User talk:HikingHurricane
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them! |
vn-1 | This user talk page has been vandalized once. |
Signatures
[edit]- Qwerty325 (talk)
- Qwerty325
- HurricaneCovid (contribs)
- ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀
- ~ HurricaneCovid (contribs)
- ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) (current)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Winter storm bar gap
[edit]Template:Winter storm bar gap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AATalk 12:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
June 2024 — Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents notification
[edit]There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Either all or none
[edit]If the ATCF best track file isn't acceptable for duration, I wouldn't cite it for intensity changes as you did the other day. It's honestly an all or nothing. Noah, BSBATalk 01:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll stick with not updating based on ATCF. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
PD-NWS Violations Update #1
[edit]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 This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid: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Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer.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) 03:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Update your signature
[edit]You still have your signature down as Hurricane Covid on WP:Current events. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for the reminder. I'll go fix that. ~ HikingHurricane (contribs) 23:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)
[edit]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) 01:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:WinterStormWarningsTable
[edit]Template:WinterStormWarningsTable has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,