User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Photograph of the August 2024 Mound City, South Dakota tornado.jpeg

The media file that you uploaded, File:Photograph of the August 2024 Mound City, South Dakota tornado.jpeg, has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a copyright violation and had no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the file belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

How's it going?

Hey there WeatherWriter! I saw the semi-retired template on your user page, and I just wanted to check in. I've really appreciated your help during my journey here, from the TI12 stuff to learning about featured images, so thank you for that. I hope that whatever you are doing finds you well, and hope to still see you around periodically. :)

(P.S., you may want to stay active for at least 2 more weeks (assuming you are even retiring), I can't tell you about it but you'll enjoy it ;D ) SirMemeGod  12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well semi-retired isn’t the “best” template probably, but it was the only one that would match my situation. I’m not planning to retire at all, but my editing will probably a whole lot less than normal. I mentioned it above to Hurricanehink. From February to August 2024, I averaged about 747 edits per month. We are over halfway into September and I have a total of about 60 mainspace edits. That’s what I mean. I’ll probably still be “on” every day or every other day doing edits, but it might be like 2-3 edits a day, rather than a lot of edits. I’m planning on keeping up the research on tornadoes in 2024 / tornadoes of 2024 articles, but I probably won’t be creating new articles for a while. Hopefully that explains my situation some. It probably will feel like I “semi-retired” from my typical editing style/edit count, but it isn’t like a true “semi-retiring”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

{{semi-wikibreak}} would be a more appropriate template then. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-retired implies that you are intend to permanently spend less time editing. Semi-Wikibreak implies that you only intend to temporarily reduce editing; even if it’s for an undefined or relatively long (a few months) period of time. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

SPI

I know that per @Sir MemeGod, you have a semi retired template on your user page; but I wanted to give this message.

Please don’t post any messages on my talk page about SPI investigations unless you are warning me that I am being accused of sockpuppetry; because you’re probably not going to get a reply back on those comments and I’ll probably revert your comment.

Per criticism from Bbb23 and others (not pinged); I will be backing away from project space a bit (except places like WP: Weather, WP:WPTC, WP:WV, WP:APPA, and WP:EKY and a couple others. I will especially be backing away from SPI, and focusing more on article related stuff such as creating tornado lists for Hurricanehink; improving my West Virginia tornado list; creating redirects; and article improvements. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

And o by the way; is the semi-retired template a mistake? If you’re only taking a temporary break: there are {{Wikibreak}} templates you know. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Sir MemeGod submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate WeatherWriter to be Editor of the Week for significant contributions, in the main space and all around, involving weather and other meteorological topics (including wildfires). This user has helped expand the amount of good articles on these topics, where he has successfully nominated six tornado-related articles to GA status. He has also successfully promoted five images to featured picture status, four of which are related to weather. He even has at least one open FAC (2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado). This user also works behind-the-scenes, making editors within WikiProject Weather aware of active discussions which may change the landscape of weather editing for years to come ([1] and [2]), allowing members of the project to participate in these discussions. He also works in the rating of files ([3]), and participates in Articles for Deletion relating to weather ([4]). He is one of the most active users within the weather scope, and is an amazing editor all-around!

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

File:The 2002 Van Wert, Ohio F4 Tornado.png

Creates Tornado Articles

WeatherWriter

Editor of the Week for the week beginning September 29, 2024

Makes significant contributions involving weather and other meteorological topics (including wildfires). Helped expand the amount of good articles on these topics by successfully nominated six tornado-related articles to GA status. Promoted five images to featured picture status, four of which are related to weather. Works behind-the-scenes, making editors within WikiProject Weather aware of active discussions which may change the landscape of weather editing for years to come so they can be active participants. Works in the rating of files, and participates in Articles for Deletion relating to weather. One of the most active users within the weather scope. An amazing all-around editor!

Recognized for

2022 Pembroke-Black Creek tornado

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations, you definitely deserve this! :D SirMemeGod  13:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wow! I appreciate the nomination and award! Thank you @Sir MemeGod:!! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 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) 09:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC) agh dang it, trouted.

Hurricane Trout xD HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Full disclosure; that guy has randomly trouted several other people today. I’ve got an administrator notified over it. A little beyond “over trout” Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t know trouting was an insult. I’m so sorry :( HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Research on tornadoes in 2024 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Research on tornadoes in 2024 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research on tornadoes in 2024 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

United States Man (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Photo of the 2022 Andover tornado.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of the 2022 Andover 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 fair 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. Whpq (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Whpq: does the usage on Tornadoes of 2022 suffice? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe it meets WP:NFCC#8. I will nominate it for discussion at FFD. -- Whpq (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 21#File:Photo of the 2022 Andover tornado.png -- Whpq (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Clyde:, per the Commons review, it would. Since you re-pinged Whpq who has now started the FFD, let’s see if you poked the bear and maybe just lost tornado-photo NFFs on Wikipedia. Honestly really sad as this just feels like a “poking the bear” moment, like we had with that random 1968 tornado damage photo, which led to the massive NWS-photo review on the Commons…I hope my gut feeling is wrong… The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, I wasn’t trying to “poke the bear” as you claim I did. I was only trying to see if it was enough to suffice because it was tagged for speedy deletion. And I didn’t “create chaos” (and neither did Rlandmann).

Also; Rlandmann was right to nominate that 1968 picture; and I’m very thankful they did, because it exposed a massive copyright violation that spanned more than a decade. And the nomination and review should have happened a long time ago.

And I have to criticize Runningonbrains (who is/was an administrator who aught to have known better) for creating the PD-NWS tag in the first place. So if there’s anyone you want to blame for “creating chaos”; it’s him. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Clyde: to note, I’m not saying you were trying to “poke the bear”. I’m also not saying the deletion of the 1968 image was a bad thing. Don’t take it too much out of context. In simple terms, all I was saying was that just like the 1968 image deletion discussion, this too could create a dominos effect in deleting other tornado NFFs. Since we have hindsight on what happened with that 1968 image deletion request, my gut tells me if this file is deleted, the other tornado NFFs (i.e. the actual solution discovered on the Commons for the PD-NWS situation) would be at risk of deletion.

Also, you don’t need to bring up the “creating chaos” comment I made months ago. I apologized for that directly to Rlandmann who forgave me. During that comment, I was more hot-headed. I’m not hot-headed now. I may have not expressed what my initial comment’s intent was the best way though, so you interpreted it as me being mad/hot-headed. I was simply saying the following: “I really hope this does not turn into a dominos effect like the 1968 damage photo did. My gut tells me it might.” That is all I was saying. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

In terms of the domino effect question. Theoretically it could; but I don’t think that’s going to happen. Most of the tornado articles and tornado outbreak articles probably won’t be affected. The only domino effect I could see it having is they might nominate other similar images on “tornadoes of YYYY” articles (and the like), but I don’t foresee what happened on Commons happening here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Photo of the 2022 Andover tornado.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Photo of the 2022 Andover tornado.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

2021 Western Kentucky tornado

Hi WeatherWriter, just to let you know in the section "Meteorological synopsis", I've copied over the excerpted material from Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021. This text can now be integrated more fully into this article. Please see my edit summaries for attribution notices and rationales. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've now finished my copy-edit; I noticed a fair amount of uncited text, particularly further down the article, which I've marked with [citation needed] tags. Some older ones will also need to be dealt with. I also noticed material in the "Impacts" --> "Casualties" subsection is also in the section above; it might be good to collate that information in one subsection. I also think the lede can be expanded to three or four paragraphs. Anyway, I hope the c/e is useful; good luck with our planned GA nom. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Outline of tornadoes

Just letting you know that I finished the chronological list on Outline of tornadoes, feel free to let me know if I messed something up. :) SirMemeGod  16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Departure– (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture?

Hi WeatherWriter (it's been a little while, aside from the earlier message). Do you think that the image on the right (File:05june-rapiddow-wide.gif) should be nominated as a FP? I'd do it, but you're the expert on those kinds of things. :) MemeGod _chat 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Realistically Sir MemeGod, it should, but I doubt it would pass or success at the nomination. The 2023 Amory tornado's radar image (see to the right), was nominated for FP and failed. However, File:05june-dow7-wide.gif is a featured picture and even a picture of the day on the Commons. And even that gif failed not one, not two, but three Wikipedia FP nominations (2010, 2012, and 2017). So realistically, it would almost certainly fail a Wikipedia FP. It would have a higher chance (possibly a good one) to pass a FP on the Commons. You are welcome to try a FP on Wikipedia, since the Commons FP and Wikipedia FP are very different, but realistically, it would have a higher chance to pass on the Commons over Wikipedia.

Commons FP – They look specifically for quality, the creation, the aspects of the photo over usage. FP's on the Commons do not need to be used anywhere else on a Wikimedia Project/any Wikipedia. You can see the Commons FP details at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

English Wikipedia FP looks at the quality of usage more than quality of the image entirely. Images do have size requirements (1500 x 1500 pixels), but if an image has what is called high encyclopedic value (EV), an exception for any non-passing "technical requirements" (for example, an image smaller than at least 1500 x 1500 pixels) can be given. EV is more what Wikipedia's FP's look at. You can see the Wikipedia FP guidelines here: Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria.

Hopefully that helps! If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to ask! In my opinion, it should be an FP, but I do not believe it would pass, given the four failed radar-based FP nominations previously. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm. I'll try it. I do see the high EV in the image (which is what I came to ask you about, if it's a good representation of tornadogenesis or not). Thanks for the advice! :) MemeGod _chat 17:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sir MemeGod EV is simply its usage or “value” on Wikipedia. For example, the GIF you asked me about is used on Tornado, Eye (cyclone), Radius of maximum wind, VORTEX projects, History of tornado research, and Mobile radar observation of tornadoes. In the FP nomination, it asks you to “rank” the articles using it from highest EV to lowest EV (in your view). Honestly, it actually has high EV value in its usage, so it may have a shot to pass. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll nominate it. In my past FP experience, I've had a few failures, but luckily it isn't like AfD where one being failed can tarnish your reputation a little bit. :) MemeGod _chat 17:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:2023 Little Rock tornado

Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2023 Little Rock tornado, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Photograph of the 1976 Brownwood tornado.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of the 1976 Brownwood tornado.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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) 03:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2020 Nashville tornado

Hello, WeatherWriter. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2020 Nashville tornado".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Minor edits

It seems to me that edits such as this one and others you have marked as minor edits don't meet the criteria. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You would be correct. After reviewing WP:MINOR, I realize that edit back in September 2023 (over a year ago) would not qualify as a minor edit. My initial assumption for marking it as a minor was most likely [this was over a year ago, so I have absolutely no clue on my reasoning for marking it as a minor edit] was that it would not be the subject of a dispute, since the edit itself was not changing anything major and the original URL-link was not changing, only the addition of the title of that news article. That said, per WP:MINOR, talk page comments should not be marked as minor edits. So, yes, I made a mistake marking that as a minor edit. I will keep that aspect in mind going forward, as bluntly, I did not realize nothing on a talk page should be marked as a minor edit (per WP:MINOR). I do thank you for bringing that to my attention! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, you should be careful on minor edits on talk pages as well. For instance, in this marked minor edit you made earlier this month, you were changing a disambiguation wikilink to a correct wikilink, which would qualify as a minor edit. However, in that same edit, you altered your timestamp, which would for sure not be a minor edit. Just like I need to keep a whole lot better track on what I mark as a minor edit, you should also be careful to not make timestamp edits in minor edits. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the edit changed the timestamp. All edits do that. So if that would for sure not be a minor edit, then there would be no minor edits at all. Surely you are not suggesting that? Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No, not all talk page edits change the time stamp. For example, the minor edit I made which started this whole discussion did not change the "00:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)" in the signature. Back on November 10, you made this talk-page minor edit where the "08:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)" in your signature did not change between the edits. Here are a few other minor edits on talk pages you recently made that did not alter the signature timestamp: Nov 3, Oct 31Oct 21. Actually, even back on October 25, 2024, you made a minor edit that directly altered your talk page comment and put "...also..." as the edit summary, which would be an improper talk page minor edit was well.

So yeah, that edit above which altered the timestamp by about 21 hours would possibly be a bad minor edit marking. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, by timestamp I meant, the timestamp on the current version of the article. But you are quite correct in that it more often means, the timestamp on a signature. They are both timestamps.

The timestamp of a signature will change if and only if I re-sign when I modify a post, which I am in the habit of doing. So you seem to be saying, I should not re-sign a minor edit, is that the idea here?

I would prefer the signature on the edit to match the exact revision. But you raise an interesting issue. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, after reading WP:MINOR, Adding or correcting wikilinks is allowed, but Adding comments to a talk page or other discussion is not allowed. To me, if the edit is minor, the timestamp of the non-minor-changing content should not be changing. For example, using this minor edit mentioned above, you changed a wikilink, which is perfectly allowed per WP:MINOR, but by changing the timestamp, you made it appear that your first reply in that discussion {Comment: I am beginning to understand [....] But most of the time they use regular drum sticks.} was at 03:47, 6 November 2024, when you actually said all of that at over the course of several edits, the first of which at 03:55, 5 November 2024 to 07:37, 5 November 2024. No one else had replied in that discussion prior to the signature timestamp change, but imagine if someone had replied prior to the simple Wikilink change. That would have made the whole discussion, timestamp wise, seem like you replied after that person would have replied to you.

That is why I believe changing signatures on a timestamp would not be minor edits (something I may have been guilty of doing). Hopefully my logic there made sense. If not, I can try to explain it in a better way. Anyways, cheers have keep up the amazing work editing on Wikipedia! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with those timestamps. You say but imagine if someone had replied prior to the simple Wikilink change. Agree that in that case my edit would indeed have been improper, and this is explicitly covered by WP:REDACT. But it's not the case here. Andrewa (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We shall have to agree to disagree then, since to me, altering the timestamp, while unintentional, gives a false indication of when one replied to a conversation. For example, if I did not physically check the talk page history of that discussion, I would believe you typed all of that out on Nov 6, when in reality, you didn’t. So, we will have to agree to disagree on whether it was improper or not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for reviewing the help page. It's not just that one, that was just the first that I could find easily.

But it sounds to me as if any problem has now been addressed. Thanks again, I really appreciate and respect your hard work and knowledge on the subject concerned. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Drop discussion. Now. You stated I “showed no sign of dropping it” after citing WP:STICK, presumably because I was responding to your questions. I am now going to ignore any further replies in this discussion as I wish to drop this discussion…So do not bother replying. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

File:2024 Atlantic hurricane season through National Hurricane Center outlooks.webm. Thank you for this compilation. I may make an animation on this soon. Thank you. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 23:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tropical Storm Sara AccuWeather Forecast.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tropical Storm Sara AccuWeather Forecast.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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) 18:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello WeatherWriter! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Number sorting template help, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

CSD moves

I saw you had moved the US attacks article into mainspace, it looks really good (even if it isn't done), congrats! You can typically db-move (G6) redirects, something I've learned from moving my tornado drafts into mainspace over redirects. Just thought i'd let you know, it usually gets dealt with faster than the RM venue. You can also apply this with drafts, as I did at Draft:1974 Guin tornado. :) E_F⁵ 16:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Weather of 1873

Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Weather of 1873, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2023 Little Rock tornado

Hello, WeatherWriter. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2023 Little Rock tornado".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"London Bridge task force" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect London Bridge task force 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 December 5 § London Bridge task force until a consensus is reached. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Tornado Photos

You made a comment on the deletion discussion on the main photo for the Washington IL tornado, I want to know how to upload photos that fell under fair use and how to make sure not upload copyrighted materials Hoguert (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

So for non-free files / fair use, the main guidelines to follow is WP:NFCCP. Any non-free file has to pass all ten of the criteria points. All of them are important, but the main ones I always double and triple check for tornado-related photos is Point 1, 2, and 8. The rest of the points become partially automatic for tornado photographs.

As an example, I'll go through File:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado aerial of overpass.jpg and explain how it passes all 10 criteria points and I'll give more details related to the point.

1. No Free Equivalent Exists – This was discovered over at the Wikimedia Commons, which the file was deleted under the precautionary principle (i.e., it may be free, but there is no confirmed proof that it is free to use). For most tornado photos, this will be a near-automatic pass. However, some confirmed free-to-use tornadoes photos exist, like the famous photo of the 2007 Elie tornado (File:F5 tornado Elie Manitoba 2007.jpg). In this case, under no condition could a non-free-file of the 2007 Elie tornado be uploaded to Wikipedia.
2. Respect for Commercial Opportunities – This file was taken by (1) an NWS employee and (2) is on the NWS website. If you go to the overpass file's non-free rational box (File:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado aerial of overpass.jpg#Summary), you will notice a section specifically dedicated to "Respect for Commercial Opportunities". In that, I specifically wrote out that it was taken by an NWS employee, is on an NWS website, and that it "may or may not" be free-to-use. For 95% of photos from a NWS website, they will have this clause. Unless the Commons has confirmed evidence from the photographer that it is not free-to-use (example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:CookevilleTNEF4rubbleanddamage.jpg), you can add that statement for any photo on an NWS website. If it comes from a well-known storm chaser, like Reed Timmer, it cannot be a well-used photograph.
3. Minimal Use – This is done automatically by a bot after every upload.
4. Previous publication – This is a near given for tornado photographs (i.e., it needs to be published somewhere outside Wikipedia first...like an NWS website, news article, YouTube, ect...)
5. Content – It has to related to the article. For the overpass photograph, the exact overpass in the photograph is directly discussed in the Wikipedia article, which means it is content viable for Wikipedia.
6. Media-specific policy – Automatic if every other point is passed.
7. One-article minimum – The non-free file has to be used on at least one article. In the overpass photo case, it is used on the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado article.
8. Contextual significance – This related to the "Content" point. It has to directly related to the article's information and a reader has to be able to benefit from seeing the photograph, rather than reading about it. For the overpass, the overpass itself has been discussed by news articles and the damage to the overpass itself is discussed in the article as well. For a general tornado photograph, this point may be passed by a source saying the tornado was large, multi-vortex, "wall of darkness", ect... Something where the reader would better understand the object being shown through a photograph rather than text-description.
9. Restrictions on location – Use it only on a mainspace article (not draft-space, no templates, ect...)...Easy point.
10. Image description page – The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box (seen at File:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado aerial of overpass.jpg#Summary) has to be completely filled out. This is done entirely during the upload process and Wikipedia will not even let you upload the file unless text is inside every spot, so this is an automatic pass.

Every single photograph is unique in its upload rationale. My personal logic is that NWS website-found photographs should be used, if possible, over a random photo from a news article, since most NWS website-based photos are only being deleted on the Commons for the sole reason of "we don't have confirmed evidence it is free, but it may be free".

• To actually upload a non-free-file, go to the top-left corner for the Wikipedia drop-down box. This is where "Main page", "Content", Current events", "Recent changes", ect... is located. In that main menu dropdown is a button for "Upload file". Once you click that, you start the process.

In Step 3 of the the upload process, you would almost always be clicking "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use", followed by the "This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use" button. In that options drop-down, you would most likely be selecting "Historic photograph".

It takes some time getting use to it. Hopefully some of the templates I've made can help guide you through the process though! Here are some good example templates: File:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado aerial of overpass.jpg, File:Photograph of the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado.png, File:A bathtub deeply impaled into the ground from the first 1974 Tanner tornado.jpg, and probably the best template, File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg.

If you have any questions, even specific-image "Would this qualify" questions, feel free to ask! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Hoguert: since I replied. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for laying out what to do and what not to do, I'm trying to get a new image for the Washington IL tornado and I hope I make it fall under fair use Hoguert (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)