User talk:TornadoLGS

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is TornadoLGS's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

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 This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid: By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain.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 Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer.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)[reply]

@United States Man and Cyclonebiskit: Re: ratings: I have heard from multiple users, in particular here, that data from Thomas P. Grazulis are suitable for post-1949 ratings. Is there any consensus on this? This has a bearing on various articles and drafts. Should only official data be used after 1949? For a time I was laboring under the impression that Thomas P. Grazulis' works could be used as well, but apparently that is not the case. ? CapeVerdeWave (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CapeVerdeWave: I was under the impression that official ratings take precedence but disputed ratings from sources like Grazulis ought to be mentioned. Though if other discussions have changed that consensus I'd be happy to see them. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t change ratings based on his assessments if they differ from NWS post-1950. NWS is the only official data in the United States for tornado ratings, and changing any based on any other outside source will be a source of concern and confusion. However, if a tornado is missing entirely from NWS Storm Data, Grazulis could be used to fill in gaps. United States Man (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man and TornadoLGS: But both of you once noted that "Grazulis...is probably more accurate" than official data, in effect concurring with Cyclonebiskit's contention that his ratings could be applicable. If so, under what circumstances? Perhaps a situation in which, say, official data omit an event that is confirmed by other sources, i.e., a missing tornado or outbreak? Or a case in which official data incorporate obvious errors such as incorrect and/or inconsistent plots, times, casualties, and so on? CapeVerdeWave (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be in some aspects, but I have personally looked over a newer copy of Grazulis’ book, and it is actually riddled with errors here and there, perhaps just as bad as Storm Data itself. Take that for what you will. Obvious errors in Storm Data could be correct using Grazulis, but I wouldn’t change an F2 to an F3 just because he says it was. United States Man (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with USM. We can go with Grazulis in the case of obvious errors, but ratings are more subjective anyway and I'd be iffy mixing sources on those. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The building name is incorrect. As the official Pacific Century Place website clearly states (https://pcp-jakarta.com/), the building is not referred to as the FWD Tower but PCP Tower. This discrepancy has caused confusion and must be rectified. We must align with the official information provided by the building's owner, Pacific Century Place Jakarta. Andres Arie Wibowo (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres Arie Wibowo: If that is the case, the page would simply need to be moved rather than deleted. If you want, you may propose the move. See instructions here if you want to start a move discussion. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to move it Andres Arie Wibowo (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

doesnt work Andres Arie Wibowo (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres Arie Wibowo: I can see that you moved the page. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the status still displayed that a request that this article title be changed to PCP Tower is under discussion.

Please advise Andres Arie Wibowo (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres Arie Wibowo: You moved the page yourself after posting the discussion but that doesn't remove the template. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres Arie Wibowo: Also it seems you moved the page when there was no consensus. Even those supportive of the move disagree on what the new title should be. Another editor moved it back TornadoLGS (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say hi, even though it might be against the rules just to say hi… 🍋 🍋(talk!) 01:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are reverting changes and removing additional background information I am adding. Mouthdig (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the mother of the Miss Teen VT USA titleholder, Josslyn McKenna. Her hometown was inaccurately reflected as Chittenden. We ACTUALLY live in the town of COLCHESTER which is located in CHITTENDEN COUNTY not the town of Chittenden which is located in Rutland COUNTY. 2601:19E:8700:7FA0:B2E5:2A3D:A3D6:2959 (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on your talk page. You are changing the link incorrectly. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, admins can't read minds and we don't know the history of every disruptive editor reported there. The information that is in the report is the information we base our decisions on because AIV is an intentionally lightweight process. If you want us to consider other IPs, for example, you need to tell us that otherwise we don't know. Anyway, I saw your ping so I took a deeper dive. I can se that someone has indeed been giving you a headache on tornado articles since at least the middle of last year. They're all over Special:Contribs/2A02:A213:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. Unfortunately, /32 is absolutely enormous and as you can see there are a lot of other edits coming from that range so I'm afraid blocking it is out of the question. What I usually suggest in these situations is to create a user subpage listing individual IPs with dates and diffs so that any patterns can be analysed and we can look at whether smaller blocks or page protections or edit filters might be effective. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Until last night I thought it had been the exact same IP all this time. It wasn't until you pointed out the shorter edit history that I realized it was a range. I'll see if I can throw together a user subpage later today. As to mitigation efforts, the pattern makes it difficult. This person is something of a "Halley's vandal:" they come around every few months. From some page history I knee to check it goes back to at least 2019. The range of pages is basically anything that refers to the Enhanced Fujita scale, which could include any US tornado since 2007 as well as earlier ones that refer to them. I know at least a few pages they've targeted, though. Is it possible to search edits to a page by IP range as it is by user? TornadoLGS (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know off the top of my head. If you're checking individual page histories, you could do a Control+F search for "2A02:A213:" (those two sets of digits are the parts shared by a /32) or just the first part ("2A02:") if the problem is wider. That's basically what I did on the contribs page I linked but I searched for "tornado". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Okay I threw this together User:TornadoLGS/Enhanced Fujita scale LTA. So far I found 4 IPs responsible and, possibly just migrating to another IP over time. Could I link to this in future reports at AIV or is another venue like ANI more suitable? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why do you consider the culture of the town and the notable characters to be irrelevant? They're literally a part of the town's identity and it doesn't hurt to have that info AlessandroMillioti87 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlessandroMillioti87: It is excessively detailed and puts undue weight on people who only have a tangential connection to a historical figure. Merely being related to a notable figure does not make a person notable. I did re-add the culture section after removing it, but I removed excessive detail and sections with an unencyclopedic tone. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. For what the article says Ismael was relevant enough, he was literally the main source of info, for what I understand he told most of the story present in the article since this wasn't properly recorded up to the 1980's. The book says he was the one who put his father and General Rivas Guillén in touch during the 1929 raid, maybe we should add that.

The lady is irrelevant imo, It agree she should be deleted.

Her son is relevant imo, for what I read online a "Judicial City" is kinda like a courthouse complex with many facilities, the goverment page states people from the town needed travel around 3 hours to the state capital just to access legal services and some didn't even have the means of transportation so that "city" is a big deal for such a small town imo.

About his father it's also kinda irrelevant but a nice parallelism if you ask me.

The nice paragraph is a bit bloated but I think it's interesting that the current descendants of the founder are properly identified.

What you think? AlessandroMillioti87 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" really just means "trivia" in this instance. Not really notable. None of the descendants seem to be independently notable, which is the benchmark for including relatives in an article about a person. The tone of the section was also not appropriate for Wikipedia. See, for instance, MOS:PUFFERY and MOS:OP-ED. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

haha if it was so bad why did it take you guys 4 months to take it down? but ok, I just try to help. It's always easier to erase than to add and try to make something work but whatever gives your life meaning ig. As we say "Quando l'asino non è bravo a rovistare, preferisce cagare sul gallo che sa cantare." AlessandroMillioti87 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlessandroMillioti87: Sometimes stuff slips by, especially on pages that don't get a lot of visitors. Nobody notices when changes are first made, and it's only later that someone sees the problem. There have been cases where straight-up vandalism has remained on an article for years. No hard feelings, though. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have made the the suggested changes to the section of "Reception and Impact" of the Fantasy page. Can you review it? Sonyeri (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing RFC to determine which source should be used for the rating of the 2005 Birmingham tornado. You can participate in the discussion here: Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado#Should the article’s infobox indicate EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6?. As a note, you are receiving this alert as according to Wikipedia’s XTools, you are one of the top 10 editors for the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why did you delete my notable resident John Melendez? Johnstattoo (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnstattoo: Based on the phrasing you added, your edit appeared to be vandalism. And none of the information you added is in the article about Melendez so I believe I was correct. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you familiar with John? Johnstattoo (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnstattoo: No. But the article about him does not say anything about him living in Cape Coral or anything about a "Dabbleverse." TornadoLGS (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnstattoo: So apparently there is something to it from a Google search. I reverted your edit because the addition of silly or memetic phrasing like "Duke of the Dabbleverse" is vandalism 99% of the time. It would probably be better to describe him as an entertainer since the whole "dabbleverse" thing only appears to be one minor aspect of his career. It would also be good to add a source indicating he lives in Cape Coral. See WP:RS and WP:CITE for how to go about doing that. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the eclipse references with sources. Dhaluza (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why’d You Flag Me

Hey, recently you removed an edit of mine on Buck Angels Wikipedia page because i cited a youtube link and they’re not considered a reliable source. However, the link i cited was of an original publishing of a podcast where he says the direct quotes i was referencing. 92.21.91.227 (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did try to put the page on the Light newspaper right

it was very accusing the paper quite falsely in some cases

the paper is not right wing nor have the vast majority of its contributors

the distributors are volunteers and are not the rabid racists the wiki article suggests

the distributors are all volunteers who have never air dropped a thing

the distributors pay for most of the copies which are mostly given away on the streets to ADULTS that want to take them

I also strongly object to the inference that the Light is anti-semetic it is admittedly anti-genocide as we should all be

the paper has never called for executions

you say I was not neutral .. I think I was... let others judge

meanwhile i will try another edit this timejus taking out all the clearly prejudiced comment which appear to be driven from a left wing perspective .. the Light paper is neither right or left wing Tommo2025 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am the original curator of Neea River's page. Another user redirected the page due to it not having enough credible sources. I have since changed it so it has credible sources and published it under Neea River (singer). Please can the Neea River page get deleted and the singer one to be changed to just Neea River?

Thanks Electricsnake247 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I have made several articles over the past 24 hours that are have been available in other languages before I made the English Wikipedia page. How do I add the languages to the wiki, so people can select their language? Electricsnake247 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricsnake247: I haven't done that before, but I think Help:Interlanguage links has the instructions you would need. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear, I tried to edit the page but you removed what I made as you claimed that I didn't include citations. Please help me how to add the citations ASAP. I am new and not aware of the citations. Thanks Hesham Heshamfathy555 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You changed back an edit I made on a family member's page which he wants removed for privacy reasons. What do I have to do to make sure that change stays? Jblondra (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I wanted to add a rafcamera.com site, since we make unique adapters based on customer request.

To be honest, I don't understand where is the difference between advertising and mentioning, since listing any manufacturers there is the advertising for them, obviously.

Please check if our site can be listed among them (with or without an external link, and if possible - with a short tooltip 'Manufacturing of special adapters by customer requests.').

Thank you. RafCamera (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]