couple of them;
- and number 3; I haven’t found any improvement to do per se in any articles; but like I said above, you probably won’t be seeing me commenting on any more of those for a long time, because I don’t hardly understand some of those terms used on deletion review.
- Although you will probably be seeing me doing a bunch of anti-vandalism work. You’ll likely be seeing me heavily at SPI because there have been two particular sockmasters that have been causing quite a few problems at WP: WEATHER the past few years; and they have even fooled me a couple times. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also; for your information: I started editing as an IP editor in November of 2023; and I registered on May 31 (June 1 UTC) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz; disregard everything I said. Per Bbb23 and others telling me it ain’t a good idea; I won’t be at SPI; although you can bet that if anyone vandalizes a page on my watch; they are getting warned; and if it continues, their butt is going to AIV, and the sysops can handle them. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also; for your information: I started editing as an IP editor in November of 2023; and I registered on May 31 (June 1 UTC) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Trouted
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- What did I do? @HurricaneKirk2024 Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- someone told me to report you for some reason HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
A toast sandwich for you!
|
You get what you deserve. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
Deletion discussion about June 23, 2016
Hello, Hurricane Clyde
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username CFA and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect June 23, 2016, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17 § June 23, 2016.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|CFA}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
C F A 💬 02:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well @CFA:, I can’t really argue in favor of keeping because your rationale for RfDing it, is in my opinion just as equally valid as my rationale for creating it. I had created the redirect because it could potentially be useful for me; I didn’t really look to see if anything significant happened on that day, so that was an error on my part. (As you’ll see by my neutral !vote on there). Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
A recent comment
Hey Hurricane Clyde, I noticed a comment you left recently on HK2024's talk page. It was something to the effect of Hurricanehink's opinion or thoughts on a certain matter were important seeing as he was a much longer-tenured and experienced editor than yourself and George Memulous. While we can all agree Hink is pretty cool and there are definitely instances where we should look to more experienced editors for guidance, I wanted to remind you that all editors on Wikipedia are considered equal in importance, and one's ideas or suggestions should not be discounted simply because they're a newer or less-tenured editor. I've been on Wikipedia for over 5 years now and have made a fairly scant 3,500 edits for that time, but I know I can still contribute to the encyclopedia regardless in a helpful way and my thoughts/arguments should carry the same weight as both more and less experienced editors'. JayTee⛈️ 04:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. I was trying to explain to George that he might not necessarily understand that policy as well. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Referring to user space. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @JayTee32, We are about one wrong comment away from losing what may turn out to be a very valuable editor. Who knows, maybe some day Kirk might even be an administrator. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- And what GeorgeMemulous and others are doing right now is essentially “biting” the newcomers. By sending him to SPI, and then criticizing him on every little thing; that’s biting him; and that’s gonna result in us losing an editor. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you're entirely understanding what I'm saying. I'm just saying that George's comments are still valid and he is not necessarily wrong in his interpretation of policy just because one more experienced editor disagrees with him. And I'm not disputing HK2024's importance as an editor. I'm just asking you to not dismiss others due to their lower experience. I also don't believe he was biting a newcomer, he seemed to be trying to discuss policy with HK2024 that would benefit him to know. The SPI case was reasonable considering the overlap between HK2024 and the other account's edits. JayTee⛈️ 15:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @JayTee32: I do get what you’re saying. And I understand and I’ll try to do better.
- I try to take things from a “how would I feel if they did it to me?” standpoint. Or a “how would they feel?” standpoint, essentially.
- And with that said, I also do want to ask, were the two simultaneous SPIs reasonable? Because having two separate sockpuppet allegations (simultaneously!) would make anyone (even an experienced editor, much less a newcomer) feel highly unwelcome.
- And I very much admire HK2024’s willingness to continue editing; it takes a lot to still want to edit despite all that; and I personally would have probably quit editing if something like that were to happen to me. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- All I'm trying to say is do not dismiss another editor's use of policy based off of their experience alone. This doesn't have anything to do with HK2024 in my mind. JayTee⛈️ 18:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- @JayTee32, I understand and I’m sorry. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- All I'm trying to say is do not dismiss another editor's use of policy based off of their experience alone. This doesn't have anything to do with HK2024 in my mind. JayTee⛈️ 18:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you're entirely understanding what I'm saying. I'm just saying that George's comments are still valid and he is not necessarily wrong in his interpretation of policy just because one more experienced editor disagrees with him. And I'm not disputing HK2024's importance as an editor. I'm just asking you to not dismiss others due to their lower experience. I also don't believe he was biting a newcomer, he seemed to be trying to discuss policy with HK2024 that would benefit him to know. The SPI case was reasonable considering the overlap between HK2024 and the other account's edits. JayTee⛈️ 15:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- And what GeorgeMemulous and others are doing right now is essentially “biting” the newcomers. By sending him to SPI, and then criticizing him on every little thing; that’s biting him; and that’s gonna result in us losing an editor. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @JayTee32, We are about one wrong comment away from losing what may turn out to be a very valuable editor. Who knows, maybe some day Kirk might even be an administrator. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Referring to user space. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Some advice, and a smile, for you! (Copied by Clyde from HurricaneKirk 2024 talk page)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I saw that you said you felt demotivated from editing Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but just know that things will get better. My best advice to you is to take the advice that other editors give you and learn from it so you can improve, and look over some of the policies in the topics you edit in, like the WikiProjects on Weather and Tropical cyclones and their respective subpages and guidelines, so you can get a better understanding of the rules when editing here. I also suggest that you, @Hurricane Clyde and GeorgeMemulous: who I think could use this point of guidance as well: look over this guideline and not make high amounts of comments on talk pages, just simply look over the discussion and get an idea of what consensus is for when you edit, and just voice your opinion with a comment or two if there's any discussions which call for different opinions to be voiced.
This is just some advice of mine to help you out when editing Wikipedia, and we are definitely not trying to demotivate you. I think you are a constructive, competent editor who just needs some pointers in the right direction to help your editing skills get better. I want this to be a welcoming place for you while you learn the ropes on here, and if you have any questions about this, don't hesitate to ping me and ask them. Thank you, and I hope these pointers can help! ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 04:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have copied the message over here for future reference; because I definitely should take that advice. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- And it wasn’t supposed to ping the two of you when I copied the message. But apparently it did anyway. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)