User talk:Hurricane Clyde

	; Archives (Index) ;
	5; s/ 1; 1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hurricane Clyde is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Open one Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been suggesting an LTA for more than a month now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:DRV

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]