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 wonder if you looked at the pages you identified as "spam", which I consider a personal attack, before you removed the links. These pages were only added to movies with extensive psychiatric/addiction content and are comparable in quality to books like Danny Wedding's Movies and Mental Illness. As such they represent an invaluable resource for study of psychiatry and Cinema without comparison on the Web. If you care about users of Wikipedia, you will restore them immediately. Plyingfig (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Plyingfig: Our dispute was months ago so I suggest you stop beating a dead horse. I’ll say though it is not Wikipedia’s responsibility to right great wrongs. I identified the links as spam because that is usually the case when one user keeps adding the same link to multiple articles. Nothing personal was meant by it. If you want a second opinion, I suggest you go to the help desk. Please remember to keep any comments there civil and comment on content, not contributors. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the same link to multiple articles. Each of the BehaveNet pages I linked to includes excerpts of dialog (and sometimes decriptions of scenes, discussion of mental health issues, references from other movies) from a single movies. Plyingfig (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Plyingfig: I should have said links to the same site. Same difference. In any case, looking back at your talk page, it seems I only gave you a level-3 warning because several other editors had cautioned you about adding external links going back some years. Given that, from looking around a bit, you might want to get more input at the external links noticeboard. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TornadoLGS! I got a message from you saying my info was incorrect on the Beryl page, but 934 millibars (the only thing I changed) was confirmed by aircraft’s currently inside the storm. If you believe the info I said was wrong, that’s totally ok! Thanks! 2601:CC:8100:8CF0:3DF1:6E11:3E83:63B (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Say werent we friends on discord a while ago? Im not sure what happened to you but I hope everything is going alright for you Colin777724 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin777724: I blocked you on there because I thought your account was hacked. 00:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC) TornadoLGS (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have full control over it now and Im alot more cautious with scams. Colin777724 (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weather Event Writer: I will probably pop in to comment at some point, but I have not been as active on-wiki lately. Though for the sort of selection I've done before, see the edits I made there in February 2020. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am please to let you know that I have nominated File:Greenfield IA tornado 2024.jpg, an image which you uploaded, to be a Featured Picture on Wikipedia! You can view the nomination here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Greenfield tornado. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today, i have seen your warning/message you have sended to me. Well i know i suck at these articles, like before that, i was reading multiple articles, so i was maybe wondering, can you do a remake of my article of the 2007 Greensburg EF5 tornado? If so, i appreciate it. Like i know im new at this, so i may be terrible at these so yeah they will be garbage. See ya! Stronkgod (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stronkgod: I haven't really been active lately and I don't have time to work on a full article at this time. The possibility of splitting off the Greensburg tornado is probably something that should be discussed at Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007. Since you're a brand-new editor, I would recommend against creating new articles in mainspace: work on them as a WP:DRAFT instead and submit it through the Articles for Creation process. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: Could you link to some of these messages? I'd like to see it and at least one image I posted on the commons may be affected. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg is the full 81,000 byte discussion regarding it. Don't worry about anything yet. It appears NWS offices are disagreeing with each other. My personal guess is the Commons will resort to PD-NWS having specific offices listed that it covers and any office not under it is not covered. I'll let you know when that changes though. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I do not feel like reading out that whole thing. I did check my Commons uploads at it seems I have four such pictures from non-NWS employees on the Commons. Are we talking about having 122 versions of the PD-NWS template to cover each WFO? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. I'm about to start a discussion over on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard so some administrators can help sort this mess out. I'm going to propose having the PD-NWS template just list what offices are safe and have it state any office not listed here is not safe to use from. NWS Norman and NWS Souix Falls both have direct statements saying images submitted to them are in the public domain, so that proposal may work. I have no idea though. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]