User talk:ChrisWx

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Chrispanda, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Helen (let’s talk) 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of January 1982 California floods

The article January 1982 California floods you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:January 1982 California floods for comments about the article, and Talk:January 1982 California floods/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tails Wx -- Tails Wx (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a somewhat abandoned draft article you can help me with

I invite you and anyone else who wants to to edit Draft:list of particularly dangerous situation watches. It seems as if that article has sorta been forgotten about. We’ve only gotten down to 2020 (for completely listed and in some cases not even that far) and if I recall, the entries only go back to 2018. There’s still a lot more in IEM archives. Your help at expanding the list to mainspace ready format would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. (Ps I have sent this message or a variant thereof to a bunch of other people trying to get folk’s attention) West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WestVirginiaWX: I can help with that draft and look through the IEM archives to expand it, also providing images from SPC where available. Thank you for notifying me about it! ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 06:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having issues finding watches before 2005, as the PIL codes I know of for IEM (SVA/TOA for VTEC, WCN for PIL searches) don't seem to be kept that far back in time, so there may need to be discussion on how to deal with that. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 06:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I’m mistaken then. I just know that tornado and severe thunderstorm warnings do go back to at least 1991; and I know that blizzard warnings go back to at least March of 1993 because there are warnings from the blizzard of ‘93 on file. And I also know that high wind warnings go back intermittently to at least 1989. I just guessed by logic that watches would be the same way. I guess not. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But as for that issue. I don’t know how to help you there. The SPC archive goes back I believe to 2004; but beyond that, I don’t know. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I’m glad you told me because I also had TornadoLGS searching for the watches too. And I had brought up the PIL code search on his talk page; Fortunately I was able to post a comment warning him not to go looking for PIL codes to watches that ain’t in the records; assuming he hasn’t read the original entry and chose not to respond. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WestVirginiaWX: I believe that watches are the same way, because there are mentions of PDS tornado watches all the way back until April 2, 1982, but that they simply aren't stored by the archives. Perhaps we could include something in the article which states that reliable record keeping of the watches started in 2004, although the earliest was issued in 1982? That would be my idea on how to handle it, personally. I also think that both of these discussions (the one on this talk page and TornadoLGS' talk page) should be moved and centralized on the draft's talk page in order to have a central place we can discuss this issue on. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 19:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Draft talk:List of particularly dangerous situation watches § How should we handle PDS watches with archival issues being present?
 – ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the talk page of about a dozen people. I sent this to @Ks0stm; I sent it to @WeatherWriter; I sent it to @Sir MemeGod; I sent it to just about everyone I could find that was on a weather related talk page at the time. (Including unknowingly one of Lokicat’s sock puppets; we don’t need to go into that detail, thought he was a legitimate editor at the time, until I saw his name appear in a sockpuppetry investigation.) West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but my talk page and TornadoLGS' talk page were where the topic of watch archive problems was actively being discussed, so I wanted to move those discussions over to that discussion on the draft's talk page. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alert: PD-NWS Violations

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]

PD-NWS Violations Update #1

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]

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!

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]

Answering your long awaited question you asked me regarding Lokicat

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

So I was combing through the SPI archives on Lokicat3345 because I am going to have him reported to LTA. And I stumble on a SPI report from June that had an IP listed. I looked at it and I’m like “uhhh that looks a lot like the one of the IPs I used to edit under before I registered”; and so I do a quick check and sure enough it traces back to West Virginia (see my former username and my userboxes and WP:WV list of members) which is nowhere near Lokicat’s Nebraska;

Then I look, and @HamiltonthesixXmusic had apparently left me a talk page message under that IP (I have since copied it to one of my archives); and you had apparently asked me if I was a Lokicat/Meatballrunfatcat sockpuppet. I never remember getting such a message because that IP is a dynamic address and it must have changed before I got the message, and coincidentally, this happened only a couple days before I registered.

Then you left me a “you are suspected of sockpuppetry” template (also now in my archives), which by this time was in June (AFTER I had registered) so again, didn’t get that. (otherwise I would have probably been very ticked off and would have been trying to defend myself). And me not realizing the mistake; made a statement that the IP needed to be indeffed, again unbeknownst to me that the IP address was actually mine, probably one of my last IP addresses before registering. So my statement essentially amounted to asking for an indefinite self block without even realizing I was asking for myself to be blocked.

So to answer your question from the person who actually used the IP address that you warned and later reported to SPI: I am not; have never been; and never will be a sockpuppet of Lokicat.

Now as for why User:Weather article creator (someone who definitely is a Lokicat sock who even fooled me) answered the way they did on my IP talk page; I have absolutely no idea. Unless they were trying to implicate me. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies @Hurricane Clyde, I never thought you were a sock of Lokicat yourself, and as for the IP, I only added that because the Lokicat sock had replied to the query given on the talk page, which made me suspect that they were the same. I can assure you that they would not have blocked you and would have noticed that there was a difference, and even if they did, it wouldn't have been for long, and you would have been unblocked shortly afterward. I do apologize for this however, and accept the trouting. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 22:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. I actually find a little humor in the situation now that it’s over. But this reinforces why I think an LTA page on Lokicat is probably necessary. Because now not only have we confused socks for legitimate editors (see the current SPI on Lokicat where I cited User: Weather article creator); but apparently we’ve confused legitimate IPs for socks. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Clyde: Looking back on it, I did find it a bit funny, though I do think that their activity patterns should be made a bit more clear, at least through the SPI reports, to better identify them. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 02:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to be fair; when it comes to me having been inadvertently tagged as a suspected sockpuppet. I would have probably done the same thing. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

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)[reply]

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) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2019 Dayton tornado has been accepted

2019 Dayton tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

EF5 15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]